Ad Agency Commission and the Rise of the Media Black Market

The fundamental problem with the fee structure of ad agency compensation today is that it is uncompetitive with the commission structure that is at work supporting and enriching the new media economy. In the hands of ad agencies, client objectives are being overwhelmed by the cacophony of the marketplace. New media today is a black market of countless, non-indentured providers that are trafficking inventory, harvesting data and pocketing half. Ad agencies, still the guardians of client briefs and objectives, are being forced to join-in or risk extinction – unless we fix agency comp.

Go back to 1994, around the time former Procter & Gamble CEO, Ed Artz, delivered his speech to the 4As’ Annual Meeting warning of a fragmented media world, and focus on media as it existed then. The remote control, the VCR and console gaming had breached the wall.

In 1994 it was clear that media was losing its grip on audiences. A few years further down the road senior executives at leading magazine and newspaper companies would face serious inquiry into the falsification of circulation data. Broadcast had fragmented into cable. Two newspaper towns were down to one newspaper towns. Accumulating enough reach and frequency against key target audiences was increasingly a problem for the world’s major marketers.

Media value was in question and, therefore, advertising value was in question. Indeed, for nearly a decade, since the mid- to late-80s, media owners and ad agencies had been gripping the handle of a pointed stick together in order to fend off the total loss of confidence among the paying community of marketers. Magazine and newspaper open-rates for advertising were largely fictitious; discounts were 50%. Added-value benefits – trips, bonus circulation, events, trade show support and distribution, cross-media deals – attached themselves to media proposals as value supplements.

By 1994 marketers were aggressively segmenting their product lines into vertical units befitting the special interests of consumers and their desire for personal choice. Mass marketing, it was being pointed out at the time, was over. New media solutions to align with those changes, however, were not apparent and Mr. Artz came before the ad agency industry to worry aloud. He never said anything about the Internet.

One year later, there it was. But, born into a time of crisis, the Internet is a war baby. It has grown-up subject to the privations of a cautious and suspicious generation and at 15 years-old, instead of being marked by charm and confidence indicating it is ready to meet the needs of a hungry market, it is conflicted and unsure of what experienced generations demand.

The question becomes, who is accountable for that answer? Who should be helping the Internet – and new media, generally – find its way?

Consciously or not, Ed Artz understood it must be the ad agencies. Agencies must serve as the primary care-giver of media for the reasons that agencies occupy the middle ground with a need to satisfy in both directions. The life of the client is devoted to sales – theirs. Media is similarly self-absorbed, intent on audiences. Only ad agencies are positioned for the balancing act that can bring media into mature partnership with the rest of the marketing world.

Sadly, they can’t afford it. They are fee-based providers in a commission-driven world. As such, the complexities that require people to help build media reach and frequency models that result in competitive advantages for advertisers have strained the ability of most agencies to take full advantage of the opportunity online. The result is a “sameness” today - influenced by automation and driven by price - that pervades new media planning and buying. “Sameness” leads to talk about continued ad agency relevance and doom, while the role of buying and selling and sometimes producing advertising in the new media economy is spirited away by third-parties without obligation to the past – or, really, to the future. New media, therefore, remains conflicted and progress on the important consumer brand questions that Ed Artz put on the table over 15 years ago remains in low gear. And that’s the important part: namely, that progress on the business of brand marketers remains in low gear with the danger that brands, themselves, will get dragged under by media “sameness”.

All that said, we can rely on the fact that the relentless grinding of the marketplace will correct for the excess present in today’s fee-based agency compensation structures. We can, if we decide, do nothing. Change will come as surely as it’s come before. Indeed, change is coming as this one piece of commentary combined with many others on the subject of agency comp (see also this week’s “Agency Issue” from Advertising Age) attests. Change is coming as the rise of Demand Side Networks and their partner platforms show, which afford agencies the chance to mimic successful commercial behaviors online. Change is coming as the ascension of digital media specialists to Chief Executive role inside the agencies confirms. And, yes, the market is growing.  Change is coming.

