Challenges in the Digital Video Space (and Efforts Underway to Solve Them)

“While opportunities to reach viewers have increased, we see challenges across traditional TV and digital video platforms due to consumers’ behavior shifts and new technologies. Key challenges that the industry needs to watch out for and address as a whole include audience fragmentation, advertising experience, ad avoidance/blocking, ad fraud, and measurement”[54]

This section of the guide will explore these challenges in detail as well as highlight work that is being done at an industry level to address key issues. 

Fragmentation 

Indeed, according to Forrester, the average U.S. adult juggles more than four connected devices.

Three-quarters use a smartphone and more than half use a tablet. As the connected devices we use proliferate, so does our consumption of media, with a growing expectation for seamless ad and content experiences between our smartphones, tablets, laptop and desktop computers, connected TVs and the various web and app experiences we traverse. 

Device Proliferation and Disparate Bandwidth 

From walls, to desks, to pockets—screens are everywhere. This explosion of new platforms and devices represents an ever-expanding long-tail of connected devices with the ability to send and receive data via IP, including marketing media.

This explosion of connectivity across a vast landscape of interfaces is known as the “internet of things.”

While more connected devices represent exciting progress from the perspective of consumer choice, this proliferation poses challenges to the advertising industry, including matching ad and media functionality to a wide array of devices that have different network capabilities (i.e. 3G vs 4G) and widely differing bandwidth capacities. 

Audience fragmentation 

In a world of seemingly endless content choices coupled with the proliferation of devices, media companies are facing a complex ecosystem. The need to address this shift has never been more apparent. Advertisers and content creators need to adapt quickly to new technologies and tailor their messages accordingly in order to achieve success. 

As seen in this graph, time spent has shifted in the last five years to include more devices while TV time spend has decreased at the expense of other digital devices.[55] Only 10 years ago, television dominated video we see that the percentage of time spent consuming content on television has been shrinking each year as new technologies and devices have emerged. As computers, mobile devices, tablets, OTT and Smart TVs increase, the challenge for marketers becomes one of complexity. It’s no longer as easy as it used to be to develop campaigns with significant reach using one or two media vehicles.

Not only are there multiple devices and formats on which to view content, but particular formats can be more desirable depending on the demographic of the target audience. For example, younger generations are more likely to consume video content via mobile devices vs. television. In fact, comScore predicts that this trend seen among younger generations (18-34) will soon be the same among 35-54 year olds.[56]

As noted in analyst Mary Meeker’s 2016 Internet Trends Report, an integral part of this shift can be attributed to the different core values and expectations each generation has adopted throughout their lifetime.

Millennials are engaging with technology in every aspect of their lives. Older generations are also shifting their consumption behaviors to connected devices, though at a slower rate. 

Proliferation of Content 

As the worlds of television and digital video continue to converge, new platforms and devices for viewing video are emerging, as well as additional choices in content and genres. Consumers in turn have had to adapt to new ways of finding what they want to view.

The proliferation of content across digital channels has intensified the fragmentation challenge for brands seeking to reach audiences with their ad dollars. Budgets are being spread across wider swaths of partners and inventory than ever before, in an effort to drive the same business outcomes that used to require only a handful of marketing channels.

This proliferation of content urgently poses new questions to marketers:

  • How are people finding the programs they want to watch?

  • How do consumers discover new content amidst a seemingly endless array of options?

  • What’s the equivalent of TV Guide for future generations of consumers? Will tools that enable search and discovery offer marketers new opportunities to connect with consumers across a portfolio of options?

  • What do content creators and advertisers need to know to reach audiences as they move from one screen to the next?

To help answer these questions, IAB commissioned the Video Content Discovery Study. The study examined three distinct video storytelling formats: traditional TV, subscription series, and original digital video. The study found that the ways consumers become aware of content, what influences their decision to watch, and how they decide to ultimately engage with the content, are all format-specific. Key takeaways from the study include:

  • Video and social go hand in hand. Cross-platform video content promotion should tap and amplify word of mouth and social strategies.

  • Word of mouth is the top source of discovery for subscription service original shows, though the service’s own interfaces and recommendation engines are also very important.

  • Ads have a big influence on what most viewers watch.

