The journey to digital paradise: A little more conversation, a little less rhetoric
As marketing academic Mark Ritson once again unloads on digital media, IAB boss Vijay Solanki fires back
There has been much sound and fury of late about digital advertising. Indeed, some have described digital advertising as being part of the nine circles of hell.
Ritson: Circles of digital hell
To extend (and possibly flog) the metaphor, I’d counter that if we are putting digital in any part of the Divine Comedy then there have certainly been days in the last twelve months that have felt like Purgatory. However, like the souls on their way to Paradise, we are making positive progress and leaving the sins of an emerging industry behind.
Leaving the literary allusions behind, I have no problem with the digital advertising industry being called to account on some of the issues that have been garnering attention. Indeed, some of the debate has helped accelerate industry initiatives to combat poor practice.
A nice appeal for rational minded hought but let’s get real – the divisive rhetoric will continue until such time as it stops earning the culprits well paid speaking gigs and/or traditional media gives up the fight. Neither will (or frankly for that matter, should) happen any time soon.
Hey Vijay
I don’t think it’s possible to “hit back” given this article of yours has appeared before I’ve a) delivered my talk and b) you’ve seen it. I don’t think it’s possible to retort to something that you haven’t actually seen, read or heard. Is it?
Mark
Sorry but the IAB is nothing but a lobbyist organisation for digital advertising and has their own agenda. The WFA study showed that media managers act irrationally: they don’t believe in digital but keep spending on it – just drinking the kool aid of course.
Waiting for the day when the IAB does something positive for the industry and is not just repeating vague transparency phrases when it’s sexy to talk about transparency. You had a chance to address the issues for many years but chose not to because of the mates in agencies and media companies who make money through digital garbage marketing.
Mark – I think you’ll find the stand to “hit back” was written by the Mumbrella editorial team rather than IAB. That’s the way things usually roll.
It is easy enough to predict what Ritson is going to say – same talk with a few more swear words each time to keep people thinking they have heard something new.
When there is a 99.9999999% chance that what will be said will be a regurgitation of the same old message, you can’t really define this as a premptive retort.
Let me guess…. Marketers need to go back to basic Brand strategy, shift to zero based budgeting and be channel agnostic. However, since that doesn’t sell tickets or generate clicks, include wildly outlandish, innacurate and outdated statistics to support calling everyone an idiot.
This is well-written, thoughtful and honest piece. I have one big issue with it – comparing programmatic to the stock market. It’s irresponsible when agencies & tech throw around terms like ‘trading’ ‘liquidity’ ‘arbitrage’ in the context of ads as it’s perpetuating a fraud that digital ads are somehow finite in nature, swapping hands between parties, where the equilibrium point between supply and demand results in a price. In programmatic, this isn’t true. Instead, programmatic ads are limitless and immeasurable and the prices are set by black-box algorithms, not by the market. And these ads are not always ‘ads’. Imagine a stock market, unregulated, where anyone can list a company, issues as many shares as they like, as frequently as they like, where price is not made public, and where you may or may not have an entitlement to a dividend or a capital return? For my money I’d stick a ‘direct investment’ approach ie. direct deals with premium digital publishers.
Its interesting that all of the points above are issues largely brought about by Google and could be solved by Google (if it it did not involve losing millions in revenue that is fraudulent traffic or non-viewable).
Has the IAB ever once spoken to Google about their practises? Once, anywhere, globally?
IAB increasingly feels like a lobby group for Google. Wonder how the rest of the membership feels about that…
What absolute rubbish. Back that statement up with some facts.
For example, how is Viewability an issue largely brought about by Google (or one organisation) that can be solved by Google (or one organisation).
Ok anonymous coward. Can I make it Abundantly clear that I am not being paid to speak at the AdNews event (or Mumbrella 360 for that mater. Furthermore I am not being paid or advised to say what I say. I am flying to Sydney, staying at a hotel on my own dime and (unlike your today self) putting my viewpoint out there for all to see and critique.
You suck.
Ok another cowardly wanker.
Thanks for telling everyone what was in the talk you did not see. Nothing Ion ZBB, nothing on basic brand strategy and nothing on agnosticism (neutrality yes).
Does it occur to you that anonymously criticising a talk you have not seen makes you a plonker?
You also suck.
Hey, anonymous coward-wanker.
See the comment above aimed at the other plonker. It applies to you too.
By all means have a go at me or (ideally) my talk but can you actually tricking watch it first? Tosspot.
Hi editor,
Thanks for the comment. You’re correct. We usually write the headlines and standfirsts on guest posts.
In this case the headline is an expanded version of the one put forward by the IAB, while the standfirst is our own.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
The difference between the IAB and Ritson is senior business people take Ritson seriously.
The IAB not so much.
One talks a language they understand. The other talks about acronyms.
Is the personal abuse really necessary?
I get that people should wait to hear what someone says before criticising it.
However swearing at each other does not make any of us look good.
Never ceases to amaze me how the IAB/everyone goes into contortions every time Mark says something – it’s hysterical to watch.
