Even if OPA publishers won’t listen to Jim Spanfeller, there are many others online that will, if invited.

You can say this about Jim Spanfeller, the outgoing CEO of Forbes.com: he’s straight-forward. There’s very little ambiquity in his piece in Paid Content yesterday, titled “Publishers Are Killing Web Advertising’s Potential With Misguided Pricing,” which concludes by saying “When it’s all said and done, there really is no remnant inventory on the web, just as there is little to no real remnant inventory elsewhere.” Jim is exhorting web publishers not to give away value by entrusting it to the “invisible” hand of third-parties.

Jim is Chair Emeritus of IAB and Treasurer of OPA, and - knowing that -we’re conscious that his exhortations are largely directed at the branded media-types with whom he spends most of his time. But his message applies to all serious web publishers, not just OPA publishers, which is why the OPA could help itself and many others by acknowledging the content value that extends deep into the long tail of the Internet. It failed to do this with its recent study “Improving ad performance online” (about which there has been plenty to say in this space) and Jim slipped past the chance again in his Paid Content commentary yesterday when he said the OPA study ”shows the far greater value in buying ad programs directly from publishers” - a problematic, and somewhat suspicious claim to the vast majority of publishers online without salespeople of their own.  

Buying directly from publishers is not a media value proposition. Buying the value of content, and the audience it attracts, is a media proposition.

Jim Spanfeller is deeply committed to media value and were he invited to speak right at this point he (and possibly also the agents at OPA responsible for their recent study) might hasten to add to his comments that yes, yes, of course, it’s about content and the audience it attracts. But, he’d argue, ad networks and other third-parties aren’t capable of that for publishers. Indeed, in most cases, they are prevented from doing so because they are restricted from guaranteeing web sites and positions. Many of them are blind. So, selling the value of the web site is actually antithetical to their offering and they, along with participating publishers are “killing web advertising’s potential.”

Indeed, it’s a shame, but as it turns out the online system has evolved with a built-in value cap; a governor that keeps the Internet motor from racing.  And, it’s hard to rail against those market forces as Jim Spanfeller is conscientiously doing in order to remove the governor and change behaviors. 

To succeed, you need leverage which has been the point in taking aim at the OPA study released two weeks ago that failed to differentiate among ad networks, or other third-parties that sell value, or offer a nod to thousands of independent web publishers who don’t have their own salespeople, but surely have their own audiences! These publishers can provide leverage to the media value argument online with their passion - as partners, members of a branded content network, or simply (affordable) dues payers.

It’s been said here to anybody who will listen: imagine an OPA (or IAB, or party-to-be-named-later) Annual Meeting 10 years from now with 10,000 people attending, mostly publishers. Think MacWorld. Maybe the Javits Center in New York will hold them. All of them excited to be there to talk about publishing issues. All of them with stories to tell about how their web site is different  and makes a difference. All of them intimidated by the very big Time Warner booth with an invitation over top that reads “Be Part Of The Biggest Content Network in the World!”; all of them whispering as Tim Armstrong walks by; all of them standing in line at the Google booth (“Why Paid Search Still Works For You!”); all of them sitting with their arms folded across their chest listening critically to the panel of senior ad agency executives talking about partnership and performance. Maybe twenty-five hundred of them in the audience blogging and Tweeting and whatever-elsing as the Global Agency Director General of All Things Bright and Beautiful rumbles on about the importance of partnership and performance “with all of you of who are so closely connected to the audiences online that are our most important customers.” 

That’s leverage.

Even if OPA publishers won’t listen to Jim Spanfeller there are many, many others that will. And they can help, if invited.

The Online Publishers Association vs. the Internet: next steps.

Over at the Big Picture blog, Daniel Taylor comments on the inquiry into the indifference of the OPA to the rest of the Internet world. Basically, he asks, what’s the rest of the Internet planning to do about it?

Good question.

It may interest him to know that a few years ago a group of us did, in fact, think about founding a separate trade association to represent the interests of, as he says, “the little guys.” (I used to hate that term because it’s not accurate in regards to many, many web sites out there; but now I’ve grown to like it. There’s something appealing about being on the side of the little guys, even when they might be big.) We were drivers of that initiative at Burst, but then we moved on to other things, and it lost its energy.

Daniel is right, however, it was bound to happen and we did see it coming when we tried to organize. Large publishers would have found a third-party to substantiate their “superior” claims vs. the rest of the marketplace. As I said in the Ad Age piece, these sorts of studies are instruments of state propaganda. We get it. So, logically, next we’re going to rally to produce a study that challenges the OPA claims, and we can have a fair fight back and forth.

Some of the first people we may call to work with us on that study are OPA dues-paying supporters ($5,250 annually), many of which – interestingly – are ad networks: 24/7 Real Media, Collective Media and Tremor Media, for example, along with other ad network enablers such as Ad Meld, PubMatic and Rubicon. Many of those, and many others, celebrate the fact that their networks are rich in OPA member inventory, which explains why they are OPA supporters. We work with Rubicon. We also work with Short Tail Media, another OPA supporter, which is a customer of Burst’s adConductor platform and launched with the intention to help OPA members kick the ad network habit by being the partner of choice for the OPA. We’re rooting for them, naturally.

For starters, as we design our study, we’ll want to understand the implications of the OPA study as it pertains to the value of the inventory they re-purpose through their ad network supporters. Most of those networks bill it as “premium” inventory, but it is probably regarded as scrap, or remnant, by the members themselves. Keeping things apples to apples, our study will want to strictly compare the value of the proprietary inventory of vertical niche web sites to the proprietary inventory of the OPA’s members and not – thank you very much - to the remnant stuff they send to ad networks and which they’ve just shot to hell with their study.