  • The path of discovery for original digital videos is more varied (social media and YouTube are big contributors).

Nearly half of streaming service viewers use TV’s on-screen menu to find videos to watch.

Unlike the early days of television when choice was limited to few broadcast networks, today’s consumer is faced with a seemingly endless array of options, driven by technologies that both add to and reduce complexity to various degrees. 

Measurement 

With content and device proliferation, the industry is also seeing an increase in the number of measurement technologies and metrics. More devices and content require reporting on a multitude of data, across an increasing number of screens.

“Lack of standardization in measurement causes market inefficiency and confusion.” [57]

In the 2017 IAB Video Ad Spend Study, independent measurement audit is cited as the biggest challenge to digital video buying among ad buyers. Other areas of concern include:

  • Laser focus on quality content and environment

  • The variances in digital measurement results and the lack of standards have created friction and inefficiencies in selling and buying digital video.

  • Fuzzy definitions of a “view” and the lack of agreement on viewability and which engagement metrics matter contribute to these inefficiencies.

  • Lack of comparable metrics between linear TV and digital video causes confusion in cross-platform buying and planning. 

Without comparable metrics, it’s hard for media buyers and planners to assess the relevant value of cross-platform ad inventories.

While specifications have enabled interoperability between different participants in the ecosystem, significant friction still exists around accurate measurement.

For example, a video player may make a single VPAID video ad request to an ad network, which will likely spider web many requests from one ad network to another. For each of these requests, networks may or may not trust the validity of data passed along to them such as player dimensions, domain name/placement URL, audio state, and viewability measurement. Most networks will attempt to measure these items for themselves, however this duplication tends to introduce latency, slowing down the video player response and consuming additional bandwidth in the process. It can also result in report discrepancies between the participants.

Another example where there’s lack of standardization is in measuring video on linear TV and online. 

  • When it comes to measurement standards in the big screen, Nielsen has been measuring reach, average ratings (GRPs), average frequency and average minutes for decades.
  • Digital platform’s main advantage is the utilization of data at the impression level.
  • The industry has yet to create a standardized cross-media, cross-platform audience currency to measure cross-screen video in totality, presenting barriers to significant investment decisions.
“This disparity in measuring TV vs. video leaves buyers and sellers hamstrung by these two very different measurement methods. This is why each platform is typically analyzed separately, even if the same brands are running ads in both screens.”[58]
As the traditional TV is re-inventing itself, so must the measurement methods if we want this industry to grow. 

Incorrect measurements can lead to:

  • Whitelisting issues and no ad fill

  • Poor classification of video player size resulting in improper inventory selection

  • Blacklisting of legitimate sites

  • Manipulation of bids and in some cases, actual fraud

  • Unwarranted negative perception of ad quality

  • Improper revenue attribution

IAB is working on a GRP+ project to capture the convergence of TV & video so that the same ad that runs on a TV screen and other digital screens can have a common and comparable currency to transact on. IAB members interested in joining this working group may contact [email protected]

Latency 

Latency is Unavoidable

Latency, simply put, is time. While the internet is notable for its fairly instantaneous response to consumer’s demand for their content of choice, every transaction takes some time (some, more than others, especially on mobile devices). Considering the impact of latency on the consumer experience, it’s a fair question to ask: “How much latency is acceptable?” 

Latency is a Problem for Everyone

Studies have clearly demonstrated that the longer a user has to wait for content the higher the abandonment rates. Latency leads to a bad user experience, which can impact publishers’ visitor retention rates, as well as result in poor campaign performance for advertisers.

Almost all technologies applied to automated executions add additional communication requirements for a user’s browser. These requirements can increase page load times and pose data security problems that have the potential to detract from overall user experience and efficacy of paid media. Advertisers and publishers should work with their technology partners to thoroughly review latency and security implications of their services.[59]

Page Latency: Ghostery estimates that, on average, each additional technology layer (and associated tracking pixels) adds ~500ms to a user’s page load time.[60] As advertisers and publishers evaluate ad technology solutions—especially those beyond core technologies—they should weigh the value of the service relative to its impact on the ultimate user experience with the web content. 

