Advertising

Changes in the Advertising Landscape & Consumer Media Usage

To grasp the complexity of today’s advertising industry, the visual below from Chiefmartec.com shows the almost 5,000 companies that are now part of the marketing technology landscape.

Source: Chiefmartec.com, 2017

Expand

The same visual from 2011 contained just 150 company names. This absurd landscape represents an explosion in easily implemented, cheap ways to target consumers in the places where they are spending an increasing amount of time – on social platforms and mobile devices.

According to eMarketer, adults in the United States spend an average of five hours and 50 minutes with digital media every day, and over one hour of that is spent watching videos just on mobile devices. Consider also that Google handles at least 2 trillion searches a year, Facebook has over 1.4 billion daily active users, and 1.5 billion logged-in users visit YouTube every month.

The graphic below from eMarketer shows average time spent per day with major media by U.S. adults.

Source: eMarketer, 2016

This growing media use by consumers and businesses means that the availability of advertising units is increasing. And this confluence means that global internet adoption combined with new technical modalities, such as machine learning, support a tremendous diversity of messages and reinforce them in a precisely targeted manner to manipulate consumer behavior. What’s more, the platforms make advertising targeting simple, effective, and user-friendly. Anyone with a credit card and two hours of attention can precisely target a demographic and send a message.

The visual below by Kleiner Perkins illustrates the steep curve of global internet advertising spend vs. TV ad spending.

Source: Kleiner Perkins, 2017

Expand

According to Nielsen estimates for TV spending between the 2015 –  2016 season and the 2016 – 2017 season, total TV advertising spending rose from $59 billion to $61 billion. For radio ad spending between 2016 to 2017, there was a decrease from $3.4 billion to $3.3 billion.

Contrast those numbers to digital marketing spending. Digital ad expenditures surpassed TV for the first time in 2016, and the gap was expected to grow by $10 billion in 2017. According to eMarketer, there will be double-digit growth in digital ad spending, which is estimated to rise from $83 billion in 2017 to $129.23 billion in 2021.

And advertisers are increasingly targeting mobile users.

Source: Kleiner Perkins, 2017

Expand

Social and Mobile Advertising

Source: WSJ, 2014

Expand

Mobile is the main reason for digital advertising growth in 2017, accounting for over 70 percent of digital ad spending. The growth is expected to continue at a double-digit rate, and mobile ad spending is expected to surpass TV advertising in 2019.

Source: eMarketer

The competition in digital advertising is highly concentrated. The table below by eMarketer shows how revenues have played out since 2013 and shows that a trend toward advertising on social media and mobile rather than digital display ads has been evident since 2015.

Source: eMarketer

Expand

eMarketer expected Twitter to surpass Yahoo in total U.S. digital display ad revenues for the first time in 2015; however, despite the expectation that Yahoo would see positive display ad growth, its market share continued a rapid decline, falling to 4.6 percent in 2015, down from 5.5 percent in 2016 and 7.2 percent in 2013.

Google was expected to maintain its market position behind Facebook. According to eMarketer, the gains achieved by Facebook and the gains by Twitter in the digital display market are because of mobile advertising. Advertising spend on mobile overtook desktop in 2017.

Source: KP Internet Trends, 2018

Expand

According to eMarketing data from 2017, 90 percent of ad revenues for Twitter in the United States were expected to come from mobile devices. Also, between 2016 and 2017, Facebook’s U.S. mobile ad revenues were projected to grow over 50 percent while Twitter was expected to double its U.S. mobile ad revenues.

Google and Facebook: Platform Dominance

Google and Facebook have managed to dominate advertising by building their platforms through strategic acquisitions. This article also discusses the emotional connection between social media and advertising, the dynamics of paid content and native advertising, and the influence that advertising is likely to have on society in the future.

“We are Facebook’s product. Our attention and eyeballs are sold to the highest bidders, whatever they may be peddling.” 

—Zeynep Tufekci, writer, academic, and techno-sociologist.

