DorisRon
Member
If someone decides to write a book about the development of programmable advertising, then summer 2016 will go down in history as a watershed season. We need the fingers of both hands to count the major advertisers who have activated their intra "programmatic-machines." Procter & Gamble, American Express, Mondelez, Kellogg's, Kimberly-Clark, Unilever, Netflix, 1-800-Flowers and Allstate Insurance not only bet on programmatic, but also took on certain obligations.
The publication Advertising Age recently reported that the company Procter & Gamble, which occupies the first position in the world ranking of advertisers, plans to make 70% of its digital advertising buying programmable by the end of this year. Josh Jacobs, general manager of algorithmic buying in the company Omnicom Group Accuen, commented the event: "This statement will hit the market like a ton of bricks."
And many agree with him completely.
"Regardless of what P & G makes, all in the end, do the same", - said Matt Seiler, CEO of Mediabrands Interpublic Group. "I find it really exciting. I like that we are approaching the time when absolutely all questions of ineffective advertising will be removed from the agenda."
It is unclear how the interest of marketers to programmatiс will impact agencies, but the overall trend is clear. Customers will increasingly lead the discussions, rather than just accept the recommendations of agencies.
"In recent years, the market is very actively discussing the topic of trading desks" - says Rita Trivedy, who served as the senior vice president of digital strategy and partnership in the company MediaVest. "A set of skills, knowledge and competencies existed only at the level of the holding company and the customers stayed away. Now we are witnessing a change of tactics. "
Trivedy expects to see more brands interested in algorithmic technology buying which sign contracts with companies that offer services in placing advertising on the Internet (DSP). Even if brands have a capacity for self-management of software.
Many agree that in the coming months, dozens of major brands will revise their strategy with programmatic. So far, it remains unclear how this process will evolve, and which service models will be preferred. Is there in today's market a place for centralized trading desks within the holding company? Will programmatic features be integrated at the level of media agencies? Will marketers benefit from the services that are provided by DSP, or intend to pull all the levers by themselves? On many questions there are no answers. And even if we get them, they will necessarily vary from client to client and from agency to agency.
A single model is to create so-called "private trading desks" that are very effective within the cooperation of the agency, client and DSP. In this approach, a small team within the advertising agency embodies programmatic strategies for a single client, perhaps relying on DSP services. In this case, the holding trading desk is not involved in the workflow. This approach has been used by WPP Group, owned by Mindshare, on behalf of clients Kimberly-Clark and Unilever, who prefer not to work with the trading desk Xaxis, which is a part of WPP.
Many believe that private trading desks can interact without any problems with their colleagues, members of the holdings. So, the company Mondelez, in collaboration with their partner the agency Publicis, owned by MediaVest, established its own centralized platform of advertising buying. However, the corporate platform VivaKi Audience On Demand does not remain on the sidelines.
"If it affects every aspect of the business, what is the difference the services of a private or third-party trading desk you use? We are talking about the business as a whole ", - says Rita Trivedy. "If trading desk has a role, it's just wonderful. If not - nothing wrong with that. "
Regardless of the prevailing model, Trivedy wants services that provide control of programmable advertising buying, to be more complete.
"Most service companies transfer "wheel" to the client, but for some reason forget to say that the advertising campaign will be almost completely self-serviced. And who will control them? That's why you need to find those who will keep everything under control, make purchases, optimization, etc. ", - says Trivedy.
Success still depends largely on the integration with many technologies, and a small private trading desk, operating one or two technologies can not cope with this.
"Among the clients there is an erroneous opinion that in-house format uniquely suites them, when their intra-division is engaged in algorithmic advertising buying. However, it is even more difficult than the traditional ecosystem. I do not think that the company is able to estimate the amount of the necessary investment, "- said Arun Kumar. "It's not about attraction of a couple DSP and a few staff members. After all, if it is a managed service, it can not be called programmable".
However, internalization of software capabilities by marketers is a real trend.
If agencies should remain involved in programmatic buying - and many believe they should - then they need to find an effective way to make money.
Calculation of advertising costs on the basis of how much money has been invested in its production, or how many staff members were involved in the project, is no longer a viable option. Because the first results in the loss, rather than efficiency, and the second creates a bloated staff. Both are anathema for programmatic.
Agencies seem to be willing to accept the fact that the customer today is given a more prominent role in the management of the budget of programmable advertising. Customers want to control workflow by themselves and centralized platforms of advertising buying seem are willing to give in to these requirements.
