I'M AGAINST IT !

Lately, some of my readers suggested that I often take a contrarian position on new developments in the ad business. I accept those observations as generally true with a need to explain why.

Our industry is hurtling forward at breakneck speed trying to desperately keep up with the technology that precedes it. Since the explosive growth of the Internet in the late nineties, the bubble that burst in 2001 and the rise of the venture capitalists out of the ashes, the movers and shakers of our industry are at it again.

I smell a land grab of sorts. MySpace, Facebook and, God forgive us, Twitter all attempting to make something out of nothing more than a conversation. None of them have yet to yield a return to their investors.... not a penny!

Ad exchanges and ad networks are popping up like ducks in a shooting gallery ... most of them simply replicating one another, offering identical inventory that has been dumped into them by publishers.

Skeptical? Yes. Let's set the record straight. Many of these ideas are very bad ideas and will lose money and jobs as we have recently witnessed by MySpace and soon, AOL.

It's the skeptic in me that keeps my strategic focus on the reality and business of our business in tow. It also often keeps clients that will listen and learn from making dreadful mistakes.

There are many advances in our business that make both traditional and digital media exciting, productive and return valuable insights and actionable results.

And while I am skeptical of many new "toys", I am also playing with them to see if I can keep from breaking them.

So thanks for the feedback. The video that closes this posting was found on Bob Hoffman's great blog, The Ad Contrarian. Bob is the CEO of Hoffman/Lewis in San Francisco and St. Louis.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL

As the dust settles on the Publicis / Razorfish deal one overriding question remains concerning the "strategic alliance" between Publicis and Microsoft.

As part of the deal, Publicis is committed to spend hundreds of millions on Microsoft search and display ad inventory, over a five year term, at favorable rates. It is unlikely that details concerning favored nation rates will be made public.

As an advertiser I might question the inclusion of Microsoft's media on a buy as a potential conflict of interest, stemming from the commitment Publicis made to Microsoft. According to David Kenny, managing partner at Publicis, the "deal presents no conflict". It is not, however, Kenny's call to make. That's for the advertiser to decide.

The alliance seems to miss the growing participation of advertisers in ad exchanges, developed to provide a bidding platform that can take advantage of hyper-targeting, leveraging a huge data pool for optimal returns. How does stepping out of that framework work to the advantage of Publicis' clients? Was this an oversight?

If search and display rates for Microsoft are below par, will Publicis be allowed to dump the inventory into the exchanges as a broker? Will Microsoft allow it and risk setting rate precedents?

This was a good deal for Microsoft. It remains to be seen if Publicis will fare nearly as well.