Google and Facebook have subsumed the U.S. advertising space. The graph, below, appeared in an article by Jamal Carnette of The Motley Fool and shows the growth trajectories of the four tech giants: Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Google.

Source: The Motley Fool, 2017

Expand

Asia markets aside, Facebook and Google’s “duopoly,” as it is commonly referred to, is advancing unchallenged, at least in the United States. Here are some eye-popping statistics.

The graph, below, from Mary Meeker’s Internet Trends shows the dominance of Google and Facebook and their growth compared to competitors.

Source: Kleiner Perkins, 2018

Expand

The implications of Google and Facebook’s dominance involve their influence over consumer opinion and behavior.

Traditional media were bound by rules that were governed by one premise: media outlets were on an equal footing with one other. Facebook and Google, by contrast, have unimaginable reach. What’s more, they never have to create their own content or be responsible for their positioning and influence.

An example of how advertising conglomerates can overstep the bounds can be seen in the efforts to build brand loyalty among consumers at a young age. To maximize the duration of Millennial and Gen Z customers who have strong buying power, advertisers and companies are increasingly targeting young consumers. This aggressive marketing is occurring via mobile, the internet, in schools, and even in bathroom stalls, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Exposure to ads at a young age contributes to adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use, and many countries limit advertising that targets children. No advertising is allowed in Sweden and Norway that is directed at children younger than 12. Denmark and Belgium restrict advertising that targets children. And Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 pm.

The United States has no such regulation, and the average young person views more than 3,000 ads per day on TV, the internet, billboards, and magazines. Children and adolescents are a lucrative market for advertisers and brands: teenagers spend $155 billion a year, children younger than 12 spend another $25 billion, and both groups influence their parents who spend another $200 billion.

According to the AAP, children who are younger than eight years old are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising, but adults are also becoming defenseless as advertisers are finding more effective ways to infiltrate and influence their behavior.

How Ads Change Consumer Behavior

Advertisers know what it takes to change consumer behavior, and they have scientific evidence on consumer responses to ad exposure on which to base their advertising strategies.

For example, a study by Susanne Schmidt, assistant professor at Technical University Dortmund University, and Martin Eisend, professor at European University Viadrina, showed that maximum attitude is reached at approximately 10 exposures to an ad while recall increases linearly and does not level off before the eighth exposure.

In addition, the study showed that low involvement and spaced exposures enhance repetition effects on attitude toward a brand. Overall, the study supports the theory that repetition, or repeated exposure to ads, is the best way to build brand loyalty.

Not content with the findings of other researchers, Facebook conducted its own research study, which came to a similar conclusion. According to Facebook IQ, experimental research by Facebook Marketing Science explored the causal relationship between brand lift and frequency level. The results showed that lift for ad recall and purchase intent both increased with the frequency of exposure, meaning that higher frequencies of exposure increase behavior change such as purchase intent.

Expand

The strategy and science of ad frequency evokes the concept of brainwashing-type techniques, which neither adults nor children should be exposed to. To quote a white paper by Facebook IQ:

“the frequency level required to drive consumer action will depend on various factors… it stands to reason that a high frequency might be needed to convince people to try a new product from a new brand. But for a well-established brand, a relatively lower frequency might be enough to drive and maintain awareness,”

— Facebook IQ

In addition:

“Frequency can also vary depending on individuals in a target audience—where one exposure may be enough for a brand champion, it might take several exposures to convince a person who has only ever bought a competitor brand’s product.”

— Facebook IQ

While it might be an exaggeration to some to accuse advertisers of using brainwashing techniques, industry leaders such as Facebook and Google are doing everything they can to keep their audience’s attention, and that includes keeping then glued to their sites and their ads.

The Role of Social Media Platforms in Advertising & Notable Acquisitions

We’ve argued that the more a person uses a platform, the more that platform knows about the person. Here, we provide some insights to show that Google and Facebook’s activities and acquisitions align with this assertion.

Close to 80 percent of the population has a social media profile, according to Pew Research compiled by Statista, and the major players are engaging in aggressive acquisition to maximize the time an individual spends on their platforms. The graph, below, shows the numbers for the users of the top social platforms.

