1. ACMA reveals 10 new board members following Singapore relaunch

    November 30, 2017 by admin

    A month after it relaunched as an official organisation, the Asia Content Marketing Association has revealed the 10 new board members who will propel the body through its first year.

    The following 10 new members, who were appointed following an application process, will remain in place for one year. They are:

    • Nik Vyas, Executive Board Director and Content Lead at Publicis Media, Singapore
    • Akshay Bajpaee, Head of Channel Partnerships, APAC at LinkedIn
    • Isabella Barbato, Head of Marketing APAC, Outbrain
    • Oliver Budgen, Head of APAC, Bold Media, APAC
    • Miguel Bernas, Vice President, Digital Marketing, Mediacorp
    • Mike Jackson, Managing Director at MEC Wavemaker
    • Damien Bray, Founder and CEO Asia, Brand New Media
    • Babar Khan Javed, Technology Editor, Campaign APAC, Haymarket Media Group
    • Fotini Paraskakis, Managing Director, Endemol Shine Asia
    • Jacqueline Tok, Vice President, Media & Sponsorship, Sony Pictures Television Networks, Asia

    Also continuing their leadership positions will be vice chair and former Outbrain head of brands Timi Siytangco and treasurer Simon Kearney, from the agency Click2View.

    The two of them, who served in these roles while ACMA was a volunteer group, will lead the body alongside chairwoman Andrea Edwards, founder of The Digital Conversationalist.

    Read more on Mumbrella Asia


  2. What Lisa Wilkinson’s departure means for junior women in media

    October 17, 2017 by admin

    Lisa Wilkinson’s departure from The Today Show has sent a tremor through the nation. Both her co-hosts and viewers were shocked to see her depart so abruptly, and the alleged reason why is nothing short of jaw dropping.

    It’s hard enough being a small fry in the ‘man’s world’ that is media, but this puts it in a whole new light.

    Nine has stormed the ratings this year with The Block and Ninja Warrior, along with recently announcing they’re bringing Love Island Down Under, so it’s safe to say they’re not short of a bob of two. This begs the question: why is one of Australia’s leading journalists at one of Australia’s leading networks still fighting for equal pay?

    Though I could ramble on about what total bullshit all of the above is, I think there’s a deeper issue here. As a young female in the industry with just about a year under my belt, Nine’s inability to “meet the expectation of Lisa Wilkinson and her manager on a contract renewal for a further period” says we still have a long way to go. And that’s terrifying.

    While I’m not privy to her contract with Nine or Stefanovic’s JD, the situation in general paints a bleak outlook for juniors entering the industry. It’s 2017, not 1918, or even 1957 for that matter. I know we’re one of the last countries in the world to take action on marriage equality (don’t even get me started), but surely we’re not this backwards?

    A quick look at Lisa’s impressive resume reveals an extraordinary list of accolades, including editor of Dolly at the age of 21 before becoming international editor-in-chief of Cleo.

    At 21 I was still navigating my way through uni, let alone editing a national magazine, so if someone as accomplished as Lisa has to negotiate the same pay as her equally-as-accomplished male co-host instead of just being offered it, what chance have the rest of us got?

    In saying this, I’m not trying to belittle my skills, or those of my peers. I’m confident in my ability to do a cracking job when I turn up to work every day, and am sure all other juniors in the industry have the same attitude.

    Wilkinson during her days as editor of CLEO magazine

    I’m simply pointing out that if someone with Lisa’s credentials is unable to come to an agreement about pay with her employer, the bottom of the ladder is a daunting place to be.

    Australia’s leading networks need to remember the next Lisa Wilkinson has to come from somewhere, and a situation such as this doesn’t do much to inspire the future generation of media folk.

    The top is arguably the best place to be when it comes to making a stand on equal pay, and while I’m not in a position to change things, I hope someone who is can help paint a more positive picture for our future.

    This article originally appeared on Mumbrella.

  3. This Singapore blockchain startup wants to replace banks; has raised over US$15M in ICO to do so

    October 13, 2017 by admin

    Change Wallet

    Cryptocurrency, once an esoteric tech alien to everyone but the cypherpunks (aka crypto enthusiasts), is far entering into mainstream consciousness.

    Leading financial institutions are investing in it, and mom-and-pop consumers can now buy bitcoin from kiosks at shopping malls.

    It stands to reason that cryptocurrency, and the blockchain tech that powers the whole ecosystem, have the ability to disrupt the modus operandi of many sectors and institutions.