I am confident of the results of our study. It won’t be a hatchet job on branded web sites, however. We expect to be able to show that the abiding relationship audiences have with online media, that is of premium value to advertisers, is derived substantially from relevant and timely content. We expect to show, further, that it does not grow on trees; rather, it comes from publishers that know and care. In the end, we will show that there are many, many, many who know and care online, even some of those at OPA web sites for whom it’s just a job.

More on the Online Publishers Association’s recent “Content” study

Advertising Age featured more of my comments about the recent OPA study that sought to invalidate the broader Internet for brand advertising.

Additional coverage on the OPA report (“OPA Trashes Ad Networks…badly”) at Chief Marketer.com

The Online Publishers Association: still driving with its foot on the brake.

The Online Publishers Association(OPA), the trade association representing the digital interests of mostly offline media companies, opted to set fire to the forest floor yesterday with the release of a study on brand advertising metrics that, by the time they finished, scorched the effectiveness of the entire Internet as a brand medium save for its 50, or so, members who served as the “proxy for content sites” in the study. That means all the other non-proxy content sites served by ad networks or sales representatives, plus portals – or, basically, the remainder of the Internet - were voted off the island by the report.

There are 400,000 words in the English language and there are seven you can’t say on television. What a ratio that is, the great George Carlin once observed. Add to it, now, that there are 10 billion web sites on the Internet and only 50 on which you can advertise your brand successfully.

They must be reeeally goood.

Unfortunately, this is a problem for anyone rooting for the Internet to get to $50 billion, which many people seem to be doing. If  brand advertisers can only hope to be successful on OPA web sites, the $50 billion means that, a) they will pay through the nose for advertising on the reeeally goood sites, and b) the rest of the Internet will be awash in so much fakevertising it will be like spilled oil on the beach. (Which Yahoo! already thinks is like spilled oil on the beach and is trying to clean up on its sites. Which is not what needs to happen if CPMS go to $250 on OPA sites and you need enough room for an environmental disaster to support the rest of the economy.)

This is what lashing out looks like. The OPA didn’t release a study yesterday; the OPA lashed out at the industry, which it feels conspires every day to wreck the value propositions of its members who are important, dedicated, hard-working, First Amendment freedom fighters that are sick and tired of being trampled by midgets. Honestly, I think they are just that frustrated. Every day it’s attack of the killer ants. Every day it’s a nightmare of compromises and conditions and unwelcome intrusions:

“Another Ad Network to see you, Sir.”

“The local residents have asked if they may hunt on the grounds tomorrow, Sir.”

“The gentleman in the portal next door has asked if he might borrow some Grey Poupon.”

No one is confused about the OPA’s mission: countless years and considerable wealth and innovation went into building the global media franchises that the OPA mostly represents, and keeping them secure amidst the torrent of new media brought on by the Internet is an important and worthwhile assignment. They should be beacons. But we must live in the real world and the real world online isn’t confined to a city block. It isn’t a gated community. It just isn’t. Look up.

The OPA should be the representative for all quality content online including content touched by ad networks and rep firms. It needs to get over the “branded” content thing and identify with millions of consumers online that have abiding relationships (some might call these brand relationships) with plenty of sites the OPA has never heard of. The IAB is wisely reaching-out at a critical time to long tail, independent publishers. The OPA should be ahead of it. The OPA, informed by the centuries-old mission of its founders - themselves small, independent media pioneers – should be the principal steward of online content and quality and a fierce advocate for publishers, big and small, that work hard to create meaningful destinations for consumers. The OPA should be filled with empathy, not petty rivalry.

If so, the OPA’s study yesterday might have offered cover to brand advertisers desiring to allocate more money online in response to all the signs that proclaim that’s where the people are! Instead, the OPA said “No. Mine,” and helped keep the brand advertising promise of the Internet down. In the process, for the day at least, the shift of brand dollars regarded as essential to the future of the industry was postponed. Again.

Can the Online Publishers Association learn how to share value?

The Online Publishers Association(OPA) and comScore are hitting the road with a study about the ability of display advertising to support brands online. Excellent news.

The report in Mediaweek talking about the study takes a shot at ad networks – “Perhaps not surprisingly, besides defend display ads, the report also touts the power of branded content sites (rather than say, ad networks” - but we feel fine about that and are inclined to agree that not enough networks do enough to sell the value of content online. Most of them can’t, because they don’t work transparently with their publishers, which makes it hard to extol the virtues of place and position and content quality – all the things, frankly, that attract users.

That said, the OPA remains an emblem of one of the Great Barriers to advertising progress online. As an entity, it is informed by the right instincts and sells the right things online – notably, the important value of content - but it feels it must contest the ability of anything besides the large, branded media members it represents to create that value. That is preposterous. It is like anyone contesting the wisdom of self-government. Really. If, instead, the OPA or its members - as experienced advocates - could embrace the audience engagement created by the thousands of niche publishers that, in fact, make up most of the Internet, then the OPA could do a great service, and play a larger role, as an advocate of the value of online overall – and value might, after all, see daylight online. It has a clear advantage over the IAB in this regard, which has had to pick its way through all manner of sellers and agents, many of which got rich doing end-runs around value.

You see our problem. One trade group is conflicted. The other trade group is conflicted.

It’s a pickle.