Causal factors contributing to latency include: 

  1. Distance: The farther away two servers are from each other, the more time it takes for them to communicate. This is also true of the distance between the user’s device and the ad server or content delivery network (CDN).

  2. Connection Bandwidth: Slow data transfer rates and internet access speeds can also contribute to latency.

  3. Processing Speed: Once communication is established, if one server’s data processing hardware is slower than the other, the slow server will increase the latency of the transaction. Note: the user’s device can also introduce latency.

  4. Complexity: A single ad serving transaction (ad to page) can be a simple “one hop” request for an image le from a CDN, or it can be a complex series of “hops” between multiple servers of different players including exchanges, ad networks and services vendors (geo-lookup, fraud detection, user data, etc.).

  5. Security: Publisher pages increasingly require secure http browsing, which prevents third parties from eavesdropping on the information being sent between a user and publisher via http. If the ad technology applied to an ad creative has tracking that’s not secure, the user’s browser can prompt consumers with what’s known as a mixed content security warning, which often dissuades users from loading the webpage containing the advertiser’s content. Additionally, on the publisher’s side, SEO and SEM rankings can suffer if high levels of non-secure content are allowed on secure pages. As such, both buyers and sellers should have checks in place to ensure that the ad technology tracking applied to automated buys is SSL-compliant. 

Tools to Reduce Latency

  • Distance Co-Location
    The internet’s infrastructure and routing algorithms have been optimized for speed. Little can be done, however, to shorten the distance between two physical locations if a company chooses to do business in the U.K. and serve ads from the U.S. Having servers as close to users as possible can reduce latency. When the ad serving transaction is complex, co-locating servers (exchange, ad network, vendor, etc.) can also greatly reduce latency. Co-location in the same data center is ideal.

  • Connection Bandwidth & Processing Speed: Device Pairing
    The easiest way to ensure that no link in the chain is slowing down data transfer is to select servers that are the same on both ends of the transaction. This, of course, is not possible in the case of server-to-client transactions (server-to-device). However, in the case of server-to-server transactions, “device pairing” (two of the same type, brand, etc.) servers should remove any latency from “mismatched” servers with different bandwidth and speed performance.

  • Complexity: Integrated Platforms vs. Patchworks
    Online advertising is inherently transactional (ad request, ad response, impression pixel red, etc.) The simplest transactions result in the lowest latency. When the transactions become more complex (multiple requests and responses to complete the ad delivery), latency increases. There can be many partners working together to deliver an ad, including exchanges, DSPs, data providers, third-party verification vendors, and others. Each server hop required increases the time to complete the ad transaction. Working with integrated platforms offering all services in-house rather than multiple discrete partners in a patchwork approach can reduce transactional complexity. 

  • Flash Migration to HTML5
    Over the past months, almost all major browsers have announced plans to restrict the use of Flash and to replace it with HTML5 as the default media playback option. Some of the changes announced have a direct impact on video ads and require the video advertising community to transition from Flash to HTML5.

IAB Tech Lab has been working with the Digital Video Technical Working Group to provide guidance to publishers and agencies in order to complete this transition and eliminate all Flash video ads by July 2017. Please refer to the “Transitioning Video Ads from Flash to HTML5/JS” and two IAB checklists—for publishers and for agencies—for further guidance on the technical and operational details of this transition.

Video Creative Workflow: Matching Video Ad Creative to Target Devices 

Digital video-based media is increasingly being transacted based on data and can occur in milliseconds using techniques, such as real-time bidding. However, securing and executing the right creative asset to serve on the right device is still an extraordinarily manual process that contradicts the entire premise of technology-driven digital advertising. Ironically, the world of linear TV is far more efficient in the handling of video creative than that of digital. For years, TV has used purpose-built platforms to provide efficient management and distribution of video creative assets, while digital video is typically handled with manual email chains, phone calls, FTP file transfers, and manual transcodes. Metadata related efforts like Ad-ID (see section 4.3.1) is helping streamline some of the workflow issues by enabling data associated with specific assets to flow across the various buyer / seller systems (enabling better tracking and reporting). However, another part of the workflow is related to the actual creative files, which today are often housed locally on various publisher and agency systems, creating redundancies. A simpler approach leverages the concept of centralized “ad clouds” whereby creative assets are accessed via the ad tag and then streamed to the device in the same way that content is streamed to end users. A key aspect of this cloud based approach requires broad adoption of the aforementioned standard ad identification schemes, Ad-ID, along with use of the underlying technology standards, such as VAST and VPAID, which together will allow for more efficient, automated access to and distribution of video creatives.

