Big Data. Big Buzz Word. Lotsa confusion.
So it’s probably worth surveying the landscape to see what folks mean when they talk about data, analytics and their use in getting to the heart of things.
First up, political folks’ favorite Nate Silver who gave a good interview to Charlie Rose. It’s billed as a conversation about his move to ESPN (and, one gathers, abandonment of politics) but what Silver says near the conclusion – that data needs to be parsed and parsed with intelligence – is worth heeding.
Following up on that, here’s a nice piece about media companies and data. “Just because you can measure something doesn’t make it important.” It’s looking at how publisher websites gather information and use it but the lessons – not everything is important – are valid as more and more data shops enter the political space.
Then there’s the effect that all this data is having on consumers.
The folks at Axiom are releasing more information about what they have. This is clearly an attempt to keep ahead of any kind of regulation but, well, it’s probably too little too late. Even more interesting: We gave Axiom’s data review site a try and well, for accuracy, we’re NOT impressed.
Google’s doing its bit to stay ahead of regulation, in this case Congress efforts to pass “Do Not Track” legislation. The search and online ad giant is starting to give up on cookie-targeting. Cookie targeting has had a bit of a vogue in political circles so this move by Google is a good indication that the technology – which matches web browsing history with location – is going away.
We’ve written before about how the increased use of mobile leaves web browser targeting in the dust. But here’s a very nice piece talking about Twitter and its purchase of a mobile ad exchange. Twitter doesn’t have to cookie you to learn more – you tell it plenty with those little 140-character wise cracks.
For TV and cable, 2012 was a banner year for political ads sales. With something like $9 billion in campaign spending on the table – from just the presidential election – it was raining soup for anyone who was in the business of selling space to run :30 of video on a large screen shared by many viewers.
But 2012 is probably the last year that broadcasters will be able to hold out their bowls.
The TV business – the ad-supported watching of programs by a large group of people in roughly the same time period – is fracturing in much the same way that the print business fractured at the beginning of this century and for the same reason: New, Internet-delivered services let consumers make choices. The choices are racheted up from the use of DVRs – which change the time at which you watch something. A variety of new services let viewers decide HOW to watch.
The best publicized example is a company called Aereo which has begun serving New York and which plans to expand to 22 other cities. It’s so scary that TV broadcasters have sued to get the company, which takes over-the-air broadcast signals and sends them to computers, shut down.
Aereo’s important not just for the publicity but also because one of its investors, Barry Diller, knows the TV business like there’s nobody’s business. He created “Movie of the Week” AND he built Fox out of pretty much nothing but a bunch of lame UHF channels. He knows his enemy and his strategy – to create a group of consumer who will email Congress when someone takes away their Aereo – is a well-tested strategy. Ask any broadcaster.
But even if Diller doesn’t get his way – and so far, the courts have given him the green light – other services are changing how voters watch TV. Dish-TV encourages its customers to skip ads. Netflix and Amazon – once happy to just sell movies – are getting into the TV production business at the same time they’re bidding against cable programs to acquire the rights to run TV shows.
Which brings us to every political person’s favorite show, “House of Cards” and its auteur/actor Kevin Spacey. A lot of folks have been talking about Spacey’s speech before a gathering of UK media execs in which he spelled out how Netflix – and shows like “House of Cards” are signs of upheaval in the business. For those of you who read Spot-On’s regular blog posts, that wasn’t news, of course. But, well, we like to state the obvious more than once. So here’s a link to an interview between Spacey and Charlie Rose previewing the speech. And here’s the MacTaggard lecture.
There’s more to come as New York Times columnist Dave Carr spells out in this column which, for anyone wed to the idea that TV ads are the only or best way to reach viewers and voters, is a must read.
Ah, yes. The last week of August. If you’re reading this, chances are good you’re in the office and if you’re in the office you’re looking for some entertainment.
So here’s a little end-of-summer nonsense with an gentle eye on trends in the political ad business that are worth following.
First up, the actor Kevin Spacey talking about his marvelous show – yes, that one – as well as changes in the TV business that are going to make streamed TV like “House of Cards” more common. He’s talking with Charlie Rose, a 20th Century fanboy if there ever was one, but Spacey’s smart. Worth noting: his observations about what the “audience is telling us” and how much it costs to produce a TV pilot. Also, he does a pretty mean Johnny Carson imitation.
Kevin Spacey: “House of Cards,” the TV business and politics is the link to follow for the video. You can get a fuller sense of what he’s saying by reading the text of a speech he gave – the MacTaggart Lecture – a week or so after the Rose interview.