— Source: TechCrunch, 2017

Expand

Matt Reynolds, writing for Wired, gives a commentary on Google’s acquisitions toward global big data domination. Google’s aspirations became clear when it acquired Motorola Mobility in 2011 for $12.5 billion. According to Reynolds, by acquiring Motorola Mobility, Google “trampled all over the Samsung brand, since many users hated its take on the operating system or didn’t realize that Google had anything to do with it at all.”

In 2014, Google bought Nest Labs for $3.2 billion, a company that produces smart thermometers, security cameras, and other connected devices that all sync with Google Home. Back in 2008, Google had acquired DoubleClick, an ad service for publishers, for $3.1 billion, a move that it could parlay into its acquisition of YouTube two years earlier, for which it paid $1.65 billion. Google bought Waze, a navigation app, in 2013 for $996 million, which gave the company access to the 50 million Waze users.

Facebook, for its part, has been no less aggressive in M&A maneuvers designed to acquire new user segments and keep Facebook users firmly engaged in the platform. Adam Hayes, CFA and writing for Investopedia.com, lists some of the more significant Facebook acquisitions. In 2009, Facebook acquired FriendFeed for $47.5 million. FriendFeed was a social media aggregator with features that Facebook wanted such as the Like button and News Feed. With this purchase, Facebook also acquired the human expertise that had created AdSense and Gmail.

That same year, Facebook acquired Octazen Solutions, which allowed Facebook users to invite their contacts to join Facebook. Facebook also bought Divvyshot, an app-based photo-sharing site.

The acquisition of Chai Labs for $10 million boosted Facebook’s advertising revenues and, as an added bonus, the mastermind behind Google Adsense, Gokul Rajaram, came as part of the deal.

In 2011, Facebook paid between $40 to $70 million for SnapTu, an Israeli app developer that reinvented Facebook’s mobile app. Facebook also acquired Rel8tion to boost its mobile advertising revenues.

In 2012, Facebook famously acquired Instagram for $1 billion and gained control of the largest photo-sharing social platform. Facebook also acquired Lightbox.com, a mobile, HTML5, and Android photo-sharing site.

The acquisition of Face.com for $100 million provided facial recognition capabilities for Facebook’s photos so that photos could be tagged automatically. In 2014, WhatsApp was Facebook’s largest acquisition to date at $19 billion. WhatsApp is a free mobile messaging app that gave Facebook access to a huge user base worldwide. Oculus VR was a $2 billion purchase of a reality tech company with which Facebook intends to develop immersive VR gaming and VR social networking.

But with all this social media and technology firepower, to what extent can these companies really manipulate the consumer? The answer is, nobody knows, but signs indicate that regulators and the public are becoming alarmed. Technology is only increasing the velocity at which these companies are gaining influence unchecked and without societal understanding of the short- and long-term effects.

The Social Media-emotion Connection and Advertising

Plenty of researchers have studied the effects of social media use. Some studies show that Facebook has the opposite effect on users than they expect when they sign on to the platform to make social connections. Far from making people feel more connected and less lonely, the reality can be a growing sense of isolation. Other studies cite concerns surrounding the addictive nature of social media.

But even with these dire findings, people and advertisers continue to use social platforms. What is the effect of social media on the consumer-brand relationship, and how are consumer’s emotions being manipulated?

Studies show that social media is a powerful driver of word of mouth, which is important to corporations, institutions, anyone that wants to build a brand. If a person posts on social media that they love or hate a product, that’s serious dollars coming in or out of a company’s coffers. If an ad or post goes viral, it could be a marketer’s dream.

Also, social media is a place where users share their experiences and their emotional reactions to those experiences. According to Roger Dooley, author of “Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing,” advertising campaigns that contain emotional content perform twice as well as advertising that contains rational content only.

Source: Neuromarketing, n.d.

Expand

It stands to reason, then, that companies such as Google and Facebook want to understand the consumer, even the extent of their emotions. If these companies can understand what motivates us, and emotions certainly do, they’re halfway to controlling consumers. Can their tracking and targeting strategies achieve that?