From here, it will depend on how we want change to occur – transparently, or not; in mysterious increments, or not; quickly, or not. It stands to reason that brand marketers are opposed to opportunity that sits on the shelf. Which of them will reach up and grab it, and when.

Rage Against the Machine: The Role of Online Verification Services in Media Planning?

I have had my first look at some of the output of the verification companies (e.g. Double Verify, AdSafe, etc.) and the results confirm what can happen living in a world dominated by Machines. The Internet, we must concede, may not be for every brand under the sun. New media, generally, is not for the faint of heart. For those brands that choose to follow consumers deeper into the woods of online, its clear from the first pass of the Machines that there will be no substitute for the hard work of media planning.

Here’s a partial list of the offensive categories that showed-up on the list of one of the providers (which will remain nameless evaluating Burst Network inventory:

                Weapons – Journals and blogs

                UGC – Forums, Gossip, Journals and blogs

                Adult Content – Nudity/Partial Nudity, UGC

                Violence – Sports

                Religion – Kids

                Adult Content – Nudity/Partial nudity, Profanity

                UGC – Forums, Games, Journals and Blogs

                UGC – Images, Humor

                Adult Content – Nudity, Partial Nudity, Journals

                Religion – Arts & Culture, General News, Sports

This is just the first 10 offending categories on a list of about 140. It’s pretty repetitive. These 10 basically set the tone and serve as generic labels assigned to most web site infractions. There are thematic variations: adult content can apply to nudity or alternative lifestyle, partial nudity or sex education or gossip. No category of UGC appears safe. It applies to everything: images, blogs, journals, entertainment, forums, games, humor, sports, technology, arts & culture, travel, chat, General news, etc., etc (basically, the World Wide Web).  Religion has harmful sub-categories. On the list in front of me Religion attaches to Kids (see above), plus Arts & Culture and Sports & News. Once or twice Sex Education shows-up as a category apart from Adult Content. I don’t know why.

Without argument, the list and its permutations corresponds to all the scary things under the bed when it comes to thinking about safe advertising environments. But this is why some clinicians will tell you not to make any important decisions at night. At night, in the dark (that’s a good metaphor here) we are not always rational.

Let’s look at the top 10 again and plug in the offending sites as they were picked-up by this particular verification sweep of Burst Network:

Web Site                                                             Infraction

www.blademag.com                                              Weapons

www.bossip.com                                            Adult Content

www.videocure.com                                    Adult Content

www.eastsideboxing.com                          Violence

www.dltk-bible.com                                     Religion – Kids

www.keenspot.com                                      Adult content

www.runehq.com                                          UGC – Forums

www.icanhascheezburger.com                UGC – Images

www.villagevoice.com                                Adult content

www.yappi.com                                             Religion 

Taking a closer look at the “offenders”:

Blade Magazine (www.blademag.com) is about knives – big, ugly-looking, mostly hunting knives. They are Weapons, for sure. Blademag.com is the online home of Blade Magazine, owned by FW Media, one of the largest specialty magazine publishers in the country. FW also publishes Gun Digest, plus magazines on Fine Arts, Crafts, Design, Automotive and more. Blademag.com is one of our “traditional” media publishers.

By coincidence, another one, the venerable Village Voice, was caught in the trap for “Adult Content”. Frankly, I’m sure they could be guilty, but I couldn’t find evidence on the web site – which was never a problem with the print property, where a quick turn to the back of the newspaper was a merry romp through the seedy under-belly of New York nightlife.

Yappi.com was nabbed for Religion. I’m sure they’re not guilty. Yappi is an online community for high school sports in Ohio. There is no adult content. There are, however, a couple of Catholic Schools in Ohio, the religious sounding names of which, I suspect, may have contributed to the Religious infraction detected by the Machines.

Dltk-bible.com was also caught-up in the Religion dragnet. They are clearly guilty. There is a lot on the DLTK site about bible crafts for kids, bible poems, bible coloring books, and the like. Overall, “DLKT Crafts for Kids” is a site for kids (and their mothers) that is full of creative things to do in a variety of categories, religion included. There are so many things to do, in fact, that the site attracts nearly 350,000 unique users per day (that’s right, per day), though it is highly doubtful they are religious fanatics.

