Rethinking Media Types in the Age of Advanced Digital, Part 2
Part 2: Putting the model to the test
In this continuation of Part 1 of the series, Rethinking Media Types in the Age of Advanced Digital, we delve deeper into the details of what could be a better standard for how we think of channels—or media types—today. How can we test and optimize this model? Let’s explore.
Posted by Michael Stoeckel on August 19, 2024
Search and Social
Considering the definition of Programmatic and the Digital Media Types listed the previous article, aren’t Search and Social predominantly, but NOT exclusively, bought programmatically? In fact, I would argue that Search is the “mother of all programmatic advertising” as early SSPs and demand-side platforms (DSPs) were inspired by the efficiencies that they experienced with Google Search auctions when compared to the nightmare processes involved in Digital Direct. Also, due to the ad revenue dominance of Facebook, along with its partners and competitors, this explains why my “20% Programmatic” actually wasn’t so bad compared to industry norms even when Search is excluded.
We can all consume Search and Social content, so I am comfortable with these remaining “Media Types.”
As we often explore in our regular In the Mix industry insights series, the pace of evolution in media buying is only accelerating, and a new paradigm for managing what we’ve always referred to as “media types” is required for ad technology to properly evolve with it.
Linear
Let’s now work with this model against our Linear/Traditional Media Types. Since the predominant, but not exclusive, means of buying traditional media is Direct, this should be a bit cleaner. However, keep in mind that the Programmatic buying of traditional media, though typically not via “Open Market,” is growing in popularity. Also note that since, like Programmatic, I have never been able to consume “DR,” it has been removed from the Media Type list.
This is still far from perfect, but I think that we are close to addressing most of the gaps found with today’s most popular means of defining Media Types for advertising.
What about Hybrids?
One remaining gap, though, includes hybrid areas such as CTV or streaming audio. Often based on nothing more than the background of the respective buying or selling team, CTV can be bought “just like Linear TV” via Nielsen measurement or “just like Digital” via ad server tracking. However, we might be able to make a distinction based on one more vector, Ad Delivery Method, with two possible values:
Dynamic: distinct content & ad delivery decisioning (i.e., ad servers)
Hardcoded: content delivery decisioning includes the associated ads
Dynamic would be the predominant Ad Delivery Method for the Digital items above while Hardcoded, though it might be too narrow of a term, would be the default for Traditional/Linear. Hardcoded, though, would also apply to CTV, streaming audio and other Digital Media Types when methods such as “call letters” are used to make them easy to bundle with Linear TV and Radio, respectively.
Digital (Other)
What about everything else currently mapped to Digital Direct and Programmatic, though? The ANA report above references “open web” Programmatic, but I believe that this and similar alternatives have possible gaps such as mobile and TV “apps.” For full coverage, please bear with me as I go against my own “ambiguity avoidance” instincts and refer to this as “Digital (Other)” for now. I am very open to a better name or set of names and provide a proposal below, but this should temporarily provide the flexibility, via a hierarchy of sub-Media Types, to cover DOOH, mobile apps, podcasts, connected TV (CTV) and just about anything else out there associated with Digital ads.
Using it did help me outline a digestible model, but I’d like to share one very debatable proposal which eliminates it as a Media Type. My earlier struggles centered around Social which, due to the meteoric spend levels, felt like it needed to be a “top of the hierarchy” Media Type. Retail Media, though, could surpass Social in ad spending over the coming years, but, because it is newer, I had no problem pushing it down. Thus, let me share a Media Type / sub-Media Type proposal ignoring this Social bias. Also note, again, that I believe that the sub-Media Types should be very customizable allowing flexibility with regards to reporting, sales and buyer team set-ups, etc.
Join the Conversation
At the end of the day, this exercise is about tackling standards.
Without standards, it will be grueling to implement and scale as our industry continues to evolve and innovate, and it will be even harder to optimize the technologies and processes behind those innovators.
This is why, here at Hudson MX, we continue to examine how we can optimize our software to accommodate continuous growth, from new paradigms and vectors to reporting and other internal processes.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the need for a new industry-wide vector model? How can it solve problems where you sit? In Part 2, of this series, I’ll put the vector model to the test and optimize it. Subscribe to catch up and continue exploring this with me.
About the Author
Michael Stoeckel
Head of Platform Partnerships, Hudson MX
Michael is a digital advertising executive with diversified business and technology skills at the intersection of media, mathematics, and organizational leadership. With a strong reputation for navigating diverse stakeholder needs and mobilizing resources, Michael has over 3 decades of experience effectively partnering with technology, marketing, and sales teams to drive innovation in disruptive industries. Michael lives on the Jersey Shore with his wife and daughter. He enjoys sports activities like golf, softball, bicycle riding, body surfing, attending athletic and music events, and traveling with friends and family. Connect with Michael here.
