[ad_1]
Perhaps the scare began on the morning of February 24, 2022, after a half-second cowboy twerking in Applebee’s spot on CNN’s splitscreen.
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the long-standing brand safety issue entered a new and more difficult phase. But one incident of his last year made clear how difficult it can be for marketers and media his buyers when a message is placed in an uncomfortable advertising environment.
It was the morning of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Cable news ratings were unusually high in the aftermath of the war.CNN may have switched to commercials. Alternatively, the cable channel may have continued to broadcast live.
Instead, CNN switched to a “squeezeback” ad format. This is where one video box features a news program and another video box carries advertising. The CNN format is designed to keep viewers from switching channels when the network goes commercial. It promises advertising efficiency by delivering better viewability.
The backlash was immediate. Applebee’s found him trending on Twitter for a variety of reasons. Thousands of viewers posted videos of the spot featuring cowboys dancing in celebration of “a little fried chicken.”
While Applebee’s ad garnered the most outrage, other brands were similarly embroiled in shocking social media comments. Imagine the sounds and sights of a distressed Ukrainian in his one section of the TV screen while a commercial for Sandals Resort played Bob his Marley’s “Three Little Birds.” fine. “
After minor missteps from Applebee’s and CNN, the fuss quickly subsided and CNN removed the squeezeback ads throughout the remainder of the war report. But the resentment and concern of marketers only deepens.
Blame it on continuing political divisions and social tensions. Add to that consumer data privacy concerns and the rise of a freewheeling creator economy. And don’t discount the resentment caused by Elon Musk’s chaotic and sometimes brand-unfriendly Twitter hijack.
If 2022 was the year marketers, agencies, and platforms championed brand safety and suitability, 2023 will likely be the year marketers go on the offensive. After months of contracting advertising economies, it will require harsh sacrifices by the same players.
Are they ready to increase the efficiency of their advertising and even give up some control for the potential to increase security?
What makes a brand unsafe?
Brand safety concerns are on the rise, according to a report from omnichannel advertising platform Mediaocean. In his 2023 Outlook report, released in December, the company asked more than 600 decision makers from media providers, ad agencies and technology companies to share their concerns about brand safety and suitability in the year ahead. I asked if it would increase or decrease. About 40% of respondents surveyed in the fourth quarter said they would rise.
David Berkowitz, founder of advertising consultancy Serial Marketer, said: “More education often leads to more anxiety. But there is a cycle to it.”
Indeed, buyers now have more knowledge about what to worry about. She also knows what can go wrong when she can’t monitor and scrutinize ad placements. The reason, Berkowitz said, is that the technology to obfuscate his ad supply chain has also evolved.
“Still, marketers who have been in this business for decades remember other kinds of brand-safety concerns,” he said. “For example, a family-friendly brand wanted to prevent ads from appearing alongside sexually explicit content.”
It’s hard to keep up, sure. The internet may have been around for most millennials and all Gen Z lives, but it’s still a new medium for established brands and agencies. Also, the evolution of online environments has outpaced our ability to understand and manage them.
This is a paper by Mark Broderson, a senior partner at McKinsey, and his colleague Adam Breitmann, a partner in the consulting firm’s Consumer Internet, Media and B-to-B Information Services group. Brodherson said the two, in particular, cites the rapid adoption of new media formats such as connected TV (CTV), reviving the debate about brand safety.
“While the current debate is fundamentally similar to 2015-17, recent conversations symbolize the blurring of the lines between linear and non-linear media,” he told Adweek. rice field.
The 2015 brand safety conversation focused on non-linear and digitally native media, Broitman added. Today, brand marketers are looking across all media channels and formats. Additionally, the topic has evolved from safety to suitability to contextual advertising, they say.
“For example, as brands take more and more public stances on a variety of social topics, marketers need to focus on brands’ core We are prioritizing value-aligned media more and more,” said Brodherson.
“The most notable factor in the resurgence of the brand safety debate, especially in the increasingly programmatic context, is the widespread availability of CTV inventory,” said Broitman.
Two cited an eMarketer report. According to the report, $9 of his $10 in digital video will be traded programmatically in the next few years. CTV is fueling this spending.
Marketers are realizing that it’s no longer just social channels and user-generated content that need to be monitored, said Brodherson.
“While the continued importance of influencer marketing remains an integral part of the conversation, the evolving contours of CTV coupled with the evolving nature of brand awareness are just as necessary as brand safety is to social media. It brings brand suitability to professionally developed content,” he said.
