Advertising Wants to be Measurable – An Investment Thesis

by Mark Suster on February 21, 2010

measure profits

One of the investment themes I’ve been focused on in the past 3 years has been Performance-Based Marketing.  When I started investing the US advertising market was $300 billion with only 10% of it ($30 billion) of it being online and measurable.  One recession later and the US advertising market is about $245 billion – but still only 10-12% is online and measurable.

By now we all know that the largest part of the online spend has been SEM (search engine marketing) where people buy CPC (cost per click) links to display alongside the “organic” search results in the search engine.  My firm, GRP Partners, invested in the company that innovated this entire category – Overture (formerly known as GoTo.com).  At at time where nearly all advertising was purchased on a CPM (cost per thousand) basis and not very measurable this was a huge innovation that should be credited to Bill Gross, the founder of IdeaLab.  But of course Google eventually became the massive winner in this category.

I sometimes refer to this field as “intent-based advertising” because the reason it has been so successful is that the person who typed in the search term has expressed an “intent” to find information on that category.  So if a person types in “baby stroller” there is a high probability that he or she is in the market.  And if you have hundreds of millions of search queries and only 0.5%  click on the search ads (versus the organic results) you still have a very large market.

I believe that many social networks confused this idea.  They thought, “hey, text links perform well when displayed alongside results.  And we know that this person happens to be a 33 year old female so we know there is a high probability that she’ll be in the market for a baby stroller.  Let’s display targeted text-link ads alongside her activities.”  Two problems seem to have emerged from this: 1) A person in a social network is not displaying an intent to buy as they are during search and 2) that same person is in their social network to connect with friends, play games or share information.  Not necessarily in the shopping mindset.

In my mind “the stream” changes that equation.  When we look at Twitter we’re following friends or people from whom we want to know more information.  I believe it is the new form of RSS – the place people go to find out what is happening in the latest news.  I covered that topic in my Twitter is RSS post.  Twitter is better than RSS – it’s “curated RSS.”  The stream is limited in length and therefore people share links.  I have argued that the real power of Twitter is link sharing.  When we tune into any stream: Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc., we’re engaged in reading and discussing the ideas of those that we respect, like or are interested in.  Thus, we click!

And it turns out that we click a lot.  The CTR (click through rates) are off the charts.  Which is one of the reasons I invested in Ad.ly – a company that is a market leader in “in-stream advertising.”  The theory is simple: our attention is moving from search to stream.  Search will remain big but stream is an increasing method of discovering information and therefore driving web traffic.  If Ad.ly can serve up ads that are relevant, clearly market as ads, frequency capped and with controlled quality we believe that this will become a huge market.

Early evidence is good.  We have run very successful campaigns by brands such as Sony, NBC, Microsoft, Universal, Clicker and others.  The CTR’s are performing very well: 1-3.5% with some results significantly higher.  Our publisher distribution network reaches in the tens of millions of unique users and is comprised of “head end” stars as well as many “mid tier” and “long tail” publishers.  We have an analytics platform that helps advertisers discover information about the demographics of the follower base and the effectiveness of their campaigns.

If you want to read more of my views on this topic I’ve covered it here and here.  But today’s post is meant to be more broadly on the topic of what I’m looking for in advertising: measurement, measurement, measurement.

This led to my investment in RingRevenue, a company that allows you to track phone calls the way people track clicks.  For starters – the team is exactly what I look for when I’m looking to fund entrepreneurs.  They had previously all worked together at a very successful company in the “telecoms meets Internet” space, CallWave, which IPO’d 5 years ago or so.  This was their next act so they brought domain knowledge.  The configuration of the team was: 1 CEO, 1 Product Lead and a tech team of 6 people.  Perfect.  They already had a completed product and a distribution deal with the largest affiliate network company, Commission Junction.  They are detail oriented, cost focused, quality obsessed and chasing a big market opportunity.

The affiliate networking market alone is about a $2 billion industry now.  It allows advertisers to run campaigns that are only paid out when somebody actually buys something (e.g. further down the sales funnel from CPC advertising where you pay for a click but still need to convert on your own).  Think of the Amazon affiliate program where you’re paid if you help Amazon sell books (I think on average Amazon pays about 7% of sales).  This form of advertising is know at CPA (cost per action).