An illustration of the video creative assets and workflow as it is now and the cloud based approach can be found below. 

Ad Blocking 

Released in July 2016, the IAB “Ad Blocking: Who Blocks Ads, Why, and How to Win Them Back” brakes down current ad blocking adoption and identifies more than one quarter of U.S. adults as ad block users. Although the ad avoiding or skipping behavior is not completely new to video, technology has granted more power and control to audiences to enable ad blocking. Ad Blocking is a type of software that can remove or alter advertising content from a webpage, website, or a mobile app. First seen in 2009, ad blocking software has emerged as a significant challenge for the advertising industry.

Top Five Reasons Consumers Block Ads

  • Ad may interrupt the user’s content consumption experience and seem intrusive.

  • Privacy protection: as user tracking has become ubiquitous, consumers believe ad blocking can help reduce privacy vulnerabilities.

  • Protection against computer malware and viruses: exposure to potential viruses is increased through malware-laden advertising.

  • Increased page load times:
    consumers expect web
    pages to load quickly (two seconds or less), while heavy ads can slow down that process.

  • Ad clutter and saturation: digital advertising’s saturation within digital media has resulted in users feeling overwhelmed by ad clutter.

Suggested Solutions to Ad Blocking
  • Deliver ad experiences that are relevant and add value to the user.
  • Create ads that are user-initiated. When an ad is user-initiated, the control is in the hands of the audience, reducing concerns of annoyance. These ads empower the user to choose whether or not they want to engage with a brand.
  • Try native ad formats. One advantage of native ads over traditional digital formats is that native ads tend not to get caught by ad blocking software due to the way they are served to users (from within the site itself as opposed to a third-party ad server). 

Additional smart ways to win back the trust of consumers and help prevent future ad blocking include:

  • Giving users control of their browsing experiences with options to skip ads immediately or after a period of time, and offering ad ratings options (thumbs up/thumbs down).
  • Providing a streamlined browsing experience, removing ads that get in the way of the consumer’s content consumption and ensuring that ads do not slow down the browsing experience. This balanced, lean advertising approach provides consumers with a secure space to consume content, while allowing publishers to maintain ad revenue and a positive user experience.

Fraud, Piracy, and Malware 

Advertising fraud in digital video is a major challenge. Video ads are more susceptible than display to bad actors performing and capitalizing on fraudulent activity. To understand ad fraud, we must first understand the opportunities and the market conditions that support it.

Supply and Demand

Since the rise of digital advertising, marketers have embraced the promise of delivering their brand message using the ultimate storytelling format: video.

For marketers, the opportunity to leverage existing TV campaign creative—re-purposed for digital in standard 15 and 30 second ad slots—has provided a cost-effective formula. High quality premium publishers who specialize in video content have created experiences that support TV-like brand advertising. For publishers whose core strength is not video, the challenge has been one of scaling available inventory to support video. To enter the higher CPM video space many publishers have developed site sections or dedicated properties that showcase a limited amount of video content. Despite these efforts, high quality video inventory remains in short supply.

Due to this scarcity in premium video, buyers must find additional sources of inventory to meet their impression goals. This can include extended networks, resellers, and now indirect channels. Unfortunately, such secondary supply sources offer less transparency regarding ad placement, practices, ad formats, and setup. All these factors create a perfect incubator for ad fraud. One of the most common forms of video ad fraud is unauthorized resale of a publisher’s display inventory, which are abundant (such as botnets and domain fraudsters)—could be delivered on well-established domains to real people. In this form of ad fraud, the buyer purchases linear video impressions (pre, mid, post roll) and a seller either knowingly or unknowingly delivers the video to a display ad placement which may be automatically played with audio on.

The misrepresented sale of impressions hurts brands in two ways: the KPIs used to evaluate the campaign are skewed as display placement do not return the same ROI as properly targeted video placements and the brand unintendedly delivers a misplaced message (wrong ad to the wrong user), which may cause a negative brand sentiment in the viewer.