& this piece is hardly a counter point to the issues he raises, harden up IAB
‘Real name, in digital for 22 years, KLF aha aha’
Conversation is not a solution to the problems that exist. So rather than just saying – “hey guys, let’s talk more, but while we chat still give us all your money” – how about a few solutions get proposed to show some leadership on the issues and in the category. Suggesting marketers should ask questions until they are satisfied with the answers only highlights another problem – half the people selling digital don’t know the answers or how it (actually) all works anyway.
This Mark Ritson guy talks a good game, but what has he done? And can he do it on a cold, wet Wednesday night in Stoke?
Mark
On reflection, I think I pre-empted you pretty well. Having seen a few Ritson performances I see a trend. I might make a chart for you.
You might want to familiarise yourself with our new mission – to ‘simplify & inspire’. I don’t like acronyms either. Come be part of the simplicity movement.
Why don’t check out what we’ve done in the last 8 months:
– 2 ad blocking studies
– world first benchmark data for viewability and IVT
– tech industry study
– audio industry study
– digital revenue reporting in partnership with PwC
– position on brand safety
– whitepaper on viewability working with 17 companies
Shall I go on?
Hi Mark,
(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)
Btw TV measurement = a panel of 1,250 transposed to a 24 million population – without accounting for the increasing herd of cord-cutters in the country. Please go speak to someone who was born in the 90s and doesn’t have any grey pubes if they watch any FTA TV.
To a large extent it just doesn’t matter what Ritson or anybody else says. The only thing that matters is where the money is going and where it will go in the future.
The trends (financial) are well documented. It’s digital.
People can get upset. It doesn’t matter.
“I don’t like acronyms either…”
Signed
Vijay from the I.A.B
(Google the acronym to find out what it means)
Your payment is exposure Mark, that you then leverage for paid consultancy, which is fine but please don’t play the “not being paid” card. Many prefer actual results with clients to speak for themselves.
*drops mike*
Spot on. Well done.
Its still the early days of digital advertising.
Unilever Adidas and Renault are all upping their digital spend.
Once the best tech rises to the top, and the clean-out of rubbish companies happens this won’t even be a debate.
Yeah harden up IAB you jerks!
Lol
This thread is hilarious, what a mature industry we are with potty mouthed Ritson leading the charge!
Now Nic, if the IAB needs to harden up then how would Mindbox go about challenging Ritsons rhetoric? Are you already hard?
Come on, we need a hero to harden up and lead the way!
Ok Mr President, if you actually had any kind of marketing training you would know that a panel of 1,250 is actually oversampling. You only need about 700 to get a CI of 5% and CL of 99% for a population of 24 million. Obviously you want to run demo splits and so on – hence the bigger sample but its really a very good sample to work with.
I appreciate this is somewhat like me trying to explain the AFL Ladder to my Beagle but can you see how you just made an arse of yourself again?
Between you and Vijay – shoot from the hip before the other gunslinger turns up and mortally wound myself in the foot – Solanki, it’s not even sport.
I’m not convinced that this isn’t a Mark Ritson bot responding.
Non-partisan but surely all of the arse, wankers, toss-pots and sucks are jumping the shark somewhat and turning it all into white noise?
Oi Ritson you salty dog, does the 1,250 panel include people who don’t watch TV?
Eg : Do oztam hand out thems lil tv data boxes to folk like me who don’t watch free to air?
I can answer that one. I know somebody who has OzTam in their household but doesn’t own a television. They still watch some TV on streamed catchup though.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thanks Tim.
I’ve always wondered if the panel is representative of consumption habits and not just measuring those who binge on the 4 hrs of TV a day. I would assume so for the sake of accuracy but you never know these days with all of the agendas out there.
You replied to ‘Just Saying’. ‘Anonymous Coward’ is a Mumbrella legend and you mustn’t use his / her name in vein.
Please do carry on and I have bought some popcorn, just in case.
Hoards of people watch FTA. I just asked a heap of people in the kitchen of my office and nearly all of them watched Masterchef last night… Having said that, all of them performed Google searches within the last 30 mins too.
Users will use what is easy and simple to use, regardless of the platform, or the delivery. It MUST be really, really easy. Switching on a TV and clicking a channel is mega easy, however if drivel is on the channel then the channel will be changed right? Free is easy. Google is free. FTA is free. Models that put up barriers to entry, including cost, long forms to join or sign up, ‘click here to access the article’, having to tell them your credentials, such as D.O.B, all of this crap will push users away. There is FTA in traditional and there is FTA online. There is also premium, in both capacities also. The really easy and the real quality will get used and, if executed in the right way, might even command a price, which gets paid too.
I see value in the IAB. I see value in what Ritson says. I take away the positives, learn and apply it to my own scenario’s.
Mark, feel free to swear at me all the same, if you think I am a simpleton or an ‘Anonymous Coward’. (Perhaps I am an Anonymous Honest Person?) . Anonymity is great, especially on a forum like this. Have you read comment threads on LinkedIn? Anonymity does not exist on Linkers and everyone just agrees. They dare not take people on, in case their employer or clients identify with their truth’s..? (Perhaps.) . It does seem like an utter wnk fest in the comment threads on there, versus here. This forum is great, it keeps us honest, albeit anonymous too. Peace!