With OpenRTB 1.2, for the first time ever, DSPs can build support to objectively understand what they’re buying based on signals passed from the exchange, thus providing better targeting controls to advertisers. We discuss why this is such a huge deal.Read More
The most recent IAB playbook attempts to standardize branded content creation and distribution, as well as how they relate to “native advertising”. We discuss the IAB’s new standards in more detail in the latest Lift Letter.Read More
TripleLift's growth over the past two years has been nothing short of tremendous. For some context, here are some relevant data points:
- 2016 Q1 revenue was roughly equal to our 2014 total revenue
- In 2015, our revenue roughly doubled every quarter, which also follows rough seasonal trends where Q1 is the weakest and Q4 is the strongest, but standard seasonality was also heightened by the fact that we're growing
- We expect our Q2 revenue to exceed last year's Q4 by a significant margin. While we're at it, we expect our Q3 to be nearly, but not quite equal to, all of 2015 revenue.
Those are some lofty things to think about - and we've got a lot of hard work ahead of us to make that possible. That means hiring, onboarding, building product, and growing our customer base - and everyone has to keep kicking ass to make that happen. But it's definitely doable.
One of the biggest single factors working in our favor - and one of the reasons we have some confidence about these rather bullish numbers - is that most of the major DSPs (e.g. DBM / Google, The Trade Desk, and AppNexus) are building true support for native. This means that they're building a workflow for native into their UI, so anyone can easily buy TripleLift without leaving their DSP of choice.
The impact of DSPs building out support for native advertising in their UIs is hard to overstate. It means that every customer of these DSPs, meaning nearly every digital media buyer - can buy TripleLift programmatically with a simple, intuitive workflow that they're already used to. It also means that the prominence of native has grown to a level where the DSPs willing to invest significant engineering resources in a form of advertising that only a year ago, many questioned if it was a fad.
Soon, any programmatic buyer - when trafficking any campaign - will be able to run a native campaign alongside any other form of media. As long as they have the relatively simple set of assets required for TripleLift, they will be able to get started. Further in a single UI they can see the relative performance of native to standard display. This is, in some ways, a longstanding dream - that native is so fundamental to a media buy that it's just right there, next to everything else that's always been there. And it's actually happening. And we're one of the undisputed leaders in the space (see image below)
There will always be managed service - and nothing about this impacts the existing cases for managed. But the roll-out of these UIs over the next 12-16 weeks will be a single change that may have a tremendous impact on our business. While no DSP has actually done this to date in a real, commercialized effort, and in a roll-out to all their clients, we're actively working with several large DSPs to start to do so. The joint Trade Desk / TripleLift webinar from last week is a great example of this effort. We don't know what exactly this will do to the market, and likely the first couple months will not see a major change - but the long term liquidity impacts have the potential to be tremendous.
Again, this is a brand-new development for us, so everything is guess-work at this time. Our financial model estimated a medium-term 3x growth in programmatic spend when a partner releases a native UI, but it could be significantly more. Expect to hear more about this topic in the coming months as we learn more.
The FTC recently issued some guidance on native advertising (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-businesses). Here are some thoughts. Be advised, this one is a little more dense than other Lift Letters.
First, some fun FTC facts, from ex-lawyer Eric:
- The FTC is an executive agency that was authorized by congress under the FTC Act in 1914. This gives the FTC the power to, among other things, prevent unfair competition / deceptive acts and practices in commerce, to seek damages, and to create trade regulation rules defining acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive - and establish requirements designed to prevent those practices or acts.
- The FTC does NOT create the law (it's an executive, not legislative agency), but it can issue regulations and hold administrative hearings subject to its regulations. The regulations, the scope of the regulations, and the results of its hearings, are all subject to appeals in the federal court system. The FTC gets overruled from time to time, either for overreaching its mandate or making a rule that otherwise is illegal. This bullet is a little simplified, but it's largely correct
- The FTC has issued a number of regulations on native advertising, the first was in 1967. They have been active in the native digital space, ruling on sponsored search results, fake reviews, emails, etc.
So with all that said, the FTC issued an enforcement policy on native advertising (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/896923/151222deceptiveenforcement.pdf). In it, they specifically said, "the particular facts will determine whether an advertisement formatted like the material in which it appears is deceptive, this statement sets forth the factors the Commission will consider in making that determination" - this is the overarching rule of the whole thing. They go on to discuss the expectations of the consumer on the site, the degree of disclosure, the use of labelling, the nature of targeted audiences. The FTC states that a "disclosure’s adequacy ultimately will be measured by whether reasonable consumers perceive the ad as advertising."
The FTC then issued a set of guidelines, based on the enforcement policy above (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-businesses). This talks about best practices for labelling native ads, given the above considerations. Seems reasonable to me - in fact, the entire purpose of the opinion is to try to define ads that a "reasonable consumer" would understand to be ads. By requiring a logo, saying it's sponsored at least once - often twice - and clearly clicking to advertising landing pages, we're on the side of righteous goodness.
Who's not on the side of righteous goodness? Well here's an example from the horse's mouth (the FTC):
A content recommendation widget included on different publisher sites displays links to external pages. One site on which these third-party links are placed is Newsby. On the Newsby site, these links are formatted to look like news headlines and are grouped together in a box with headings like “More Content for You,” or “From Around the Web.” One of the headlines appearing in the box is for the Winged Mercury ad described in Example 4, “Running Gear Up: Mistakes to Avoid.” The similarity of the Winged Mercury ad’s format to the type of headlines Newsby publishes on its site, combined with phrases like “More Content for You,” or “From Around the Web,” is likely to lead consumers to believe it is an independent news story, and not from the sponsoring advertiser. Thus, before consumers click to access the Winged Mercury content on the Fitness Life site, a clear and prominent disclosure is necessary to inform them of its commercial nature. As discussed in Example 4, the click-into page on the Fitness Life site also should disclose the commercial nature of the content.
So why is the IAB "concerned" about all this (http://www.iab.com/news/iab-concerned-about-ftc-guidance-on-native-advertising/)? Well first, their job is to protect the interests of all their dues-paying members. That includes content recommendation widget companies. Theoretically the IAB should oppose the FTC regulations that touch on any form of digital advertisers, though they probably draw the line right around the common standard of decency. Their problem here, specifically, is that "the section on ‘clarity of meaning’ [in the guidelines] in native advertising disclosures is overly prescriptive, especially absent any compelling evidence to justify some terms over others."
Basically, the IAB saying that there's no evidence that saying "Promoted" instead of "Sponsored by [X]" is deceptive, which is the position of the FTC. It's a really nuanced argument, and it must have taken some hand-wringing at the IAB to choose to not fully support FTC's argument, but instead give it tentative support, largely because of this issue.
The long and short of it is that the FTC is saying "don't deceive a reasonable customer." By the standards they've laid out, we do a pretty good job, and I think their standards are fair for an agency tasked with fighting deceptive practices and promoting the consumer.