Keenspot.com is one of those sites that I just can’t get my head around: Web comics. My 15-year old son seems to love them. In all, Burst served over 300 million impressions to Keenspot last year. I don’t get it. No Adult Content in sight, however.

Bossip.com on the other hand is pretty steamy, but not enough, it appears, to get caught in the Adult Content nets of the Machines; instead, Bossip is guilty of gossip. And, boy, is it ever: lot’s of gossip. Bossip is all about African American pop culture and it is a busy, busy, happening place – about 1.5 million unique users per month.

East Side Boxing is about boxing. My grandfather use to lament the extent to which boxing had dissolved as a sport in this country. As a young boy he used to go with his father, a doctor, to the fights on Friday nights. I don’t know much about boxing, but East Side Boxing seems to be very deep on the subject, which probably has something to do with the over 100,000 unique users they reach every month. Boxing is violent, however, which someone has taught the Machines. Jolly good. Unfortunately, that hasn’t make them smart.

Videocure strikes me is a poor man’s YouTube. Same inane stuff. Different parents. Mostly music content that – yes – bumps and grinds to today’s beat and (sometimes explicit) lyrics. Unbelievably, Videocure has delivered 60,000,000 impressions to Burst so far this year. It’s a video thing. What can I say? Everybody seems to want it, including consumers.

Back to my 15-year old son. The good news is that I don’t shell out $5 a month anymore for Runescape, an immense online gaming environment to which I sometimes felt he was – shall we say – overly committed. Instead, it’s $15 a month to Blizzard Entertainment for the also immense World of Warcraft, to which he is definitely overly committed. RuneHQ reaches the overly committed users of Runescape, at the rate of roughly 1/2 million unique users per month. It’s UGC for sure and big – big – business. Advertisers trying to reach the ‘Tweens marketplace can do so on Runescape (and they should), but we know from experience that it’s tough to interact with them there given their deep engagement with the game. Places such as RuneHQ are a better option to try and cultivate awareness with this brand conscious, hard to reach segment. Ironically, the Machines aren’t much for virtual gaming environments.

My absolute favorite on this list is Icanhascheezburger.com. Nothing makes sense about this site, including the name. It is an Internet caricature: pictures of Cats. Thousands of them, updated almost every second it seems. Though it’s only evening, Icanhascheezburger.com has fetched over 1.5 million unique impressions today. It would be impolite to talk about the money, of course. Suffice to say, that if you are reading this post the owners of Icanhascheezburger make more than you do, whoever you are. Iams Premium Protection for Adult Cats (a P&G company) is running a campaign on the site, I notice. Maybe they would rather I didn’t point that out, but, clearly, Iams is not afraid of the Machines. It helps to be P&G.

(Pause…I know, it’s a long post…but it’s important to have some idea of the role these, and other web sites can play in people’s lives before getting on to the main points, which are as follows:)

Every media planning decision needs to be deliberate in order to take the fullest possible advantage of the media choices made by consumers. If media planning does not succeed at getting inside the head of consumers it leaves advertising value on the table. Nothing contributes more to making those connections than context – i.e., matching advertising with media content.

I have known my fair share of cat lovers and I have listened to their cat stories. I involuntarily move away from them, though I had a cat for 17 years and buried it under the rose arbor in my garden after it died, and I still talk to it while pulling weeds and pruning shrubs nearby. Iams Premium Protection for Adult Cats is absolutely right to be present as a partner in the lives of cat lovers at icanhascheezeburger.com and I defy any general interest pet portal magazine or animal TV situation to provide a more immersive media opportunity to the national, $14 billion pet food category. It’s all thanks to UGC.

But Internet advertising isn’t for everyone. In which case, with respect to the verification “obfuscation” services, stay away. Don’t walk around on egg shells, wincing and peeking-out from behind a Machine. The angst isn’t credible, anyway – not in a world that features reality TV like “Addicted”, or the soft-porn of day-time soaps, or gossip TV morning news programs, or the hand guns and semi-automatic guns and hunting knives that fill each programming day – all 24 Hours of it.