The problem is that the average value of products that sell on affiliate networks is sub $100.  Publishers would love to sell higher value campaigns because this would lead to larger commissions.  But higher value product sales often require a phone call.  These purchases are more complex in nature.  If you’re about to outlay thousands of dollars for education, health equipment, digital cameras or anything else of value you often want to talk with somebody to understand detailed specs and the terms & conditions.  It turns out the advertisers want you to call, too.  They know that a call will lead to a higher conversion rate and a better chance to cross-sell products leading to higher average order values.

So the “lead generation” market has emerged where people sell CPL (or cost per lead).  Many of these businesses want to get you to leave your information in an online form so that they can pass your lead to a third-party that will call you back and try to sell you products.

Our thesis at RingRevenue was that you should try to capture people at the “point of interest” when they showed intent rather than capturing a form to generate a call later.  It should lead to higher conversion rates and happier customers.  But the affiliate publishers were reluctant to publish phone numbers because once you picked up the phone they didn’t have any easy way of proving that they drove the lead and therefore they feared being cut out of the commission structure.

Enter RingRevenue.  They dynamically assign out phone numbers to publishers for given campaigns.  When you dial the call is passed through a RingRevenue exchange on the way to the advertiser’s call center so that we can track call length and quality.  We can help advertisers buy based on narrower factors than just “anybody who saw the ad.”  You can buy based on demographic information in real time.  You can pay differently based on different call quality criteria.

And what we love is that everybody is happy.  The person calling obviously wants to speak to somebody, the publisher drives a lead and can get compensated, the advertiser has a warm call and the affiliate network can earn a network commission.  We’re the underlying platform that enables the calls to be tracked like clicks while weeding out fraud.

The longer term is even more promising.  We can technology enable offline advertising.  People running campaigns on billboards, newspapers, tv, radio, yellow pages – whatever – can run more measurable campaigns.

What else is out there?

  • I’m spending time looking into the changing way that people are buying online display ads.  There is clearly a lot of inefficiency in this process.  There are a lot of people that believe that this process will move to ad exchanges.  Google has made a lot of noise in this space and will apparently sell all of its display inventory this way, through the Double Click Ad Exchange.  Yahoo! bought RightMedia and Microsoft bought AdECN a few years ago.  Both seem poised to push more inventory through ad exchanges.  So if this shift happens it really will lead to a disruption in billions of dollars of online spend.  There will be new opportunities in this value chain.
  • Internet consumption is obviously growing massively on mobile devices.  This no doubt led to the acquisition of AdMob by Google and Quattro by Apple.  But we’re only in the first inning of mobile advertising.  We’re looking at innovative companies that will enable new forms of mobile advertising.  I hope to announce one investment in this space in the next few months.
  • Social networks continue to drive conversion of marketers.  I’ve already covered my case for in-stream advertising.  But more broadly I believe that you’ll see a lot more tools for helping marketers more effectively run, monitor and manage social media campaigns.  I’m spending a lot of time looking at investments in this category and have already completed one investment in the space.  It’s still in stealth but plans to make announcements soon.
  • Branded advertising has not proven successful online.  There are a lot of reasons for this including reach, immediacy and impact of the TV medium versus the Internet.  But this will obviously change over time.  I know of at least one very clever entrepreneur in New York looking at this space.  I just checked his LinkedIn profile and it’s not updated so I’m guessing he’s still in stealth mode so I can’t talk about what he’s doing.  I’ll save it for a future post.
  • And the obvious category, especially for a VC based out of LA, is video.  Online video advertising is still a very nascent market with people experimenting with pre-roll / mid-roll, ad overlays, brand integration, etc.  There are  also people like Clicker and OVGuide who are trying to capture the “video portal” space where they can command referral revenues in the way that Yahoo! initially captured the Internet portal revenues by aggregating eyeballs.  We continue to evaluate this space and look for investments.  Our largest bet to date has been more in the infrastructure space of delivering mobile video (Mobiclip) rather than enabling advertising.