"Today, everything becomes more transparent. There is a shift towards customer needs and choise of the right strategy to meet those needs. In the end, everyone is happy, "- says Rita Trivedy. "This is the future, and it's just great. As it is known, we will not escape the future. "
The publication Advertising Age recently reported that the company Procter & Gamble, which occupies the first position in the world ranking of advertisers, plans to make 70% of its digital advertising buying programmable by the end of this year. Josh Jacobs, general manager of algorithmic buying in the company Omnicom Group Accuen, commented the event: "This statement will hit the market like a ton of bricks."
And many agree with him completely.
"Regardless of what P & G makes, all in the end, do the same", - said Matt Seiler, CEO of Mediabrands Interpublic Group. "I find it really exciting. I like that we are approaching the time when absolutely all questions of ineffective advertising will be removed from the agenda."
It is unclear how the interest of marketers to programmatiс will impact agencies, but the overall trend is clear. Customers will increasingly lead the discussions, rather than just accept the recommendations of agencies.
"In recent years, the market is very actively discussing the topic of trading desks" - says Rita Trivedy, who served as the senior vice president of digital strategy and partnership in the company MediaVest. "A set of skills, knowledge and competencies existed only at the level of the holding company and the customers stayed away. Now we are witnessing a change of tactics. "
Trivedy expects to see more brands interested in algorithmic technology buying which sign contracts with companies that offer services in placing advertising on the Internet (DSP). Even if brands have a capacity for self-management of software.
Many agree that in the coming months, dozens of major brands will revise their strategy with programmatic. So far, it remains unclear how this process will evolve, and which service models will be preferred. Is there in today's market a place for centralized trading desks within the holding company? Will programmatic features be integrated at the level of media agencies? Will marketers benefit from the services that are provided by DSP, or intend to pull all the levers by themselves? On many questions there are no answers. And even if we get them, they will necessarily vary from client to client and from agency to agency.
A single model is to create so-called "private trading desks" that are very effective within the cooperation of the agency, client and DSP. In this approach, a small team within the advertising agency embodies programmatic strategies for a single client, perhaps relying on DSP services. In this case, the holding trading desk is not involved in the workflow. This approach has been used by WPP Group, owned by Mindshare, on behalf of clients Kimberly-Clark and Unilever, who prefer not to work with the trading desk Xaxis, which is a part of WPP.
Many believe that private trading desks can interact without any problems with their colleagues, members of the holdings. So, the company Mondelez, in collaboration with their partner the agency Publicis, owned by MediaVest, established its own centralized platform of advertising buying. However, the corporate platform VivaKi Audience On Demand does not remain on the sidelines.
"If it affects every aspect of the business, what is the difference the services of a private or third-party trading desk you use? We are talking about the business as a whole ", - says Rita Trivedy. "If trading desk has a role, it's just wonderful. If not - nothing wrong with that. "
Regardless of the prevailing model, Trivedy wants services that provide control of programmable advertising buying, to be more complete.
"Most service companies transfer "wheel" to the client, but for some reason forget to say that the advertising campaign will be almost completely self-serviced. And who will control them? That's why you need to find those who will keep everything under control, make purchases, optimization, etc. ", - says Trivedy.
Success still depends largely on the integration with many technologies, and a small private trading desk, operating one or two technologies can not cope with this.
"Among the clients there is an erroneous opinion that in-house format uniquely suites them, when their intra-division is engaged in algorithmic advertising buying. However, it is even more difficult than the traditional ecosystem. I do not think that the company is able to estimate the amount of the necessary investment, "- said Arun Kumar. "It's not about attraction of a couple DSP and a few staff members. After all, if it is a managed service, it can not be called programmable".
However, internalization of software capabilities by marketers is a real trend.
If agencies should remain involved in programmatic buying - and many believe they should - then they need to find an effective way to make money.
Calculation of advertising costs on the basis of how much money has been invested in its production, or how many staff members were involved in the project, is no longer a viable option. Because the first results in the loss, rather than efficiency, and the second creates a bloated staff. Both are anathema for programmatic.
Agencies seem to be willing to accept the fact that the customer today is given a more prominent role in the management of the budget of programmable advertising. Customers want to control workflow by themselves and centralized platforms of advertising buying seem are willing to give in to these requirements.
"Today, everything becomes more transparent. There is a shift towards customer needs and choise of the right strategy to meet those needs. In the end, everyone is happy, "- says Rita Trivedy. "This is the future, and it's just great. As it is known, we will not escape the future. "