Other forms of ad fraud take the form of automated, non-human traffic, typically generated by a bot or a session emulator (in mobile environments). Fraudsters then drive fake traffic to a property on which the ads are displayed. In some cases, the publisher who operates the site is unaware of the non-human activity as it is hidden with inventory purchases made to augment the property’s organic inventory.

Measurement and Validation of Ad Environments

To help limit the impact of fraud, some marketers implement performance based video view KPIs, such as quartile views or completed video views, to help determine the authenticity of the ad impressions. Others utilize common measurement metrics such as viewability or more specific Invalid Traffic (IVT) reports. The challenge is that the tactics of fraudsters are typically a few steps ahead of validation solutions.

Fraudulent practices are often engineered specifically to spoof performance metrics. This is the case in auto-play video ads which are located at the top of the page (and therefore typically measured as viewable). Additionally, fraudsters may try to avoid the measurement “hurdle” altogether by implementing ads with no support for third-party verification vendors. Typically, impressions that do not support VPAID are less measureable for viewability, yet top verification technology providers do not require VPAID for fraud detection.

Financial impact of Ad Fraud

To provide financial context to the issue of fraud, the estimated cost of criminal activity in digital advertising is $8.2 billion[61] which is broken up as follows:

  • Invalid traffic/fraud: $4.6B

  • Internet Piracy: $2.5B

  • Malware: $1.1B

In the case of emerging forms of inventory, such as OTT and mobile apps, some publishers employ server-side ad requests, side-stepping the exchanges and the third- and fourth party ecosystem that is inherently less transparent and therefore more open to fraud.

It is up to all the industry stakeholders to work together to enable and enforce a transparent and trustworthy ecosystem and to share best practices for reducing fraud. Groups and organizations focused on reducing fraud include IAB, TAG (Trustworthy Accountability Group), MRC, and others. 

Organizations Creating Best Practices/Standards 

 

IAB DEAL & LEAN Principles 

The growth of ad blocking usage has been acknowledged as a signal of user dissatisfaction with their overall advertising experience on the internet.

IAB DEAL (Detect, Engage, Ask, Lift or Limit) primer offers guidance for publishers on tactics for engaging audiences in a conversation about the advertising value exchange, and presents a set of alternatives that can be offered to the consumer. It is recognized that each tactic has tradeoffs and that some tactics may be more appropriate for certain audiences.

Initiating a conversation opens the doors to additional feedback from users about the specific advertising experience. As such, the LEAN (Lightweight, Encrypted, Ad Choices, Non-Invasive) principles offer consistent guidance on advertising design and technology decisions that have a positive impact on user experience. Publishers especially will want to explore “How LEAN Can You Get? A Scale and a Score Will Tell You.

The LEAN Principles are part of the IAB New Ad Portfolio and influenced the design for Dynamic Ad ComponentsThese specs primarily cover non-video contexts, but provide a solid baseline of behaviors that align to the principles. The portfolio’s ad units integrate aspect ratio-based exible ad sizes, and also incorporate the LEAN Principles of lightweight, encrypted, AdChoices supported, and non-invasive advertising within all of its mobile, display, and native ad formats. This ad portfolio is based on HTML5 technology and also includes guidelines for such new digital content experiences as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), social media, mobile video, emoji ad messaging, and 360-degree video ads. 

Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) 

In order to combat malware, fight ad-supported Internet piracy, and promote brand safety through greater transparency, IAB—together with the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA)—created the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG), a first-of-its-kind cross-industry accountability program to fight criminal activity in the digital supply chain. TAG is organized around four core areas:

  • Eliminating fraudulent digital advertising traffic

  • Combating malware

  • Fighting ad-supported internet piracy to promote brand integrity

  • Promoting brand safety through greater transparency

TAG has created voluntary certification programs, tools, and protocols to equip companies in the digital advertising supply chain to effectively and collaboratively fight crime.

  • TAG Certified Against Fraud Program

  • TAG Certified Against Malware Program

  • TAG Certified Against Piracy Program

  • TAG IQG Certified Program (Inventory Quality Guidelines)

Through its working groups, TAG and its contributors develop, modernize, and improve these programs, tools and protocols for the industry.