How Does Facebook Collect Consumer Data?

Facebook collects the information that users provide when they sign up for a Facebook account. The platform also tracks and collects data from messages, photos, and content users react to, and it monitors the frequency and duration of user activities. The platform collects information about the people and groups a user connects to and how the user interacts with those people, groups, and websites.

Facebook collects payments and financial transaction data that occur on the platform; for example, when a user buys a game or donates to a charity or cause. Credit and debit card information, account and authentication information, and billing, shipping, and contact details are all recorded.

Facebook collects information from the computers, phones, and devices that are used to access the platform. It collects information from websites and apps that use Facebook services, and it receives information from third-party partners, such as advertisers who provide data on users’ experiences or interactions with that advertiser. In other words, Facebook collects data on consumers from other companies that are owned or operated by Facebook or that partner with Facebook.

Below are 98 personal data point targeting options, or consumer data, that Facebook offers third-party advertisers.

1. Location
2. Age
3. Generation
4. Gender
5. Language
6. Education level
7. Field of study
8. School
9. Ethnic affinity
10. Income and net worth
11. Home-ownership and type
12. Home value
13. Property size
14. Square footage of home
15. Year the home was built
16. Household composition
17. Users who have an anniversary within 30 days
18. Users who are away from family or hometown
19. Users who are friends with someone who has an anniversary, is newly married or engaged, recently moved, or has an upcoming birthday
20. Users in long-distance relationships
21. Users in new relationships
22. Users who have new jobs
23. Users who are newly engaged
24. Users who are newly married
25. Users who have recently moved
26. Users who have birthdays soon
27. Parents
28. Expectant parents
29. Mothers, divided by “type” (soccer, trendy, etc.)
30. Users who are likely to engage in politics
31. Conservatives and liberals
32. Relationship status
33. Employer
34. Industry
35. Job title
36. Office type
37. Interests
38. Users who own motorcycles
39. Users who plan to buy a car (and what kind/brand of car and how soon)
40. Users who bought auto parts or accessories recently
41. Users who are likely to need auto parts or services
42. Style and brand of car driven
43. Year car was bought
44. Age of car
45. How much money user is likely to spend on next car
46. Where user is likely to buy next car
47. How many employees a user’s company has
48. Users who own small businesses
49. Users who work in management or are executives
50. Users who have donated to charity (divided by type)
51. Operating system
52. Users who play canvas games
53. Users who own a gaming console
54. Users who have created a Facebook event
55. Users who have used Facebook Payments
56. Users who have spent more than average on Facebook Payments
57. Users who administer a Facebook page
58. Users who have recently uploaded photos to Facebook
59. Internet browser
60. Email service
61. Early/late adopters of technology
62. Expats (divided by what country they are from originally)
63. Users who belong to a credit union, national bank, or regional bank
64. Users who are investor (divided by investment type)
65. Number of credit lines
66. Users who are active credit card users
67. Credit card type
68. Users who have a debit card
69. Users who carry a balance on their credit card
70. Users who listen to the radio
71. Preference in TV shows
72. Users who use a mobile device (divided by what brand they use)
73. Internet connection type
74. Users who recently acquired a smartphone or tablet
75. Users who access the internet through a smartphone or tablet
76. Users who use coupons
77. Types of clothing user’s household buys
78. Time of year user’s household shops most
79. Users who are “heavy” buyers of beer, wine, or spirits
80. Users who buy groceries (and what kinds)
81. Users who buy beauty products
82. Users who buy allergy medications, cough/cold medications, pain relief products, and over-the-counter meds
83. Users who spend money on household products
84. Users who spend money on products for kids or pets, and what kinds of pets
85. Users whose household makes more purchases than is average
86. Users who tend to shop online (or off)
87. Types of restaurants user eats at
88. Kinds of stores user shops at
89. Users who are “receptive” to offers from companies offering online auto insurance, higher education or mortgages, and prepaid debit cards/satellite TV
90. Length of time user has lived in house
91. Users who are likely to move soon
92. Users who are interested in the Olympics, fall football, cricket, or Ramadan
93. Users who travel frequently, for work or pleasure
94. Users who commute to work
95. Types of vacations user tends to go on
96. Users who recently returned from a trip
97. Users who recently used a travel app
98. Users who participate in a timeshare