Measurable advertising isn’t my only investment area but it is a major theme.  So it is with this investment thesis in hand that I head to LeadsCon this week (Tues & Wed) in Las Vegas. Lots of great people there.  I hope to see ya there.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • Christophe
    Mark,

    Great to read your interest in new forms of mobile advertising. We are soon launching the world's first "mobile narrowcasting" solution: superb quality mobile video for commuters without the need for expensive and slow mobile networks. Advertising on it offers 100% measurability as well as interactivity, captiveness and targetability.

    Would love to get your thoughts on this.


    Cheers,
    Christophe
  • That Ringrevenue sounds like one of those FBI tracking system in thriller!
  • stevepelletier
    Mark-
    Ad exchanges will be serious players particularly as agencies use demand side platforms (DSPs) to connect with many exchanges at once. However, these markets are blind (no transparency into the publisher and ad placement), ‘spot’ markets (bids are for a single impression) and there is no guarantee that the buyer will execute their entire marketing budget. For this reason, several DSPs are now looking for automated ways to buy transparent, guaranteed, premium inventory for future dates on behalf of their advertiser clients. This market seems to be evolving as the TV scatter market did. And it is potentially very large.

    Our company is focused on providing access to the digital scatter market. Using our PageGage platform, publishers can open up their inventory to brand buyers who have budget that was not spent during the normal planning process. Buyers can log in and self-serve a buy across one or more publishers. And the DSPs will do the same via an e-connection. This provides great value for the publisher because they can get CPMs 5x - 10x + what they would get from the ad-x’s and networks. It provides value for the buyer because they get transparency and guaranteed spend. Think of this as the torso of the ad market where the head = upfront direct sales, and the tail = spot market.

    Steve
  • raveguy
    Great post mark,

    Now I'm in a dilemma , my original revenue model was to sell my display inventory to a network, now I wonder if I should build my own adserving platform. Can I pick your brain further. ??
  • stevepelletier
    See my comment below (if you view these oldest-newest) or above. Our platform might be able tohelp you with direct sales that can come from direct customer queries as well as from DSPs.

    Contact dmoreno at fattail dot com if you would like to learn more.

    Good luck!
  • "Branded advertising has not proven successful online."

    Even with most of my online marketing career as a user acquisition marketer (aka performance based) - this is a dumb statement. By what measurement? If your saying that advertising sales to branded advertisers have lagged traditional media, then yes its a sales failure. Its even an incumbent failure as traditional brands have failed to embrace online advertising as an effective channel. But new brands who get online are emerging (Netflix as an example) - in this case its not online advertising that's failed it's legacy brands who are too comfortable with the way things have been done because that is the way things have been done.
  • Mark -- great post to spark discussion. Here's another thesis in response.

    I think what's missing is the recognition that the big dollars in advertising are in awareness, not intent -- at the top of the funnel. And that's not going to change unless companies stop wanting to be top-of-mind with their prospective consumers.

    What will happen (and is already happening) is that awareness advertising will be subject to increased pressure to deliver evidence-based results.

    Metrics may vary by campaign, but the overall theme will be to try lots of approaches fast and cheap, find out which ones work and promote those up the value chain -- from experiments in niches to exposure in the mainstream, measuring at each stage. Rinse, repeat, results. I call it the Lean Ad Campaign in homage to Eric Ries' Lean Startup.

    And the costs of media will continue to get polarized – a few very high cost, most very low cost. The supply keeps expanding both through increased ongoing production and persistence of existing supply (flow and stocks).

    So in a world where placing ads becomes very expensive or very commodified, differentiation occurs through the creative. The best creative will even find its own audience and earn its own media through sharing.

    The rule of thumb on advertising budgets flips from 80% media and 20% creative to 80% creative and 20% media.

    Then the question becomes: how does that creative get made?

    And that's what we're working on with AdHack -- a market for ad creative.
  • What about CPM, and traditional media that create bran/product awareness?
    People say CPM its dead, and it may be true, why should you pay for CPM when you can pay for click or even better for action, you can measure your cost per user and can estimate your marketing budget easily.