    One Singapore startup, Change, believes that the acceleration of blockchain will make banks obsolete — and it wants to lead the charge. Change wants to be the “Paypal of cryptocurrency”, meaning that in the future, consumers should be able to buy plane tickets or purchase coffee using cryptocurrency.

    To accomplish this goal, it has launched an ICO campaign, which will end on October 16. To date, it has raised over US$15 million.

    The Change team — consisting of primarily European entrepreneurs — is helmed by Kristjan Kangro, who is the former CFO of Southeast Asia-based VC Expara. Other members of the team include CTO Edgars Simanovski, and Artur , who is a partner at the company. Luhaäär is also the CEO and Co-founder of Singapore-based robo advisory platform Smartly,

    “We’ve been overwhelmed by the response and interest in a truly transparent and crypto banking platform here in Asia. This is a clear message that there is an enormous appetite for a fintech player like Change Bank to help consumers bridge the gap between cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and Ether, and conventional currencies like US dollars and Euros,” said Kangro.

    Read more on e27.

  4. Slick, cookie-cutter digital customer experience fails to differentiate brands

    September 30, 2017 by admin


    The last thing any marketer wants is for their brand to look and feel just like the competitor. However, our industry’s current focus on streamlining customer experience via tech platforms risks exactly that.

    The scramble for next generation customer experiences (CX) has agencies, consultancies and marketers making brand interactions more intuitive. Innovating to find more efficiency is an important part of refining customer experiences, but it offers no competitive advantage if everyone else follows a category-generic playbook.

    Brands using technology as their differentiator run the risk of creating generic interfaces and experiences. We’ve all heard about the out-of-the-box solutions that vendors promise will fix everything. Smooth and integrated customer experiences might create satisfied punters, but this is only half the battle. Brands looking for proper ROI need to consider emotional motivators when devising strategies to win and retain high-value customers.

    When you hear about companies setting up a ‘design thinking team’ or ‘an innovation team’, you have to wonder what the strategic objective is. Are they just there to make platforms and processes better? Or are they driving at something deeper? I tend to worry there’s a lot of, ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ afoot – innovation towards greater CX efficiency, without overarching emotional purpose or vision that knits the experience together.

    Modern CX requires customer intelligence around emotion, psychology and context to add competitive value. Building great big platforms around guesswork or the business capability, rather than the customer, would be repeating past behaviour.

    Next-generation CX is about knowing who the customer will be, not who the business wants them to be. Foresight is more valuable than insight, because it forever pulls CX back to the customer’s motivations and behaviours, forcing brands to stop thinking about themselves.

    When creating quality customer experiences, emotional motivators offer a guiding objective that can be threaded through each touch point along the customer journey. A 2016 study from Harvard Business Review found consumers exhibit around 40 emotional motivators across most brand interactions (with varying intensity). In no particular order, the most prevalent include desire for ‘a sense of belonging, ‘to succeed in life’, ‘to feel secure’ ‘to have a sense of freedom’ and ‘to have confidence in the future’.

    The study also goes on to explain that brand relationships transition through four stages: (1) being unconnected (2) being highly satisfied (3) perceiving brand differentiation (4) being fully connected. At ‘fully connected’, the customer feels a meaningful relationship with the brand through one or more key emotional motivators, like the ones listed above. Through extensive research and case study analysis, Harvard Business Review concluded customers in this category are twice as valuable to the brand as ‘highly satisfied customers’ over the lifetime of the relationship.

    Furthermore, moving a customer from the ‘highly satisfied’ category to ‘fully connected’ is three times more valuable than moving them from ‘unconnected’ to ‘highly satisfied’. Fully connected customers spend more, are less price sensitive, pay more attention to brand comms, and are much more likely to recommend the brand to others.

    Importantly, the research shows that while slick platforms might keep a customer satisfied, that customer’s value stagnates unless they feel a deeper connection to the brand.

    The value of pushing for enhanced emotional connection is huge. The industry’s current focus on innovation and efficiency risks overlooking that value, and creating a world where brands offer a seamless experience but not a differentiated one.

    Focussing on emotion enables the ability to deliver CX that impacts a person’s heuristics (how they make intuitive, simple decisions). It’s accepted that heuristics inform habits and bed down patterns of behaviour to create a cumulative advantage for businesses. Sustained differentiation is good for business.