Building more transparency around inventory transactions is key to eliminating ad-supported fraud, piracy, and malware. Legitimate companies need a way to identify responsible, trusted players across the entire digital advertising ecosystem.
The TAG model is designed to separate criminals from the legitimate players so that the whole value chain is more transparent and legitimate as good players can identify one another and would only want to transact with other verified players.

In order to accomplish this, TAG requires that—prior to achieving its certifications—companies must first participate in the “Verified by TAG” Program, which makes it possible for companies to employ a two-factor authentication system for the digital ad supply chain: the TAG Registry and the Payment ID Protocol.

The TAG Registry is a Who’s Who of trusted partners for any company involved in digital advertising, enabling companies to ensure that they are working with legitimate parties at every step of their digital ad campaigns. “TAG Registered” companies receive unique TAG-IDs to identify their ad inventory to supply chain partners.

TAG’s Payment ID System enables companies to ensure that payments made in the digital ad ecosystem are going to legitimate companies. The Payment ID System creates transparency by linking identifiers for the partners from whom a company buys ad inventory and those buying from that company to that inventory, effectively “following the money” across the entire digital advertising supply chain in order to prevent criminals from receiving ad spend.
TAG has also built a corps of TAG Compliance Officers representing all TAG member companies. TAG Compliance Officers not only benefit from regular training, they also operate as a network of contacts to facilitate rapid information sharing across the digital advertising ecosystem, as they did when the Methbot threat was first announced. 
To find out more about TAG programs, please email [email protected] or visit tagtoday.net

IAB Tech Lab Ads.txt – Authorized Digital Sellers 

As part of a broader effort to eliminate the ability to profit from counterfeit inventory in the open digital advertising ecosystem, IAB Tech Lab has been working in partnership with the digital advertising industry to create a mechanism to enable content owners to declare who is authorized to sell their inventory. The project’s name is ads.txt.

The mission of the ads.txt project is simple: Increase transparency in the programmatic advertising ecosystem. Ads.txt stands for Authorized Digital Sellers and is a simple, flexible, and secure method that publishers and distributors can use to publicly declare the companies they authorize to sell their digital inventory.

By creating a public record of Authorized Digital Sellers, ads.txt will create greater transparency in the inventory supply chain, and give publishers control over their inventory in the market, making it harder for bad actors to profit from selling counterfeit inventory across the ecosystem. As publishers adopt ads.txt, buyers will be able to more easily identify the Authorized Digital Sellers for a participating publisher, allowing brands to have confidence they are buying authentic publisher inventory. The final Ads.txt Version 1.0 Specification can be found here

The Digital Advertising Alliance 

The Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) establishes and enforces responsible privacy practices across industry for relevant digital advertising, providing consumers with enhanced transparency and control through multifaceted principles that apply to multi-site data and cross-app data gathered in either desktop or mobile environments. The DAA is an independent non-profit organization led by leading advertising and marketing trade associations

Media Rating Council (MRC) Standards 

The Media Rating Council (MRC) is a non-profit industry association established in 1963 as a result of Congressional hearings and is comprised of leading television, radio, print, and digital media companies, as well as advertisers, advertising agencies, and trade associations. Media Rating Council (MRC) audit activity spans all media types including internet, out-of-home, print, radio, and television, as well as cross-platform measurement. MRC’s mission is to secure for the media industry and related users audience measurement services that are valid, reliable, and effective.

MRC Objectives:

  • To evolve and determine minimum disclosure and ethical criteria for media audience measurement services.

  • To provide and administer an audit system designed to inform users as to whether such audience measurements are conducted in conformance with the criteria and procedures developed.