If that sounds harsh, really, it’s a working partnership gesture to the planners and buyers acting – as we say – deliberately with regards to their media choices. They are trying. And many companies are trying back. Burst Media, for one, can help with evaluating web site opportunities, site by site, from a catalogue of over 4,000 vertical niche properties in the Long Tail of the Internet in order to build custom, transparent, what-you-see-is-what-you-wanted programs, complete with all manner of creative reinforcements. But we recognize that for some the authentic, UGC-driven texture of our media offering – or any similar online offering – may not be Machine-ready compared to the softer production tones of the rampant sex and violence offline. In which case, buyers have the right to stay behind with those offline opportunities. It is perhaps a better choice for them to do so until the sensibilities of advertising decision-makers change, like the sensibilities of every generation of decision-maker have changed before. Once upon a time, after all, Elvis could only be filmed from the waist-up.  

As for the non-deliberative set of buyers – the blind purchasers, if you will – we assume, along with everyone else, that they don’t really want to know – which is another way of saying we assume they don’t want to pay for the value of knowing. I don’t know where they think they’ve been getting all the traffic to fuel results at $1.00 per thousand, but I’m confident we’ve cared more about it than they have over the years, and have spared them a great deal of too violent, sexy, UGC gossip.

As a final note, looking at the list in front of me, let me point out to the listening Machine audience that the CSMonitor.com is not a Religious web site even though it’s short for Christian Science Monitor. It is a very secular property. We are proud to represent it when we can and to support it with our ad management technology.

Machines, are you listening?

The story of The Monitor, by the way, which has won seven Pulitzer Prizes over the years that I can count, goes something like this (from the web site):

“It is 1907. An elderly New England woman finds herself being targeted by Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. She is 86 years old and holds some unconventional religious beliefs that she expounds in a book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The book becomes a bestseller, making her wealthy and a well-known public figure.

The New York World decides she is incapable of managing her own affairs and persuades some of her friends and her two sons to sue for control of her estate. Although Boston and New Hampshire newspapers and major wire services interview this woman and find her competent, the New York World is unrelenting. The lady in question finally is taken to court where the case against her is dropped.

And the next year this woman, Mary Baker Eddy, founds The Christian Science Monitor.

Given her experience with the press, it is not all that surprising that she sets as the Monitor’s goal ‘to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.’ In one of life’s little ironies, Joseph Pulitzer went on to endow the Pulitzer prizes for journalistic excellence.”

Doesn’t that make you smile? It’s a great new media story.

Wired.com reports 26% of mobile users coming through iPad. Very interesting.

Now this is interesting: Media Bistro’s Morning News Feed points to a story in Wired.com that reports 26% of the mobile devices accessing Wired.com are coming from the iPad.

 

Also interesting, reporter Dylan Tweney points out this is happening despite the fact that Wired.com has relied mostly on an Adobe Flash-based player for video which iPad doesn’t support. They are addressing that at Wired.com, beginning with the Homepage, which became iPad-compatible this week. Good plan, it would appear.

One could expect that Wired.com readers would be preternaturally inclined toward iPads. Equally, however, one could expect they would be uncompromising with regard to the incompatability of iPad’s video architecture. Meaning, if there are to be any iPad burnings down the road they might start with Wired.com’s dedicated audience.

So, this is interesting. Let’s see what next month’s mobile accessing numbers looks like, post Wired.com player updates.  

Interesting.

Ad Networks or Content sites? Content or Data? Confused? Listen to the Crowds.

If you weren’t paying attention you might be confused. Or, maybe you are paying attention and you’re still confused. Or, maybe in your confusion you’ve decided to quit paying attention and watch for signs of warmer weather.

Just in case, there is an interesting juxtaposition today in Ad Age between research from Advertiser Perceptions that reports marketers are accelerating the shift back to content sites for media buys (“Marketers Shifting Online Budgets to Content Sites”), and a column from investment banker Tolman Geffs arguing instead that the momentum is with the audience networks (“Get Ready for the Coming Land War in Online Display Ads”).

Says researcher Advertiser Perceptions:

A survey of agencies and marketers revealed that 52% of them plan to spend more on content sites this year, whereas only 35% said they were likely to increase budgets for ad networks. 