    Today’s digital experiences have core features that customers have come to expect, like intelligent recommendations, online self-service or chatbots and predictive search terms. As brands rush to bring themselves into line with those expectations, everyone is pretty much working from the same formula – make it simple and clean. Sooner or later, we’re going to nail that methodology and everyone is gonna be pretty slick, and pretty samey.

    Elevating your brand above the competition is soon going to take more than technology platforms. If CX is the new battleground, emotion is the not-so-secret weapon. Your partner, agency or consultant’s ability to unlock that power is what will create a truly unique customer experience. This process takes research, time, and crucially, expertise that does not yet exist in great quantity.

    The alternative is a future of marketing governed by efficiency and technology. Easy to navigate, boring to experience.

    This article originally appeared on Mumbrella.

  5. Media sales teams fail advertisers by not picking up the phone

    September 29, 2017 by admin

    I want you to step back and remember 2007. Some of you reading this will be like “Dude, I was 12.” However, just in case your rocks had already dropped, you are probably remembering a happy time. At that time I was running the Consumer Finance Sections at Fairfax, we closed 100 sections a year every year.

    Over three years I honed a skill that I think, by-and-large, has been lost – the skill of media sales. I’d like to think that I was pretty good at it, but I wasn’t alone. There was a massive floor of us, chasing ad dollars, grinding the phone, whipping up interest.

    Things have changed. Technology coupled with a breadth of advertising opportunity has done three things. One, it has simplified navigating an extremely confusing advertising mix. Two, it has homogenised campaigns potentially for the worse. Three, many of us have forgotten the most important tool of them all – how to sell stuff.

    Sure, the days of six-hour lunches may be no longer viable, but I’m genuinely worried that a culture of automation is killing the skill of the sales person forever. Powerful electronic communication tools, combined with automated trading and smart data have no doubt improved all our lives.

    I just think that sometimes, we have to pick up the phone and have a conversation to find out exactly why advertisers, and their agencies, are buying media. ‘Sales’ may have become a dirty word to some, but it’s ultimately about understanding needs, and delivering upon them.

    To offer the best campaigns, sales teams need to know the niggle, i.e. the business problem they’re trying to solve. Today it seems media sales teams don’t want to make phone calls, and agency staff don’t want to pick them up. It’s creating a knowledge gap that’s harming media effectiveness and wasting advertisers’ money.

    Instead of sales calls, we now have emails. In these emails, we send briefs and pitches, often accompanied with a 20-page PowerPoint deck. From the sales side, young reps jam emails full of product features and benefits. They hope what they’ve prepared is enough, but they can’t be sure. It’s a process filled with uncertainty. They don’t know the human elements; they don’t know the advertisers’ concerns.

    Often times, it’s through conversations that the real need behind an advertiser campaign gets discovered. It comes up organically over the phone, or over a coffee, or a drink.

    These little details are typically left out of the brief because they don’t match the tone of a formal document. When sales staff don’t pick up the phone, and don’t cultivate personal relationships with their agency contacts, they can fail to build an understanding of the real underlying campaign drivers.

    This knowledge gap causes pitches to suffer across all vendors and advertisers don’t get as much insight, innovation or value.

    I got a good piece of advice once. Good salespeople don’t sell, they create an ‘opportunity to buy’. To create a compelling ‘opportunity to buy’, sales reps have to understand the advertiser’s business problem. They have to earn the right to respond to genuine demand. You’re far more likely to do that with an honest phone call than over a sterile email.

    All business is ultimately based on relationships, and the media industry needs to remember this. Of course, digital disruption is here, and is very real. It’s creating opportunities to trade that we could have once only dreamed of. But however hard we try, robots can’t cut a deal like a well-placed and commercial salesperson. Let’s not let the skill slip away forever.

    So all you sales reps out there – pick up the phone and start grinding. And all you agency girls and guys, be up for the chat. You’ll be amazed with what we can do.

    This article originally appeared on Mumbrella.

  6. The programmatic witch hunt is confusing transparency with business

    August 18, 2017 by admin


    It seems that it is all the rage to have an opinion about digital transparency these days. Without pointing fingers, it appears that commentators on both sides of the digital fence are continually waxing lyrical about the imminent cliff digital media may, or may not be, hurtling towards.

    But as an interested observer, it has struck me that unless we expect Samsung, Apple or indeed any successful business to start providing a detailed breakdown of their profit margins on the price tags of their products, we might want to cut the programmatic industry a break.