MRC fulfills its mission by setting standards and conducting audits of compliance against them using independent Certified Public Accountants (CPAs). In addition to the MRC’s Minimum Standards (applied to every audit MRC conducts), the MRC has authored several other standards and guidelines over the past decade including:

Additional information about MRC can be found at mediaratingcouncil.org
1: The Nielsen Company, Monitor Plus (Standard Calendar, Total includes B2B, National Internet (Display only), FSI Coupons), Oct. 2016
2: IAB/PwC 2016 Internet Advertising Revenue Report
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_...
3: To view the Top 10 Video Content Properties by Unique Viewers, see comScore’s monthly release of their Video metrix data.
http://www.comscore.com/Products/Audience-Analytics/Video-Metrix
4: Business Insider: “The US Digital Media Ad Revenue Report: The path to $100 billion in annual revenue by 2021.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-digital-media-ad-revenue-report-the-path-t...
5: IAB/PwC 2016 Ad Revenue Report
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_...
6: Business Insider: “5 video advertising trends that will change your business.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/sc/5-video-advertising-trends-2017-3
7: PwC: “2017-2021 Global Entertainment and Media Outlook.”
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/industry/entertainment-media/publications/global-entert...
8: Forrester Research, 2016
https://go.forrester.com/blogs/16-08-24-announcing_our_annual_benchmark_on_the_s...
9: Pathak, S. (2017). “Why digital advertising is experimenting with blockchain.” Digiday, 4 Apr 2017
https://digiday.com/marketing/digital-advertising-experimenting-blockchain/
10: Gross Rating Point: Measured by the % of households that tune into to a particular show or network and have the opportunity to see an ad.
11: Reach: Represents the total number of people exposed to the media plan or ad over a certain time period, based on the total size of the target audience.
12: Frequency: Is a measure of media repetition.
13: IAB’s Digital Video In-Stream Ad Format Guideline.
http://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DVAFG_2015-01-08.pdf
14: IAB Deep-Dive on In-Feed Ad Units: A Supplement to the IAB Native Advertising Playbook
https://www.iab.com/news/iab-deep-dive-on-in-feed-ad-units-a-supplement-to-the-i...
15: Herrmann, J. & Isaac, M. (2016). “The Online Video View: We Can Count It, but Can We Count on It?” The New York Times, 2 Oct 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/business/media/the-online-video-view-we-can-c...
16: Cloud Servers: A cloud server is a logical server that is built, hosted and delivered through a cloud computing platform over the internet. Cloud servers possess and exhibit similar capabilities and functionality to a typical server but are accessed remotely from a cloud service provider.
17: Syndication is a term that is used in both print and broadcast media. It indicates content that for instance is purchased for use by a local newspaper, TV, or radio station. It is not produced by the media company’s owner but through an outside source.
18: XML: Extensible Markup Language (XML) defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format that is both human/machine-readable
19: CSS: is the language for describing the presentation of Web pages, including colors, layout, and fonts. It allows one to adapt the presentation to different types of devices, such as large screens, small screens, or printers. CSS is independent of HTML and can be used with any XML-based markup language
20: Audience segments are subsets of user data signifying specific facts, interests and other attributes. Audience segments, and the techniques
21: URI is a string of characters used to identify a resource. Such identification enables interaction with representations of the resource over a network using specific protocols. Schemes specifying a concrete syntax and associated protocols define each URI. The most common form of URI is the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), frequently referred to informally as a web address.
22: Making Measurement Make Sense (3MS) is a cross-industry initiative founded by the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The Media Rating Council (MRC), an independent body, is responsible for setting and implementing measurement standards.
23: IAS 2016 year-end survey results
https://insider.integralads.com/2016-year-end-survey-results/
24: An “affiliate” is an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another entity. Control of an entity means that one entity (1) has significant common ownership or operational control over the other, or (2) can exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other entity. In addition, for an entity to be under the control of another—and thus be treated as first party under these entity’s policies.Principles—that entity must adhere to online behavioral advertising policies that are not materially inconsistent with the other