Says banker Tolman Geffs:

Online display, primarily a brand advertising medium (as measured by revenue), has traditionally been sold on the basis of sites and specific media placements, or via ad networks that aggregate sites into vertical channels. Now, with the evolution of online ad targeting techniques and the rapid growth of a market for consumer targeting data, it is increasingly common to sell advertising on the basis of audience, reaching individual web users based on specific data about that user.

Confused?

It might help to read the comments that followed each post.

In response to the Advertiser Perceptions piece the commentor wrote:

“I would hope that we don’t actually have to explain to marketers why it’s a better opportunity to surround yourself with good content rather than just a cheap spray and pray methodology… But… The reality is, I don’t believe that most of the agencies who have recently incorporated “digital” into their titles or their top-level pitches are actually staffed to be able to support content direct buys. This is why the networks will continue to thrive, is b/c it’s “easier” on the agencies and their wallets. If I owned a content site or portal, I’d do the same thing as ESPN and the others, and I’d ban all network based ads and force agencies to do a better job or at least properly staff up. That being said – content sites better be prepared to show ROI – whether it be brand or actual sales, or they will lose out faster than before… “

And in response to Tolman Geffs:

“You are right, it is a crowded space. (It does not take a genius to figure that out.) This game of musical chairs is not going to result in a wave of consolidation, it will result in a return to the fundamentals of media – content, audience and advertiser. The agencies have the revenue, the publisher has the content and the consumer is in control. When everyone decides to take their bat and ball home with them, these middlemen are going to be left with aging IP that does not generate revenue.”

It is wise in this case to listen to the wisdom of the crowds, starting with the need to fix agency compensation. Then perhaps, we can focus on value.

Neilsen and Facebook get together on research, but where’s the insight and vision?

Turning to Ad Age today, first I read a commentary piece by marketing consultant, Jonathan Salem Basking, titled, “The Case for Less Data and More Vision.” He wrote:

“There’s a premise underlying the ongoing pressure for CMOs to use new tools to recognize and report digital information. You and your agencies probably see it as a way to find proof for your sincere notions about branding and the value of engagement. I worry that many bosses or clients might look at the premise differently. What if it’s a plot to confirm their longstanding suspicions about marketing?”

Hmmm…And, he continued:

“…take a moment and consider your reliance on data. The word has become de rigueur for marketers, like it has some generic, absolute value. Only it doesn’t. Just because we have the mechanical wherewithal to measure clicks, seconds expended or sentiments expressed doesn’t mean that doing so tells us anything about what’s really going on.”

Hmmm…Further evidence, I thought, that Marketing is pushing back against the Numerati. Good.

Then, over to coverage about Facebook and Neilsen and the results of their six month research project to understand the value of social media (“Neilsen: Facebook Ads Work Pretty Well”). After surveying 800,000 people the study had this to say:

• An ad on the home page of Facebook raises ad recall and awareness in the market by 10% and 4% respectively;
• Ad recall jumps to 16% when friends that are brand friends are mentioned in the advertising people see, with favorable results attaching to other brand measures (such as awareness) as well;
• In all, Neilsen estimates 18 million Facebook users were exposed to the advertising being tested of which only 130,000 engaged by clicking on the ads. That is, less than 1%. Again, click-through rates were better when friends were mentioned.

One could summarize those findings this way:

• It pays to advertise;
• Word of mouth still rules. Ergo, keep brand promises;
• 18 million users later we must accept that at any given moment 99% of them are not going to be in the mood.

Rex Briggs, CEO of Marketing Evolution, who has been researching online advertising effectiveness longer than anyone else, calls the home page advertising results “unremarkable and in line with banner advertising (generally).” Per the above, it pays to advertise. He’s intrigued with everyone else by the affect friends can have on advertising measures. But, word of mouth, it is known, is hard. The Ad Age report observes that, “[it's] still a lot easier — if not necessarily cheaper — to buy scale on Facebook than earn it by winning fans.” And, says Ad Age, the results indicate to John Gibbs, VP of Media Analytics at Neilsen, “that marketers need to focus on winning Facebook fans over the long haul if they want to improve their odds of success when advertising there.”            

