#DigitalDip
Taking a Quick Dip Into Digital with Sarah Frohman
Scarlet Letter
Although we are working in advertising sales, there seems to be a shift away from using the “A-word” when it comes to native ads. Even though ads are ads, calling them as they are may be giving them a bad reputation. Instead, publishers are leaning on “sponsored,” “promoted,” or “presented by.” Native advertisements allow companies to push their product to the consumer without the consumer necessarily realizing that they are being targeted and advertised to. Native ads are successful because they blend in with the content of the page without interrupting the consumer. So, why wake a sleeping lion if you don’t have to? Avoid the A-word and keep the peace: make the consumer feel like they are in control of their digital experience while appeasing the advertiser and hitting those impression goals!
To read more, visit: http://adage.com/article/media/media-companies-label-native-ads/298944/
To remind you why you wake up and come to work each morning
We are living in the digital age, and you all are making that possible. Advertising budgets are shifting to new platforms and (you guessed it), these new platforms are all in digital. Here are some changes we can look forward to in the near future…
1. Digital will overtake broadcast in total media spending.
2. Mobile will overtake desktop in digital media spending.
3. 63% of display media will be purchased programmatically.
4. Display ads will become entirely obsolete.
- Fun fact: 49% of clicks onto display ads are accidental. As a result, we will see a rise of video ads and rich media. Destructive banners will be phased out, and native ads will take over. This makes sense, because the ad does not distract from the content of the page, but it is still completely viewable.
5. The rise of co-creation in order to produce content that will better entice consumers.
To read more, visit: http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/digital-s-wave-coming-miss-ride/298923/
Viewa-what?
Here’s what’s happening: advertisers are using third-party measurements so that they can demand higher viewability rates that inevitably won’t be met by the publisher. The advertiser can then make more money because the publisher must make up for the apparent shortage of viewable impressions. The bottom line: the publisher will always lose this battle because at the end of the day, they must appease their buyers in order to sustain business. The solution? Change the reputation of advertisements. If people liked ads as much as they liked content, then there would be a natural and legitimate increase in viewability by everyone’s standards. And yes, it is possible for someone to legitimately enjoy an advertisement. Burberry did it, and here’s how. They gave the publisher (Yahoo, in this case) more money than they usually would have, allowing Yahoo to create rich ad units that were interactive, pleasing, and addictive. The Yah-Berry team proved that if ads can work together with the platform to create appeal and tell the story of a brand, then viewability won’t even be a question.
To read more, visit: http://digiday.com/sponsored/adform1-005-272-121466/
Location, location, location!
The mission: to find where on the page an ad will be the most viewable. The current trend is to place an ad as high up on the page as possible, in what is being coined as “the safe zone.” The thinking is that this will increase the viewability of the ad, and thus its number of impressions. On the flip side, though, some publishers are targeting the bottom of the page for an ad placement. The logic behind this polar opposite decision lies in this one simple word: mobile. Smartphones alike are encouraging the rapid swiping, scrolling, clicking, thumbing, or whatever other finger-verb you prefer. So, an ad that lives at the top of the page may not load in time to be viewed by our fellow rapid-swipers. The moral of the story? The standard for mobile ad placement is still in the works; but being on the bottom ain’t so bad.
To read more, visit: http://digiday.com/publishers/publishers-latest-thinking-mobile-ad-placement/
If you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...
Many advertisers assume that consumers will learn to “hate” their product if it is associated with negative news content. Well, this is not necessarily true. Many consumers draw no connection between the ads on the page and the content displayed. In a poll of 403 consumers, 86 reported that they never associate the ad with the content, while 49 said they do. But here’s what’s important: 106 people said that regardless of the possible connection between the ad and the content, someone needs to advertise to keep the content inexpensive to consume. In another study of 1196 consumers, 95% of respondents reported that “serious or graphic news does not change their opinion of the advertisers on the page.” Well, what’s the take away here? It may not be a fair assumption that news is an undesirable home for an ad. In fact, advertisers may gain respect and appreciation rather than be shunned and judged like they think they will be.
To read more, visit: http://digiday.com/publishers/daily-mail-study-hard-news-is-a-safe-place-for-advertisers-after-all/
A few reasons why Apple and Flash aren't friends
Apple is in a monogamous relationship with HTML-5, and they are not planning on breaking up anytime soon, not even for Flash. Here’s why:
1. Adobe’s flash technology uses too much memory and battery life.
2. Flash does not function well on mobile.
3. Flash has a terrible security record.
4. Flash is the #1 reason why Macs crash.
5. Flash was designed during the PC era to be used with a mouse, not a touch screen.
To read more, visit: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
A Take on the Team
Bio: I live in Scarsdale, NY with my mom, sister, and two dogs that we rescued. I am a Spanish and Psychology double major at Amherst College, where I also play soccer. My favorite color is blue, I could watch the movie Bridesmaids a million times, and my favorite TV show is anything involving the Real Housewives (shhh, because that’s embarrassing). Unfortunately, I am allergic to eggs, otherwise omelettes would be one of my favorite foods.
What 3 things would you save in a fire? Grover (my favorite stuffed animal), the Keurig with the k-cups, of course, and all of the jars of peanut butter I could find.
If you could live anywhere, where would it be? Maine in the summer and Costa Rica in the winter.
As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up? The dog whisperer… although my mom always said I should be a lawyer because I love to argue.
Have you ever had a nickname? What is it? Frohman, Froh, or any variation of my last name (Frobi-wan-kanobi was the best one).
What is one thing we don’t know about you? I was the captain of the bowling team in high school for 2 years.
SPOTLIGHT ON: Alexia Polachek
Bio: I went to college at Providence College, in Rhode Island. While there, I was in the Honors Program, majored in Marketing and minored in writing. While I’m originally from Sunrise FL, I grew up in Jackson NJ which is the home of Six Flags Great Adventure! A fun fact about me is that I know how to play most woodwind instruments (all flutes, all clarinets, some saxophones and a little bit of oboe) and the piano. Eight years in classical band and four years in marching band pays off :)
What 3 things would you save in a fire? My wallet, my iPhone and my cat.
If you could live anywhere, where would it be? New York City! (Or, if I ever marry into royalty, anywhere in the UK!)
As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up? I wanted to be an actress! Because of this, my AIM screenname growing up was “nextnumba1actres” (actress only had one s because I ran out of characters).
Have you ever had a nickname? What is it? My friends and family call me “Lex”. Nothing too crazy!
What is one thing we don’t know about you? In my spare time, I write fiction! I’ve finished two manuscripts and I’m trying to get them published.