Spot-On has long told clients that Facebook is a happy place. What do we mean by this? Well, it’s not a good place for campaigns that aren’t – for lack of a better word – hopeful. It’s a great place to defend your record or do damage control but you don’t want to outright diss your opponent. And some campaigns just aren’t a good fit. Here’s a look at how all this happiness is affecting the news business.
Speaking of Facebook. They say they’re bigger than TV. Well, that’s not really the case. TV ain’t going away. But the ways in which people use online sites like Facebook with TV is now part of daily life – kind of a water cooler with a speakerphone attached. Here’s a look at the marketing Facebook’s putting out for big-time brand advertisers.
There’s some kinda disconnect out there. And it’s not a good thing. Here’s a look at the paltry spending that corporations – many of them brand advertisers – spend when it comes to supporting California ballot measures. Of the millions spent, only pennies end up online. Given where and how you’re reading this, does that REALLY make sense? No, it doesn’t and Forward Observer’s Joe Rodota tells you why.
And, finally, we’re not big fans of cat videos. But show us a frog playing a banjo – AND Steve Martin – we’re all over that.
Enjoy your holiday. We’ll be back with more links, observations and other goodies after Labor Day.
Television is such a part of the political process that even slight changes in the business should be watched carefully.
But your average consultant has better things to do than follow New York Times media columnist Dave Carr’s musings. Or cogitate on whatever PaidContent has to say.
So here’s a Spot-On round up – hopefully a helpful one – on what’s been happening. Generally speaking, Team Spot-On thinks Carr’s overall thesis – that TV is undergoing the same sort of changes the print news business say 10 years ago – has legs and consequences for TV-oriented political media buyers and consultants. Which is why we keep talking this on Facebook and Twitter.
Think about it in these terms: Ten years ago, Amazon.com was a novel way to buy books. This month, its founder bought the Washington Post.
And since it’s always nice to have things in one place, here’s a round up of news stories that caught our eye. Pressure on traditional television is building.
First up, Aereo, a service that takes broadcast TV signals and sends them to your computer. In its fight with CBS, Time Warner is recommending that customers use Aereo’s service to access over-the-air channels. And a judge has refused to side with broadcasters who want to shut Aereo down.
Aereo’s not just a city service. They’re coming to Utah and a bunch of other states. Soon.
Aereo’s not the only service looking at TV. Apple is. So is Google.
And another judge says it’s okay for Dish Network to promote the idea of skipping commercials.
What does this all mean: It’s going to get harder and harder to get voter’s attention on television. Online ad placements are going to become a lot more sophisticated, better looking and more interactive. The future, it’s here. It’s just not evenly distributed quite yet.
Spot-On pal Joe Rodota over at Forward Observer – one of California’s better-known political research firms – has a new report out about online spending.
In California, the state that’s home to as many cutting edge computer companies as it is avocado growers, spending online is a lackluster 1% of total budget.
Forward Observer looked at five big-money ballot measures – among them the tobacco tax and the fight over food labeling – which spent a combined $199 million on their efforts.
Of that, $1.9m was spent with online firms.
Compare that the the online budget allocations made by the Obama re-election effort. A full 20% of the campaign’s media budget was spent online, according to an analysis done by Washington, D.C. consultant Patrick Ruffini’s Inside the Cave.
And, of course, online activity can be measured, parsed and analyzed. So while a campaign may be buying an online ad placement, it’s really getting a nice look at how voters react to it’s messaging.
To quote Mr. Rodota: “To compete in the modern era of voter persuasion, funds should shift from television, radio and direct mail to digital campaigns – and the economic analysis, issues research and polling research functions that support them.”
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
Bought a new computer lately? Probably not. But chances are good that you or someone in your household bought a tablet device.
And they weren’t alone. Personal computer sales are falling. And it’s because tablets – sitting on your lap, easy to pop into a purse or briefcase, no bigger than a folded newspaper – are fantastically popular. In fact, some studies show their use now rivals that of the newspaper they’re sometimes wrapped in to protect the screen.
So much so that some folks in the tech business are – once again – predicting the end of Microsoft’s dominance since the company so dominates the PC software business. But that’s also a dent in Google’s sales as we mentioned last week.
Why is this important? Because the kind of tracking that can be done via a web browser – the tracking that makes it possible to target advertising and often single out specific demographics and groups of voters – doesn’t work as well on mobile.
There are a lot of reasons for this but the main one is that the technology that displays web pages on tablets doesn’t allow for “cookies” in the same way that web browsing does. Bottom line: no tracking or following. Voters can search f or “Joe For Congress” on their lap top and chances are better than good that they’ll see a parade of Joe’s ads as they move around the web to various sites. That same search on a tablet or mobile device won’t trigger that same ad display.