— Source: Washington Post, 2016

Social media platforms are one thing, but new household IoT devices such as Alexa, Amazon’s Echo, and Google Home push these companies’ reach beyond the screen and into the ambient atmosphere. Consumers have concerns that these devices are “always on” and listening to consumer’s lives. But that’s not enough to stop these products from reaching 47.3 million U.S. adults, according to a Voice.ai report cited in TechCrunch.

Bloomberg assures us that “devices like the Echo and Google Home are not really ‘always on.’ Rather, they’re in passive listening mode, using a small amount of power for something called device keyword spotting.” Bloomberg further explains that, “In effect, the device is recording about one second of ambient sound, hunting for the acoustic signature of their wake words, ‘Alexa’ or ‘OK Google,’ and then constantly overwriting and discarding that fraction of sound.”

Whether you find this assuring or not, at minimum, these platforms are listening, tracking, documenting, and recording photos, videos, sleep patterns, media consumption patterns, brand preferences, friend groups, family group, locations, and our preferred tools.

Platforms: Maximizing Consumer Value Vs. Ad Placement

As long as there are profits to be made, companies will continue to attempt to strike an algorithmic balance between ensuring they deliver the perfect free (search engine optimization) service for the consumer and get the result that is going to help them monetize their ad units (pay-per-click or other model).

Facebook and Google are collecting so much consumer data because it places them in a strong position to increase their growth based on real-time bidding (RTB) for advertising.

When a publisher like Facebook creates revenue through display advertising, they sell ad space to advertisers through exchanges. When an internet user visits a website or app, the RTB process begins, and the publisher’s site sends a message to the supply side platform saying there is an impression available.

According to Maciej Zawadziński:

“the supply-side platform analyzes the information provided about the user (location, web history, and, if available, age, gender, and any other user information) and then sends this information to the ad exchange.  Once the ad exchange receives this information, it connects to the demand-side platforms and relays information about the user. The ad exchange starts an auction, and the DSPs then bid on the impression based on the value of that particular impression to them – determined by predefined parameters set by the advertisers.”

— Maciej Zawadziński, 2018

“The advertiser who bids the highest amount wins, and the bid is sent back to the publisher and displayed to the user,” explains Zawadziński. “The whole process is repeated for every available impression on a web page every time a user accesses a website, a new page, or refreshes the page.” Moreover, each transaction takes approximately one-tenth of a second to complete, which is one-third of the time it takes to blink.

According to Zawadziński, the three largest ad exchanges – DoubleClick, AdECN, and RightMedia – were all bought by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, respectively, in 2007. RTB is allowing the big companies to profit while brands are placing more and more targeted ads in front of the consumer in a frenzied effort to claim some piece of the pie for themselves.

This concentrated marketing push has spurned another societal trend facilitated by machine learning, big data, and platform ownership: the constant bombardment of consumers with advertising content across every aspect of their lives. Moreover, it has become increasingly difficult for the consumer to differentiate marketing content from real content, and that is no mistake on the part of the advertisers.

Blending in: Paid Content and Native Advertising

The American Marketing Association finds that “the average consumer is exposed to up to 10,000 brand messages a day. And as marketers are presented with more and more channels to reach their customers, that number is growing rapidly.”

Facebook and Google are not collecting this much consumer data just to improve the consumer experience; a better consumer experience leads to profits. This does not necessarily lead to societal well-being, though, just bigger payouts for shareholders.

According to David Lazarus, writer for the LA Times, Facebook and Twitter deliberately deceive and mislead people, and they can do so because of the coveted information that they possess on consumers.