    Maybe CPM value is like social media value , if you open a FB fan page, then people start following you, you interact with them and do good marketing of brand distribution, but, if you have a tight budget on marketing, will you invest in CPM? building a FB fan page? open a LinkedIn Group, manage a twitter account, write a blog...i think its a must, do you?
  • This is a fantastic post, I particularly liked your analysis of the difference between CPC search advertising and the various ad units that have been tried on social networks. This issue of intent is a huge one. When you have a huge social network like Facebook or MySpace, it's impossible to know a user's intent when they go to the site. I think the real value is in a connected network of niche sites producing streams of demographic and intent targeted content. Then you can place ads in the stream that are targeted to a specific user AND intent, because with a smaller site you know who the user is and why the user is there. Also, with multimedia streams (RSS, blogs, etc.) you can insert video ad units that are much more engaging and valuable to brand advertisers. Of course, I'm biased because that's what we're doing :)
  • subbu4
    hey - great post - fred wilson had some thoughts about in stream advertising some time ago - http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/09/its-time-to-ope... - we're playing around with this at our startup, however still trying to create traction and repeat visits, so nothing to show anyone just yet :)
  • How do you measure satisfaction?

    More precisely is there a way we can judge the quality of an ad after the user buys and experiences the product?Crowd sourced, unbiased, automated customer review at ad and at buy time.

    Why do I ask? I only want to advertise incredible products.

    I'm working in the space where user expressed interested is tracked over time. This simple step should allow responsive web experiences (similar to the robot that responds based on camera information- think there's a TED talk on that one).
  • good post, great discussion. I am fascinated by the interaction between (and blurring of) online and offline.

    For the longest time, the question was how do offline companies convert online surfers into offline customers (how does coke use the internet to get me to buy a six pack next time I am in the grocery store). Increasingly though, the question becomes how do online companies, convert offline people walking around town, into online customers (ie when I see a band playing an impromptu set in union square, how can that band leverage my physical presence at their show to get me to buy their music on itunes?)

    I think that the physical distribution of digital information/goods will be a boom industry and advertising models will play a large part in the revolution.
  • I believe that is called Branding.
  • ???
  • Agreed. I like the physical infrastructure drives online conversion space and wonder why more people don't take advantage of this.
  • http://twitpic.com/14rm25

    <http://twitpic.com/14rm25>yep. I think things like amazon's "see a kindle
    in your city" is an interesting example of this issue.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/06/23/amazon-l...>

    just got introduced to your blog via @jordancooper. happy to have found it.
  • JSW
    "They already had a completed product and a distribution deal with the largest affiliate network company, Commission Junction. ".

    Mark, I watched you on JasonC's show, been following your blog, enjoy reading your stuff, general one nugget in each post...and this sentence is "curious". I guess if your game is to figure out an 'add on' to participate in the online ad game (and Ohh is it a game), then "getting into a distribution deal with commish juntc" is BIG. (On a side, note, I am going to strategize with my 9yo when she gets home from school today about how to amp up her CJ status, since she also "has a distribution deal" with them for these cute little fruit thingy's she and her friends make out of clay and hand paint...think little banana, carrots, fried eggs, etc. [insert eye roll icon here].)

    I suspect the real meat of 'the' future AND for opportunity is smack dab in the middle of your second bullet. Were I to be wielding a $100mm dollar stick...I be swinging at these pitches and leave the 'on line ad game' to the guys who thought they could make money playing online poker back in the day (6 years ago).

    $0.03
  • Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say the sentence is "curious." Can you expand? Are you saying you disagree with it? Or that I need to explain more?

    Also, your comment about "second bullet point" I guess refers to mobile marketing? It will be a huge market but also littered with many people who build stuff that doesn't convert. I've seen a lot of bad stuff out there. More recently I've come across a company that I think has a great solution. Exciting times.
  • JSW
    Expanding on curious: for me, the 'online ad' market place, specifically anything to do with Goowordsense market is a "dead play". I am contrarian on this I am sure.

    But observing that the actual results delivered from queries become less and less relevant (query matching results) and this trend is unlikely to change in the direction of 'relevant' for a while (years) the value of creating products and services in this arena are high risk at best. The underlying rules of the game are going to change significantly as Google tweaks their engine to simultaneous 'pre-determine' intent and filter worthless crapages.