There are too many channels and marketing needs to satisfy, says marketing consultant Lou Pasqualis. of the trade group MMA Global.
Priority inversion
The marketing leader’s desire to manage advertising efficiency (place the brand’s message as broadly and deeply as possible with maximum revenue and minimum cost) is to keep the same ad away from content that may draw negative attention. is incompatible with Balancing viewability and risk is a constant battle.
“There are four types [of risk] It’s managed below the CEO level,” Paskalis said. “There are operational risks. Do we have proper controls? There are compliance risks. Are we legally compliant? There’s always a bit of a clutter in stuff, you can’t be 100% compliant, 90% compliant and that’s good enough, but the fifth one is like you see a game of musical chairs at the CEO level It’s a place to be.It’s a reputational risk.”
Brand safety is often in the eye of the beholder. But when reputational risk hits a publicly traded company, the damage is reflected in quarterly sales. And hits are usually immediately visible in stocks.
It’s no exaggeration to say that no one in media or marketing wants to create reputational risk for a company. But for many marketers, most of the pressure is to ensure efficient media spending. Traditionally, managing reputation risk was an afterthought. It usually happens when something explodes in front of your brand.
But Pascalis believes brands are taking a more proactive approach to brand safety simply because the list of threats is growing rapidly. It has a role in artificial intelligence and data leakage.
“Look, ask your CEO, ‘What’s more important to you? Maintaining goodwill and reputation and stock price versus getting more efficient media spending?'” Pascalis said. I was. I’m sure no CEO will say, “No, I want more media.” I am very willing to take risks. So we’re in the process of quantifying that now. We are setting that price right now. Five years from now he will be the norm. ”
What would that norm look like? In addition to more closely monitoring media placements for safety and suitability, brands should do better due diligence on the partners and spokespersons they sign up with. , which became a $246 million hit after Adidas’ once-lucrative deal with Kanye West (now known as Ye) was ruined, escalating the star’s anti-Semitic outburst. It still bothers me.
“Marketers look at whether partners reflect their values,” says Paskalis. “Second, marketers will ask themselves whether they are protecting customer data choice, customer privacy, and consent. Third, ‘Do we have good inventory?’4 Third, “Are you transparent about your data practices and machine learning?” Finally, number five on that list: “Will you get good returns?” ”
But to do that, marketing must relinquish control.
“A fox tending a chicken coop”
In Paskalis’ view, marketers can’t be expected to set these new priorities. The temptation to maximize return on ad spend is too great. He suggested moving the responsibility of creating a “standard checklist” outside of the marketing department.
The function of safety and value standards is similar to the procurement department set up 20 years ago to manage the marketing spend of big brands.
“It’s a fox that cares about chicken coop problems,” Pascalis said. “Like every other aspect of the business I have to follow, someone has to set the bar for me. Major Fortune 500 companies have hated procurement functions, but the media he provides us with something very useful as a buyer.”
brand safety toolkit
Much like sourcing policies and governance provide clarity between brands and media buyers, standard features can do the same.
“I’m not saying you can’t do business with people who have values that differ from yours,” Pascalis said. “It doesn’t matter. You just have to take a map and say, ‘Look, here’s the risk we’ve accepted.'”
McKinsey’s Brodherson also advised brands to create formal processes for managing brand safety and risk. Toolkits may fit the needs of billing marketers. However, it requires definition, syndication, and implementation.
“The first step is for brands to define standards of safety and suitability,” says Brodherson. “These standards must build on core safety standards to include brand suitability. Brands then syndicate standards with media partners and technology vendors to ensure transparency about expectations. is needed.”
Brand safety technology is not new, but an operating model that includes internal stakeholders and agency partners will be critical to operations alongside technology to ensure adherence to brand suitability guidelines, he notes. bottom.
“There are some obvious controls that become part of a brand’s toolkit,” says serial marketer Berkowitz. “But brands also need to determine what it’s worth to them. For example, we have sell-side and buy-side verification technology. We also have the ability to ensure that ads are placed alongside safe content and viewed by real humans.” We have a brand-safe premium media network that allows us to do this, which can often lead to higher revenues, but usually comes with additional costs, such as the cost of training our teams and agencies.”
Ultimately, the biggest question brands and buyers should ask is, “What is brand safety worth to us?”
[ad_2]
Source link