    The current conversation around programmatic transparency has taken a wrong turn. It’s gone from helpfully pushing for transparent trading, to spitefully suggesting transparent business models. If martech companies caved to these demands, they would likely be the only private industry in the world to do so.

    Clearly, transparency is a good thing. Programmatic traders should be clear with clients about what media they buy, and why they buy it. They should be open about what exchanges they use, and how effective their methods are. When it comes to publishers, inventory, targeting and engagement, they should be open with agencies and advertisers. This approach creates a better environment for everyone involved. On this front, the industry can still improve.

    But lately, the conversation around transparency has morphed into something unexpected. It’s become a call for selected businesses to be publicly transparent with how they make money. This is something a smart company would simply never do.

    Working in media is about adding value. Each stage of creating, producing and planning a marketing campaign is part of a long chain of investments from advertisers, all designed to eventually make more money than they cost.

    Forgive the lesson in capitalism, but I fail to see why the programmatic industry should be asked to exist outside the same rules as everyone else.

    Look at car manufacturing. At every step of the supply chain, from steel mine, to assembly plant, to car dealership, each supplier marks up the price of their skills and service to cover their costs and make money from the efficiency and quality they bring to the production process.

    Would you ask a car manufacturer to explain why they mark up their prices?

    The cost most people pay for phones or cars is less than it would cost for the average individual to buy the raw materials and personally make the product. Electronics companies, car companies, nearly all companies, add value to the world in this way. They make specialist products available to the market at a price that represents value to consumers.

    Any brand marketer who has brought their programmatic trading operations in-house would probably agree to the value of having a martech provider doing the heavy lifting for you.

    And just like any manufacturer might have special technology that allows them to make certain material much cheaper than its competitors, I’m sure the same exists in programmatic trading. As long as the net result is still a quality product or outcome for the customer, no harm no foul.

    It’s this competitive edge that pundits and grandstanders are trying to take away from programmatic businesses. Rather than celebrate the ingenuity required to bring in campaign results on a budget, they want martech providers to explain themselves. It’s puzzling.

    Unless we’re all expecting manufacturers to start breaking down their manufacturing and distribution costs on the retail price tag, asking the same of programmatic businesses might be a bit much.

    I agree entirely that transparency and honesty is an essential commodity in media trading, but we should focus on the kind of transparency that adds value and proves ROI. Asking for total transparency and singling out certain businesses and undermines the entire industry. Where would it stop?

    This article originally appeared on Mumbrella.

  7. Agencies as experience creators: why Marina Bay Sands hired Imagination to create its famous light show

    August 15, 2017 by admin

    Two of the best-known landmarks in Asia Pacific have roped in Imagination, an agency, to create a light show; an unusual but increasingly common brief as brands look to create experiences for customers.

    Imagination is the agency behind the recently overhauled Marina Bay Sands light show in Singapore, a brief given to the agency after showing its expertise creating the Sydney New Year’s Eve show for seven years.

    Spectra at MBS occurs twice every evening, using more than 100 types of lighting and laser fixtures that are powered using the water in the bay. The show, which took two years to create, uses sound and water to create a show of four acts that aims to tell the story of Singapore’s origins as a cultural melting pot, ending on Singapore’s future as an innovative global leader.

    Spending two years creating a permanent show that runs twice an evening isn’t the normal brand-agency relationship, but Alistair Petrie, creative director of Imagination Asia, said that as storytelling becomes more important to brands, live experiences will play a bigger part.

    “Great brands and leaders know that telling a story in advertising is important, but it’s the delivery of that story through every touchpoint that is where customers learn to love your brand. We see our best clients recognise the power of creating meaningful experiences for the way they conduct sales on the front line, engage their people in order to deliver on a vision, drive engagement or change their business from the very core. UX is a term that has been taken over by the digital world – but it’s always been at the core of how we think when we create live experiences for people, and great clients have always recognised that,” said Petrie.

    Specific to the project with Marina Bay Sands, he added that trust was an important part, not least because the project was two years in the making but that the investment in the technology was sizeable.

    “All relationships rely on trust – it’s just this one needed the client to trust in something that was so far outside of anyone’s sphere of reference, so they really needed to just believe in the collective team’s experience and creativity on this one. Unlike advertising where so much of the work can be re-worked in post-production, we just don’t have that luxury. Millions of dollars worth of permanent engineering was being fabricated to deliver this show. We all needed to be working so closely together daily, and the client needed to trust in the process more than ever,” he commented.