Take a look at the screen shots in this post.
The one on top is from a web browser – see the AdRoll ad “We’re Retargeting You!” – generated after a visit to the company’s site and receipt of a browser cookie.
The screen on the bottom is from an iPad, taken off the same Facebook account at roughly the same time as the web browser display.
And that, friends, is the death of the cookie. Which means targeting is going to get a lot harder and a lot less programatic, especially for political ad placement.
Questions on this or any other online ad sales topic? Feel free to give us a shout. firstname.lastname@example.org is the address for all queries, large or small.
This story is all about Google earnings but for folks interested in political ad placement, it’s worth paying attention.
Why? Google’s struggling with mobile sales.
As a result, they are requiring advertisers to buy mobile tablet ads when/if they switch to Google’s all-inclusive “enhanced campaign” buying service. And using “enhanced campaigns” is mandatory on Monday.
What does this mean for political placement?
More expensive rates – for pay-for-click and impression based sales. And some ads you might not know you’re buying.
Why is this happening? This is the important part.
Search and keyword advertising – Google’s main ways to make money – depend on the company keeping a record of a user’s search activity. With mobile, that’s harder to do. Most search devices don’t allow for the kind of cookie targeting that Google – and a number of political ad vendors – have relied on.
And mobile is growing. Tablet sales outstrip PCs buy a large and growing margin.
We’ll have more on this in next week’s newsletter because Spot-On think that the growth of Google alternatives is a trend worth following.
Seems the working press can’t get enough of the data secrets the successful Obama re-election effort used to keep their man in the White House.
Sunday’s New York Times Magazine cover asked “Is selling a pizza different from selling a president?” Answer: yes. But that’s not really the one the author, political writer Jim Rutenberg gave. We’ll let you judge how well he answered that question. Here are Spot-On we still have some questions. The big one: Is AMG, the firm profiled in the story, really going to take on the entrenched TV media buying establishment?
On the other side of the aisle, the Times Bits – it’s digital section – had a sweet profile of a company Spot-On knows and likes, CrowdVerb, started by longtime digital dudes Todd Herman and Cyrus Krohn. It’s all about metrics and analytics and no one says anything about pizza.
Late last year and earlier this year, there were a spate of stories about the Obama effort. Here’s are pointers to two that made the most sense ICYMI as the kids say or, In Case You Missed It.
– Inside the Cave (pdf slide show) from the good folks at Engaged DC.
– When the Nerds Go Marching In – Alexis Madrigal in The Atlantic
– 4 Reasons Why Obama’s Digital Effort Was a Success – Mashable
Here’s the UC mobile tablet ad Spot-On likes so much:
It’s pretty, it’s informative and it’s on Flipboard.
It lands on a special magazine Cal’s PR department has created just for Flipboard called Fiat Lux.
Here a few advertising industry trends that have caught our eye in the past few weeks and which we think will matter for political ad placement in the months and years to come.
– Desktop ad sales are peeking. So fewer voters will be seeing political ads at work.
– Maybe because 30% of all Americans own a tablet? So ad targeting using web browser technology might be getting less effective.
What’s this mean? Political campaigns are going to have to consider more mobile ad placements and those placements are going to have to be bought by geographic location. Expect to see this take effect in upper income urban enclaves and almost every suburb and college town in 2014.
– Rich media gets more attention than basic banners. What’s “rich” media? Ads that expand across a page, ads between pages or ads that contain video.
Combine the rich media trend with the rise of tablets, fall of desktop ad placement and you’re going to see more interstitial ads – between the pages – on mobile tablet devices. Why? They work. Look for this in force in 2016.
– Big news outlets with the power to influence public opinion are experimenting with ways to sell ads with their or others’ opinons. This is an interesting trend for public affairs and other lobbying efforts. Spot-On’s run a few local persuasion campaigns with banner ads with good results so these “sponsored” ideas have traction.
And, lastly, following up from a trend we, er, spotted a while ago, some folks think there’s a real good chance all this talk about NSA and metadata and listening and tracking is going to affect how consumers view their individual online privacy. One poll got a lot of traction when it said that Americans aren’t upset by surveillance of data and phone records but a look at the details – the proverbial cross-tabs – shows more ambivalence. And one Massachsetts legislator agrees: He’s introduced legislation to keep the cable company from tracking your TV habits.
In other words, all candidate websites should have privacy policies like the one described here. And brace yourself for a world where a lot of the tools used in online tracking – retargeting and cookie matching – get a more thorough review by lawmakers.