    The low relevancy of the results comes at the price - the value of getting an ad placed on a result page for a search, say "vancouver", is actually a long distance from the 'actual intent' of the searcher. How will this be corrected? Good question...lots of momentum in that space from a lot of players and I only have about 80 years, so I'll leave them to figure that out. That is the entrepreneur side of me talking too...as an investor, if I could make a play to put up 100k to get an app into the market, like the phone number deal you outlined, and I could see a way to turn it into 5mm or 10mm in say 2 years...that is just a great investment. But I'd have to think long and hard about Goo-voice and some other key competitive incumbents who could unhinge my deal with little or no effort.

    On the mobile space, I totally agree with the reference you have made that it's B.I.G. As with any space there will be a bunch of dead bodies, but that's life. My comment is tying the two together...if I were an entrep or inv, I would spend a whole bunch of my time and money on mobile as it will ultimately THE largest market any of EVER laid eyes on. EVER.

    Hope that helps to clarify my comments. I do like your takes.
  • Ok back to this.

    Your viewpoint on what you call "intent based marketing" is getting alot closer to how i see things which i am sure you will be glad to hear ;)

    Seriously though - We look at it this way. Matching someones intent or impulse, with a relevant response in real time is a very powerful dynamic. It juxtapose the twitter / foursquare "what are you doing" type approach with a "what do you want to do" question. If you can believe in the value of this premise then the following constructs begin to emerge:
    - MOBILE - this paradigm has mobile in its DNA as its realtime.
    - TWO-WAY - the communications platform that can solve for this type of realtime exchange must have realtime two way in its DNA - we believe the most ubiquitous push / pull platform available today is Short messaging. A merchant can be notified of an intent via text and respond to prospect the business via text.
    PROXY - this gets back to my issue with Ad.Ly - let me make my intent known - then build an amazing proxy that responds in kind. Don't assume i am interested unless i take implicit action.

    The control has gravitated to the consumer in so many ways that i feel like madison avenue is missing something by continuing to assume that we are happy with being bombarded with stuff we have not asked for. Its all around us in business models across entire industries and is only becoming more prevelant. Embracing a response based model rather than leveraging new constructs to over lay old approaches would be my bet.
  • Madison Avenue is not content at bombarding target audiences with stuff they don't want. That is, largely, an easy out and overused statement.

    What many do not factor in is that Madison Avenue is a reflection of its paying clients and quite frankly, as a whole, innovation and changes happen at a slower rate. Media reallocation, true ROI calculations and client operational issues that prevent/retard the capturing of rich, actionable data in many cases is not foreign.

    Much needs to be done to evolve the game and some of this is unquestionable shouldered by Agencies. Data is without question gold...marrying it to building communications architectures that drive and loyalize positive consumer reactions (sales!) is the gold mine.
  • ok - so simply speaking - how many people really want to watch a coke add - or a P & G ad? given the choice it would be close to nil - thats been proven by the likes of DVRs and other new technologies.

    Its not an overstatement at all to say that PUSH based advertising is a wounded animal
  • OK, fair enough. I believe in data driven approached to marketing as outlined in some of the comments above. I will continue to look for investments that make marketing more measurable and remove friction from the process. re: Ad.ly (which I remember is where your previous aversion was) let's see how the market plays out. Time will tell and I'm sure the team / product will evolve.
  • absolutely - its always easy to be macro - but as you say things evolve and there are many stones across a river.
  • Mark, great post. I second my friend MikeDuda, anywhere that advertising + investing is a topic, I'd like to be involved. What you talk a lot about above and what I believe is an underlying thesis is the value of what data (1st, 2nd, 3rd party) brings to the table in your scenarios. The performance marketing space is all about having a wealth of data to figure out how much to arb, and the branded response space (i.e. CPM) is moving towards a data driven environment.
  • This is one area where in-network (aka "on deck") mobile ad platforms really shine. We're sending out text ads embedded in various SMS services (such as billing notifications, missed call alerts, welcome messages, and others). These ads can contain URLs or short codes that a subscriber can click to call an IVR or a telemarketer. The subscriber can also reply via SMS. In all cases, we manage the entire flow and everything is tracked. It's not annoying, either: putting an ad in a network-generated text message is no more intrusive than those little pieces of paper that get included with credit card bills.