Back to Jonathan Basking and, I think, what part of the Facebook/Neilsen study wasn’t known to us already, plus or minus a percentage point or two? If you run 18 million impressions on one of the world’s largest media outlets today what affect do you suppose there is going to be on brand advertising measures? Some affect, at least, let’s just say. And if you should find a way to invoke the good opinion of someone else with regards to your product what incremental affect do you suppose there is going to be on brand advertising measures? Some incremental affect, let’s just say. And at the end of the day what will matter most to the power of the brand to invoke those mentions? Its promises, let’s just say.

So, where are the marketing insights here? Where is the vision? Facebook and Neilsen have brought us news of the obvious. Why? Was that necessary? 

Why?

“…You can see where this plot is going”, Mr Basking writes, “Your marketing is going to keep devolving into lots of numbers, most of which can be generated automatically and measure nothing.”

And the scary part, Basking says, “CMOs are doing it to themselves.”

Let’s Be CLEAR

Following through on the industry initiative sponsored by the IAB called CLEAR, in the next few days Burst Media will begin to roll-out an icon on advertising it serves which users can click in order to learn more about the targeting techniques that are contributing to the delivery of that ad. For anyone desiring to know more and/or desiring to opt-out of targeted advertising, links to additional resources will be available.

Transparency has been a core promise of the Burst brand to publishers and advertisers for the length of the Company’s 15-year history. The foundation of that promise has been the tenet that the right message, in the right place at the right time succeeds at drawing advertisers and consumers together around a common interest. It is an open and honest formula – appropriate advertising in the right place – and the super-abundance of niche content online means the ingredients are always present to allow consumers and advertisers the chance to get along by being, as it were, on the same page.  

Behavior targeting – an awful name, sounding like a dark art – derives from the initial meeting between consumer and advertiser at the right time and place. Really, we should call it Interest-Based targeting which at least communicates value to the consumer. The Internet excels at driving interest-based value for consumers. In this, it prevails over all other media: timely and relevant content and, by extension, the potential for relevant advertising to support that content. With the use of anonymous cookies the Internet can sustain for much longer the interest-based value of the advertising until, eventually, the initial connections dissolve away into the anonymous jungle of the marketplace. It helps the content producers, it helps the advertisers and, in the long run, it helps the consumers.

 Which is what we hope to make CLEAR.

Internet Media Value Does Not Require Further Integration

In a comprehensive piece in AdWeek (“Too Many Moving Parts”) reported by Brian Morrissey and Mike Shields probing the online advertising success (or not) that Google has had apart from search, there is this little quote from Barry Salzman, who is currently working as Google’s Head of Media and Platforms for the Americas (on the same problem he was working while Head of Global Media at DoubleClick). Barry says:

“The really exciting opportunity was to come to Google…to execute on the very early DoubleClick vision. That was about recognizing that the Internet was a medium that would deliver unprecedented media value only by integrating technology with that media offering.”

Others may swallow this sort of commentary effortlessly. I choke and gag.

What does it mean, “…a medium that would deliver unprecedented media value only by integrating technology with that media offering”?

“Only by integrating technology”?

“Only”?

What does that mean, “only by integrating technology”?

Does it mean the Internet’s media value remains dormant pending some further integration with technology above and beyond the technology that gave life to it among audiences in the first place (setting fire to millions of acres of valuable traditional media property in the process)?

Does it mean there are integration codes necessary to awaken Internet media value that will make it unprecedented compared to other media, but otherwise it’s not unprecedented and we should be surprised that audiences seem so fascinated by it 15 years later?

What “media value” are we talking about here?

That’s mostly a rhetorical question, of course. The value Barry Salzman has been trying to isolate for years is in the audience data. He is joined by countless others that insist on looking past the obvious for something unprecedented, such as advertising that comes with our name on it (which I still get in the mailbox and throw away every day at home). Elsewhere, for instance, Michael Katz, President of interClick, was responding to the stone-throwing between ad networks and publishers in Mediaweek by observing “…that the promise of digital advertising is very bright. It will be driven by the efficiency and accountability afforded by technical innovation;” which in his world means “…that data will bring about higher ad rates for more valuable audiences, which ultimately benefits the publishers.”