    In line with the reputation for innovation that Singapore wants to carve for itself, it is fitting that the country’s most recognisable modern icon Marina Bay Sands creates an innovative and scaled-up show. According to Trevor Smith, production director at Imagination Sydney, the technical challenge was largely in the underwater lighting technology that it built.

    “Spectra sets itself apart from other light and water shows because of its use of new underwater 500 watt LED fixtures – specially developed for the show. This allows the lights to show perfect whites and richer colour hues. In total, there are more than 100 types of lighting and laser fixtures used in the new show. The show only uses energy-efficient LED lights and the fountains are powered by water filtered and recycled from the bay, in an effort to make it more eco-friendly,” he explained.

    The demand for experience-led activations and businesses that can deliver on live experiences, is growing. In the UK, out-of-home specialists Exterion Media recently launched a Live offering due to demand from clients for experiential know how. However, the ability to deliver on experiences on the scale of Spectra is another matter and the briefs may not be as regular. Nevertheless, agencies like Imagination are able to carve a niche for themselves that’s likely to come further into demand.

    This article originally appeared on The Drum.

  8. Geronimo leaps to Tapit Media’s rescue; snaps up NFC firm

    August 10, 2017 by admin

    Nearly two years after launching in Australia mobile CX company Geronimo, led by Amobee’s former MD Matt Hunt, has acquired Tapit Media; a global tech platform enabling Near Field Communications (NFC) for marketing, AdNews can reveal.

    Hunt says NFC technology is a major growth area in mobile marketing and the deal brings proprietary technology, data and IP to the Geronimo tech stack. It also sees founder of Tapit Jamie Conyngham join the Geronimo management team as the CEO of the Tapit business.

    In June this year Tapit, which helps connect brands and digital content to consumers via their mobile devices, was placed into voluntary administration. A liquidation notice was listed on ASICS as recently as July 20, but Hunt says Tapit’s strong legacy of innovation in the mobile arena is just what the market needs.

    Hunt said Tapit had signed an agreement to be acquired by a mining company as part of a reverse takeover and listing on the ASX. Unfortunately, the deal didn’t go ahead due to unforeseen circumstances. The business had spent the best part of a year pursuing this strategy and did not have a replacement funding option.

    “As a result, the directors of the business decided to run a process to sell their assets,” Hunt explained.

    “Having seen the business from the inside I’m surprised that Tapit is not listed on the ASX today. It’s an amazing business. That said, we were in the right place at the right time and were delighted to begin a new chapter with Jamie [Tapit CEO] and the team.”

    Why this buy and why buy now? 

    “The timing is perfect. The directors of Tapit were looking to sell at the same time that Apple announced that it was adopting core NFC as part of the latest operating system release in September. This opens up a further 40% of the consumer market,” Hunt said.

    “We think this acquisition will encourage our clients to go deeper into their thinking about how you connect with customers and this will have a positive impact on our overall business.”

    Geronimo will keep the brand and the trademarks and will work through other details during its post merger integration plan.

    Brands have been quick to catch onto the contactless communications sector and since 2011 Tapit has worked with global brands including Google, Microsoft, Unilever, P&G and Nestle.

    Tapit puts its technology in places where brands have a physical presence so people can tap their phones to interact with them rather than typing in URLs, using QR codes or voice controls. The platform understands who is interacting and captures the data to help improve future marketing efforts.

    Case studies on its website also highlight work with Nike, McDonald’s, Westpac, Cannon, Visa and Paramount; largely related to retail and out of home (OOH) activations. As an example it launched Westpac’s first NFC mobile wallet and helped promote the launch of the new McDonald’s mobile ordering app. It also teamed up with Pernod Ricard to create the world’s first connected stubby holder, allowing people to simply tap their smartphone to access exclusive content from the Melbourne International Comedy Festival of which Pernod Ricard was a major sponsor.


    Hunt says the move cements Geronimo’s position as an innovator in the mobile marketing industry and enhances the capabilities of its mobile customer experience (MCX) platform.

    Geronimo itself, which encompasses mobile marketing strategy, tech, data, creative and media, works with brands including Pfizer, Westfield, SBS, NIB and CommBank.

    Hunt says contactless communications provides global brands with a scalable, innovative and secure way to engage consumers via their smartphone directly from physical environments turning foot traffic into web traffic with a simple tap.

