John Oliver

Hidden Fees.

Hidden FeesSo the ANA just dropped the other shoe.  But it looks like it’s falling right on the toes of the marketers themselves.

Last month in this space I posted “End of Days,” about the scathing 58-page report the ANA commissioned and released on the bad behavior and lack of transparency across ad agencies.  Now comes the second phase of the report, with a title that had to be written by a committee:  “Media Transparency: Prescriptions, Principles, and Processes for Advertisers.”  Since the name of the report sounds like such a snooze, let me sum it all up quickly:

#caveatemptor – let the buyer beware.

This week’s Drift is proudly underwritten by AppNexus. The AppNexus Publisher Suite helps maximize monetization for Publishers today with tomorrow’s technology through integrated, intelligent, and open ad serving and programmatic selling solutions.

The inescapable conclusion here is that it’s up to the marketers themselves to police what they’re paying for and what they’re getting.  As AdExchanger put it so succinctly, “While advertisers believe their agencies are obliged to act in their best interests, agencies largely see their duties within the scope of a contract.” In other words, you can forget all that “partner” bullshit: the agency is running a business and does not infer a fiduciary responsibility to the customer.

The inclusion and emphasis on “fiduciary” is mine, and it’s an intentional bridge to the currently-broken relationship between consumers and financial advisers.  In case you missed it, national treasure John Oliver served up a breathtaking analysis of the hidden fees that are loaded into the typical investor relationship on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight.”  Most consumers wrongly infer that their financial analyst (or financial adviser or financial consultant or wealth manager or…there are a bunch of these) has a fiduciary duty to act in the investors best interests.  But when you read the fine print, only a very select and legally explicit subset of these advisers do.  It’s up to the consumer to ask hard questions, never assume anything, and ultimately take responsibility for what they are buying.

And so it is with marketers.  Who is going to help those marketers buy, inspect and verify the true and valuable audiences in which they’re investing their shareholders money…now that’s another story.  Will it be the same agencies and buying groups they savaged just four weeks ago?  Or is there an opportunity for publishers, technology and service companies to step into the void?  The answer may characterize what the buying of media looks like for at least the next decade.

Native vs. Naive.

TOSHIBA Exif JPEGLots of hate brewing lately for native advertising.  We’ve all seen John Oliver’s hilarious 12 minute rant on his HBO show, “Last Week Tonight.”  More recently, on Digiday, we learn – courtesy of JWT Atlanta’s Todd Copilevitz – that “Native advertising is further proof we’ve lost our way.”

I’m going to shortchange Todd’s otherwise thoughtful commentary by pointing out what I think are its wobbliest pillars.  The first is contained in the headline:  the idea that advertising and media ever really had a “way” to lose in the first place.  The old rules about church and state worked about as well on Madison Avenue as they did in Tudor England.   Advertisers have been trying to crowd the lines and occupy the editorial and entertainment spaces since long before Don Draper was shaking down patrons for change in that Pennsylvania whorehouse of his youth.

This week’s Drift is proudly underwritten by Adroit Digital.  Adroit Digital unlocks the combined power of unique data, media and technology to deliver intelligent performance.  Our programmatic experts leverage our proprietary dataset and media-buying savvy to create results driven programs for modern marketers. Adroit Digital’s experts help agencies and brands craft solutions to the challenges facing today’s multi-channel advertisers.

The article also calls for a re-commitment to our various roles in the mix:   advertisers make great brands and products, editors write great articles, while agency creatives pen masterful ad messages. But this agreement that we’d all stay in our lanes and swim our hardest was, in truth, nothing more than a convenience.  That advertising would live in little fenced-off pods and boxes while content would stay outside those lines was simply a delivery arrangement; in the world of TV it’s still a darned good one.  Online we’ve seen the rapid commoditization of those pods and boxes matched by consumers studied willingness to ignore and avoid them.  So the arrangement breaks down more rapidly.  No big surprise.

A third point in the piece is that marketers and agencies are just not doing a good enough job of storytelling.  This is a myth we’ve told ourselves about advertising for generations, and we’ve embellished it with creative award shows and the annual Super Bowl beauty pageant.  There are some ads that are more clever than others, but what it comes down to is just whether they are effective (or not) at doing what they’re supposed to do.  Storytelling is far too big a concept to be contained in banner ads, 30-second spots and full page ads.  Marketers will use every channel available – packaging, publicity, events, public relations, retailer relationships, infomercials and, yes, native advertising.

Todd is right in saying that native isn’t a brand new concept.  But it is a timely acknowledgment and codification of a practice that’s going to be increasingly needed in today’s asymmetrical world of marketing and media.