25: Deloitte. “2015 Global Mobile Consumer Survey: US Edition. The rise of the always-connected consumer.”
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-tel...
26: Mobile Spearheads Digital Video Advertising’s Growth.” eMarketer, 22 Feb 2016.
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Spearheads-Digital-Video-Advertisings-G...
27: comScore Inc., Nielsen, and ZenithOptimedia
http://www.zenithoptimedia.cz/en/zenith/news/detail/107-Mobile%20to
28: Nielsen Q2 2016 Comparable Metrics report.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-report...
29: Q2 2016 Comparable Metrics report.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-report...
30: AARP.
https://press.aarp.org/2016-12-05-Smartphone-Ownership-Up-Among-Adults-Age-50-Pl...
31: Nielsen Q2 2016 Comparable Metrics report.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-report...
32: Mobile Spearheads Digital Video Advertising’s Growth.
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Spearheads-Digital-Video-Advertisings-G...
33: ANA reports 7.2B lost in Ad fraud
http://adage.com/article/digital/ana-report-7-2-billion-lost-ad-fraud-2015/30220...
34: Snapchat internal data snapchat.com/ads
35: The continued evolution of enhanced mobile experiences that overlay digital information on top of the physical world
36: Duffy, F. (2017). “Turner Takes on eSports in a Big Way.” NCTA Platform, 6 Jan 2017.
https://www.ncta.com/platform/industry-news/turner-takes-on-esports-in-a-big-way...
37: The waterfall model is a sequential process in which progress is seen as flowing steadily downwards (like a waterfall) through the various phases, in this case, the potential demand sources or buyers
38: IAB Programmatic Revenue Report 2014 Results. July 2015
http://www.iab.net/media/file/PwC_IAB_Programmatic_Study.pdf
39: IAB Transparency is the Key to Programmatic Success
http://www.iab.net/media/file/IABDigitalSimplifiedProgrammaticAdvertisingTranspa...
40: WTF is header bidding?
https://digiday.com/media/wtf-header-bidding/
41: Thomvest ventures
http://blog.thomvest.com/header-bidding-overview/
42: Programmatic TV definition per IDC
http://pages.thetradedesk.com/rs/527-INM-364/images/TheTradeDesk_IDC_Programmati...
43: Lotame Bridge the TV ad gap & PWC Media forecast 2015, agency reports, front row advisory analysis
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=reg20.jsp&part...
44: eMarketer More OTT Time Means More Ad Time
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/More-OTT-Time-Means-More-Ad-Time/1012388
45: eMarketer’s Connected TV and Over-the-Top Video: The Living Room’s Place in the US Digital Video Ecosystem report.
https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Premium-Content-Helps-Grow-US-Connected-TV-Aud...
46: Frank N. Magid Associates study
http://magid.com/
47: comScore 2016 U.S. Cross Platform Future in Focus report.
https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2016/2016-US-Cro...
48: Nielsen’s first-quarter 2016 Total Audience Report.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2016/the-total-audience-report-q1-...
49: Adobe U.S. Digital Video Benchmark 2Q15; adobe primetime; TV connected devices=apple TV, Roku, gaming console, amazon fire TV,smart TV, other
50: Based on 2016 total viewers Broadcast - Source: Nielsen. Prime time total viewers, Live+7; Broadcast data: 12/28/15-12/4/16
51: Based on 2016 total viewers Cable - Source: Nielsen; Live+SD numbers from 12/28/2015-12/18/2016
52: Based on 2016 TV household coverage. Networks supplied coverage percentages, except for Create TV, which came from Across Platforms consltancy
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/96496/diginets-keep-growing-despite-auction-c...
53: IDC
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57901762725e2547f073e884/t/58aefa0bff7c50...
54: Video Landscape Report
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IAB-Video-Landscape-Report-Novemb...
55: IAB TV 20/20 Webinar, 2016. Videology % estimates from Nielsen, eMarketer trend data; Time spent data calculated by Videology from Nielsen and KPCB data. Highest rated programs based on Nielsen A18-49 Live+7 data.
56: “2016 U.S. Cross-Platform Future in Focus,” comScore
https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2016/2016-US-Cro...
57: IAB Digital Video Landscape report
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IAB-Video-Landscape-Report-Novemb...
58: Any Given Minute Comparable Metrics Report, VAB 2016
http://www.thevab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VAB-Any-Given-Minute-Comparable...
59: IAB: The Programmatic Supply Chain: Deconstructing the Anatomy of a Programmatic CPM)
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Programmatic-Value-Layers-March-2...
60: Ghostery, Inc. Interview with Ghostery CEO Scott Meyer. IAB Annual Leadership Conference. January 26, 2016.
61: IAB/EY Study released on Dec-15. Estimates are for the U.S. Market only. Industry-wide collaboration under the auspices of TAG is needed in order to forestall these criminal activities