Paid media or native advertising, where native ads match the visual design of the space they inhabit, is disguised. This marketing content behaves just like the host content so that the audience is deceived into thinking it is natural content, not paid advertising. “Posts and tweets from advertisers aren’t labeled ‘advertisement’ or ‘paid ad.’” Facebook uses small gray print to say, ambiguously, “sponsored.” Twitter’s description is “promoted,” said Lazarus.

Stephen Greyser, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School who was interviewed by Lazarus, said:

“It’s hard for consumers unless the word ‘advertisement’ is there … The experts I spoke with said there’s no stopping this trend — it’s too far along and there’s too much money at stake. The onus, therefore, is on consumers to develop the critical tools required to recognize what’s a genuine story and what’s a well-clothed sales pitch.”

— Stephen Greyser

Compounding the intensity of advertising is the fact that inventory in multiple types of media is available in one platform whereas historically, TV and digital advertising have traditionally been bought and measured through different systems and currencies. For example, Google announced in 2017 that its traditional TV advertising inventory would be available on its DoubleClick Bid Manager (DBM) platform in the United States. Also, Google announced plans to integrate it with WideOrbit, clypd, and Google Fiber, Google’s broadband internet and IP (internet protocol) TV business unit to broaden access to TV DBM inventory.

It’s getting easier and cheaper for advertisers to precisely target a demographic group and to influence their emotions. This article by Leslie Shapiro, writing for the Washington Post, is a good account of how this process occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign. According to Shapiro, Russian operatives were able to identify Facebook users with strong feelings about gun rights, illegal immigration, and other hot button issues and target them with ads likely to inflame their feelings.

The power of data is so clear to companies like Google and Facebook (and Amazon) that the money-making potential of consumer data was likened to the 21st century version of oil by Nick Scrnicek, writer for the Guardian. “Every interaction on a platform becomes another data point that can be captured and fed into an algorithm. In this sense, platforms are the only business model built for a data-centric economy,” said Scrnicek, who suggests that Google and Facebook should be nationalized and turned into public goods.

According to Scrnicek, “Google is using AI to improve its targeted advertising, and Amazon is using AI to improve its highly profitable cloud computing business. As one AI company takes a significant lead over competitors, these dynamics are likely to propel it to an increasingly powerful position.”

The Force Society Must Reckon With

The future of the advertising industry and how it will impact society in the short and long term is uncertain. There are many aspects of the digital ecosystem and the players therein that need to be examined, assessed, and ultimately regulated.

For example, what is the role of news outlets in advertising? Many of these outlets are biased and politically motivated. They, too, control distribution of the news and consumers’ understanding of the news by hiding facts, slanting the angle, or displaying social cues.

What about the influence of super PACs and digital political ad spending? The graph, below, created by Borrell Associates, a research firm that tracks political spending, shows how political ad spending is set to explode leading up to the 2020 presidential elections.

Source: Wired

Expand

If the comments given by Apple CEO Tim Cook to Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News are anything to go by, Google and Facebook may be in for more condemnation when it comes to their advertising and business practices. “I don’t believe the big issue are ads from foreign governments. I believe that’s like .1 percent of the issue,” Cook told Holt, “The bigger issue is that some of these tools are used to divide people, to manipulate people, to get fake news to people in broad numbers so as to influence their thinking. This to me is the No. 1 through 10 issue.”

Perhaps before consumers provide corporations with limitless data and resources to control minds, opinions, and actions, it should consider the social implications. Is it too late?

Zeynep Tufekci, writer, academic, and techno-sociologist, states:

“Here’s the hard truth …Facebook is approaching half-a-trillion dollars in market capitalization because the business model — ad-targeting through deep surveillance, emaciated work force, automation and the use of algorithms to find and highlight content that entice people to stay on the site or click on ads or share pay-for-play messages — works.”

— Zeynep Tufekci

These posts are not designed to denigrate the success of Google or Facebook; these companies are a boon to the U.S. economy. Rather, these articles are designed to provide those in the advertising industry the best research we can gather for an accurate perspective on the state of the industry as it navigates digital transformation.