Evidently, the publishers aren’t buying it, at least judging from comments in the same Mediaweek article meant to clarify the position of some of them (TheStreet.com for instance) regarding the bright future offered by the innovation of ad networks:

“We have run into these issues with other networks as well. Moreover, we believe that many other publishers have faced these issues. We believe there may be widespread unethical behavior in this segment of the industry, which a public airing may help to remedy.”

Great. Oh so valuable.

Regulators and privacy advocates aren’t any more sympathetic: there were more wasteful lawsuits last week against Google, Yahoo! and others over behavior targeting practices.

So, what greater, “unprecedented media value” is being unlocked here, and is the noise it’s making from the other side of the door convincing us it sounds like a good idea?

How about we stop fishing in our pockets for the keys and get comfortable with the media value of the Internet as it exists right now, on this side of the door, as furnished by all of the relevant content. Such value made the Internet big with audiences. Harvesting such value made Google rich. Promoting such value has been the simple desire of all web publishers. Sinking into such value offers visible comfort for all.

Accordingly, from his respected perch atop the Internet kingdom Barry Salzman might be inclined to say, “The really exciting opportunity was to come to Google recognizing that the Internet was a medium that would deliver unprecedented media value.”

Meaning, it comes integrated into the lives of audiences. Value included.

Super-brand Ad Networks

Let’s leave aside all the competitive clamoring for a moment and focus purely on the good ideas. Here’s one: super-brand ad networks as described by Cameron Hulett at Accleration Media in the U.K. in a post on the IAB U.K.’s web site. He proposes that, “publishers with strong brands – super-brands – should consider building their own ad networks.”

Russ Fradin, CEO at Adify, has written a lot about this notion since launching his company to build vertical ad networks in 2005. Collective Media, mentioned in Hulett’s article, also has a network building business; and, of course, so does Burst. We got into licensing our adConductor technology platform with the launch of the TACODA Audience Network several years ago and support several (super) brand media networks today.

There a good commercial reasons to help media brands build ad networks, a view our competitors obviously share. We make money working for companies that might not otherwise hire Burst to sell advertising through its proprietary network businesses.  And, in many cases, at least here, we get to rub shoulders with the high and mighty in the media world, which we like to think helps polish our own brand.

Secretly, however, there is better reason for us, or anyone, to be staunch advocates of ad network building among media brands (call them “super-brands” if it helps differentiate them from the plethora of other third-party ad networks out there): it makes significant, positive use of online media. Branded vertical networks align perfectly with the consumer value of the Internet, which is relevant content, and with the business reality, which is the dissolution of the protective barriers to entry that exist offline.

Mr. Hulett’s proposal is really, therefore, an imperative. “Super-brands” must either find ways to build networks online or simply revert to smaller, leaner versions of their offline selves – an utterly boring prospect, for sure, within a rich, expanding new media environment; but utterly necessary within a traditional media environment, whether print or broadcast. Traditional media either gets smaller and more relevant offline, or bigger and more relevant online. Bigger and more relevant online happens only one way: through distribution.

Here’s the important part (before anyone starts chortling about misfit media brands): if the super-brands don’t get into the vertical ad network business it may mean prolonged hardship and even doom for the rest of us, both buyers and sellers. The new media economy sits in suspended animation while traditional media – the only constituency with adequate reserves of trust built-up over years among advertisers and even some consumers – figures it out. All the talk of woe and irresolution and complexity that still rattles around the Internet advertising community is a direct result of waiting while traditional media works on its problems. We wait while, first, they experiment with stickiness, then personalization, then push technology, then “anonymous” third-party networks, then widgets, now social networking and video and soon, pay walls. All the while the industry waits for the “All Clear” sound. It waits until, eventually, perhaps with the rise of interactive Cable TV, the Internet’s first mover advantage is gone and the new media train leaves the station.

It is easy to avoid being left on the platform, but it means the super-brands must get on board.