    “Geronimo is all about improving a customer’s experience with a brand using mobile. Tapit’s platform helps us connect the physical world with the digital world and we believe the platform will allow people use their phones to transact with companies in the future,” Hunt said.

    “If you sit in any chief marketing officer’s role in Australia, I think it’s difficult to argue there is any more pressing issue than focusing on the customer and improving the way you connect with them. That’s why investing in NFC technology and why mobile innovation is so key for our clients and for the team at Geronimo.”

    Continue reading on AdNews.

  9. Online Privacy: What’s Changing, & Why You Need To Know About It

    August 8, 2017 by admin

    With the EU poised to introduce new far-reaching privacy laws, Blis group head Tom Gregory (pictured below) explores the knock-on effect this will have for advertisers and consumers, and how Aussie marketers can benefit from learning about the changes ahead of the curve.

    Tom Gregory

    Whilst it has not necessarily been headline news in Australia, in Europe the EU is currently poised to introduce new far-reaching privacy laws. Known as GDPR (General Data Privacy Regulation), these new laws seek to further secure consumer privacy in a rapidly evolving digital age. It’s major stuff, and the implementation and adoption is bound to have knock-on effects for marketers and advertisers around the world. These changes light the way for future Australian regulation, and smart marketers will start learning about them sooner rather than later.

    Firstly, don’t panic. Overall commentary expects the net effects of the rule change to be positive for the advertising industry. And importantly, even with Brexit looming, the UK has decided it will adopt the GDPR. This decision indicates the laws are widely held to be a positive step, and serves as a likely roadmap for where Australian regulation will head in future. This begs the questions: where are we now? What might change? And why should you care?

    The GDPR will give consumers much more control over how their personal data is handled by all companies. The biggest changes centre around making sure users are equipped with ample information to give ‘informed consent’ to publishers seeking to pass personal information into the advertising ecosystem. Put simply, digital publishers and technology providers who have contact with consumers in the EU will have to spell out how they plan to use a consumer’s private information much more overtly than they do now, and consumers will have to actively accept these terms to authorise their information to be used for advertising purposes.

    While these changes may seem imposing, they will not alter how digital advertising operates. If anything, I believe that giving consumer more buy-in at the initial ‘consent phase’ may actually increase consumer engagement with the advertising they receive. This belief is supported by the results a recent mobile location study conducted on the London Tube. Transport for London (TFL) carefully implemented a mobile listening campaign to assess things like how to improve traffic flow and potential advertising solutions. When they surveyed tube commuters about how they felt about their data being captured, those surveyed indicated they were much more ok with sharing data if it was an “informed decision”. And while there was apprehension about sharing mobile location data (largely owing to its newness), the TFL study concluded that once customers were aware of how it worked and how it stood to benefit them, they would be much more accepting*.

    The aim has always been a fair value exchange between publisher and consumer, and modern trends show consumers are enthusiastic about enhanced levels of personalisation. Giving consumers increased empowerment over the level of personalisation they receive will likely prove a positive step. Additionally, most adtech providers already operate to a high standard when it comes to protecting privacy, and the new laws will complement existing global efforts.

    The new EU test for consent has four key features: consent has to be freely given, it has to be informed, it has to be unambiguous, and it has to be specific. At the moment, global consent standards around personal information don’t have to pass such a stringent set of standards. The aim of these new definitions is to secure the consumer’s right to give ‘informed consent’. Australian marketers will be best served to monitor the success of these definitions when they come into full effect in the EU in May 2018.

    Recently, mobile location data has taken centre stage in the battle for privacy, and with good reason. Location data is one of the strongest indicators of interest and intent, and the majority of consumers already consent share personal information, including location, with app publishers and alike. With mobile media ecosystems continuing to mature, the volume and accuracy of location data continues to multiply. And while the new laws may alter the way information is passed into the advertising bid stream that Blis works with, they largely fit into the independent standards most ad tech players, including Blis, already adhere to.

    As it stands, the Australian location marketing arena already has high standards of government and industry-imposed regulation. Encouragingly, I regularly have conversations with clients about the nature of the data we use, and how we keep things from going ‘big brother’. I thought I’d share the measures already in place.

    Broadly, many programmatic mobile companies are concerned with two key areas:

    1. Intrusiveness: does the amount of data gathered to make a mobile ad relevant to the user make it intrusive? Or are we enriching the user mobile experience by serving them a better standard of advertising?
    2. Anonymity: is targeting a mobile device the same as targeting a mobile phone number? Does knowing one piece of information create a domino effect with other data set? And does that compromise the user’s anonymity to an inappropriate degree?

    Most independent location data technology companies, including Blis, don’t deal in PII (personal pdentifiable information). They work in ‘Non-PII’, and that means separating the user’s online and real-world behaviour from their identity. In short, location data technology businesses don’t gather or collect information like people’s names, phone number or address.

    The geolocation data we use at Blis is proprietary, and makes up a core part of our market offering. This data is also Non-PII, so while we know physically where people are, we don’t know physically who they are. That’s a very important distinction, and one that preserves the anonymity of the consumers stored in our location technology stack.

    While I believe the current regulations are strong, I also think there is always room to make things better, for both consumers and advertisers.

    Australia has traditionally been happy to follow the world’s lead on non-urgent policy matters, and consumer privacy could prove no exception, so Australian marketers would do well to look abroad for hints on what could be heading our way. Although imposing on first look, the GDPR in the EU and UK will be a positive step for those advertising markets, and I would welcome similar regulation in Australia. Local advertising and privacy standards are already high, but consumer protection is always worthy of vigilance.

    This article originally appeared on B&T.

  10. ‘Premium’ has become one of the most overused words in the industry

    August 3, 2017 by admin

    Recently I was attending a panel event featuring a self-described ‘premium publisher’ – whose claim to that title seemed to hinge on them simply being expensive and exclusive. Disappointed with the ensuing discussion, it did occur to me that ‘premium’ has become one of the most overused and least understood terms in the industry.

    The big problem with the word is that it has become shorthand for expensive instead of delivering value. As an industry, we’ve overused the term on so many different fronts that it has lost its meaning: premium partners, premium technology, premium networks.

    We either need to drop it altogether, or agree that there are a multitude of elements which contribute to something being considered ‘premium’, in which cost may (or may not) feature. With the word now so common, there’s an opportunity for brand marketers to start adopting the definition that works best for them.

    Premium should be the term for the cumulative effect of certain criteria being met, based on an individual campaign’s goals. Are your ads brand safe? How transparent are the results? Are they third-party verified, and fundamentally, are you reaching your target audience in a creative and quality environment? A diligent answer to these questions is what should have been under discussion last week. Alarm bells should be ringing if an advertiser can’t answer these questions confidently.

    In corporate terms, a premium is defined as ‘the amount to be paid for coverage under an insurance contract’. The recent discourse around brand safety and viewability make this definition a good place to start for marketers wanting to make up their own mind. Masthead publishers offer insurance against brand calamity where other corners of the digital ecosystem have been known to struggle. They also offer peace of mind around baseline performance metrics. But beyond looking at premium from a ‘brand insurance’ point of view, the definition of one of the media industry’s favourite words becomes a lot more subjective.

    A premium environment can mean two vastly different things when you compare the challenges of marketing luxury cars versus selling toothpaste. The first requires targeted media buying across selected publications in a contextually relevant environment. The second requires massive low-cost scale across readily available ad inventory. Totally different marketing goals should therefore mean an equally variable notion of premium.

    The digital ecosystem now offers an unbelievable level of diversity of publishers, formats and partnerships with third-party verification services. And the technology to prove the effectiveness of innovative digital strategies is more accurate than ever. Given these points, it makes sense for quality to be measured on a scale, rather than as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and for the parameters of the measure to differ depending on the needs and expectations of the brand. We don’t accept a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to media strategy, so why are we doing so when it comes to measuring the quality of media purchased within that plan?

    This notion of quality measured against individual need could replace the industry’s current obsession with the term ‘premium’. Third party verification technology from providers like Moat and Integral Ad Science exist to help marketers discover if they’re getting value from their strategy.

    This technology is continuously improving to adapt to new innovations in the market. Trying new things and stepping away from established campaign strategies no longer means flying blind, and marketers need to recalibrate their own measures of success to figure out what kind of media is going to drive the best value for them.

    Whether it’s marketing luxury cars or toothpaste, the definition of premium already varies wildly. Why then does our industry use one term to evaluate all brands and environments? A steadfast definition of premium isn’t universally feasible, but whatever it denotes, it cannot merely reflect an expensive price tag. It’s time we got real and started talking about what quality means to our individual marketing strategies.

    This article originally appeared on Mumbrella Asia.