    With flexible call/message flows, cost-per-x becomes confusing. (Was that a response? An acquisition? An engagement? A lead? Is a SMS reply the same as a click-through?) We just provide the means whereby an agency can set up a flexible flow and then let them charge different rates at various points of the flow.
  • Yes, but aren't the "on deck" mobile platforms a dying breed? I can't imagine them existing in 5 years' time. You?
  • I dislike the term "on deck" because to some it means "all forms of operator-controlled ad delivery" while to others it means the more literal "portal links provisioned on handsets". I agree that the latter will have less and less influence but I can't imagine the former going away, simply because many (if not most) operators are loathe to being a dumb pipe. A few might be content to make money off traffic but most seek ways to add value through services, and many of those services can only be provided by the operator -- for example, missed call alerts and personalized ring-back tones. This is especially important outside the U.S. where text and audio are popular and mobile web is not so popular, and will likely remain this way among the "normals".
  • daytulu
    No experience in advertising but the idea to measure advertising effectiveness in markets where measurement was not possible or poorly done sounds very powerful. Good luck.
  • Always love the combination of VC + advertising discussions!

    As an investor, there is no way would I invest in a ad-based model that focused on CPMs. Might sound obvious, but the give-away-online-with-0ffline purchases and pure DR mentality that was en vogue during the dot-bomb period a decade ago hasn't evolved as much as one may have expected. That said, many big media agencies are still CPM-aholics.

    Media sellers need to be prepared to enter into true pay-for-performance mode beyond CPC. We purchase nearly $100mm in online media and only 5% of those we buy from are willing to do this. I suspect the next 18-24 months will see a solid evolution but nowhere as fast as it SHOULD be.

    And one point on branded advertising and social media measurement in general. The holy grail will be found from those that intertwine measurement of social/offline media to show genuine business results (sales). Television is still quite a viable investment and in some categories, we've found that the ROI on TV buys were better than $ allocated to search (I'm sure this will be blasphemous to some, but true.)

    The more accountability advertising seeks, the better. It will only help evolve the marketing discipline as a true investment (value) rather than a commoditized expense (cost).
  • re: online CPM's - I tend to agree.
    re: TV - I am aware that there are cases where the ROI is still better than online.
    re: CPCs vs. CPAs - I've had the debate many times and have come to the conclusion that CPA only is not always the best model. It provides the best model for the buyer if the price is right but forces the seller to take the arb risk. So it depends how the unit performs. Ultimately the seller has control of conversion once the lead arrives at their website and it's not always the best case for the publisher to accept this risk. Sometimes it is.

    Do you work for a media agency? Love to learn more. Always looking for informed people to engage in the discussion.

    BTW, your Twitter name in your bio is MikeDuda. If you separate out your first and last name it would be easier to find. Also, the link on your bio points back to your Twitter address. At a minimum it ought to point to LinkedIn or something.

    thanks for you input.
  • Mark,

    FIrst off, great call. I added the space to the Twitter profile.

    You're dead on on the redirect back to Twitter. I'm just so proud of getting a two character bit.ly code that I haven't weened off it - yet - for a couple silly reasons.

    And work at a creative/media agency so hence my biases or ideals. I'll find you on Linked In in case you want to connect.

    Finally....love "Both Sides." Great and clearly thoughtful perspectives.
  • Roko
    On online video.
    Some 33 billion videos were watched online in Dec 2009.
    That is on average 130 billion minutes.
    60% of this not on Youtube.
    Pre/mid/post-roll, overlays, branding are very interesting, although they all get in the way. Ads on Hulu (when I watch 24) are tolerable due to a great integration, and they are short.

    I am confident there is a scenario where the ads are still related, but completely separated from the video, hence user experience.
  • Mark,

    Great post. Is outdoor advertising (a $7b industry) a medium that you are interested in? We are building the first online exchange for the industry.

    Regards,
    John
    www.ADstruc.com
  • Open to learn more.
  • Great! Let me know how you would like to connect and I can send you an executive summary.

    Thanks,
    John
  • send me a deck msuster at gmail dot you know what. I'll do my best to respond but stick with it and I promise to get back to you. Just a bit over loaded at the moment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: