Newsletter Subject

Making Digital Advertising Contracts Smart

From

adexchanger.com

Email Address

email@adexchanger.com

Sent On

Thu, Dec 14, 2017 06:28 PM

Email Preheader Text

“The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community. Spon

“The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community. Sponsor Message [Ready to go Server-Side?]( [Download your guide to the transition now]( [www.rubiconproject.com/the-move-to-server-side-header-bidding]( [AdExchanger Heading] “[The Sell Sider](” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community. Today’s column is written by Rob Beeler, managing editor, research, at [The 614 Group](, chairman of [AdMonsters]( and founder of [Beeler.Tech](. When shopping online, transactions are practically automatic and mistakes are by far the exception. When we buy something online we trust that we get what we pay for. So why is it when we buy digital media “online,” we don’t have that same amount of trust? The trust I’m referring to is not whether or not an impression is seen by a person. There is an overall lack of trust between buyers, sellers and everyone in between, but the emergence of the smart contract could one day add a dose of transparency to the relationship between publishers and the marketers and vendors they work with. Imagine this scenario: During an RFP or discussion about a campaign, KPIs may be revealed, but just as often they are not. Rarely is there an agreement that if a publisher delivers on those KPIs that additional ad spend or a renewal will result. In fact, there is no assurance that a well-delivered campaign won’t be canceled without much indication as to why. The publisher, now negotiating from a disadvantage, must decide how to price and deliver to protect itself. Note that most contracts based on my discussions with publishers aren’t canceled before they run. Instead, the terms are negotiated after the fact. Viewability may be measured but is not specifically a requirement until after the campaign has started. At that point, the publisher must optimize to something not specifically agreed upon in the contract. If the terms of a contract can be so easily changed after the fact, is it really a contract? Programmatic removes much of this contractual wishy-washiness, but certainly hasn’t improved the trust factor. Think of the percentage of advertising dollars spent throughout the advertising spectrum on ad verification, just to validate that buyers are getting what they think they bought. To help solve this, we need to look to the IAB for the next version of standard terms and conditions. That’ll help, though adoption will take time and could still be subject to the same renegotiation after the fact. The solution may rest in smart contracts. Built on blockchain, smart contracts essentially lock down terms in the code and automate some of the contract’s conditions. The example often given is the vending machine: You put money in and a product comes out. Dressed up in legalese, you agreed to pay a particular price and, once that amount was paid, your product was delivered with no need to sign anything. Smart contracts are written as code and need a level of specificity to make them work. Once constructed, the smart contract can’t be changed and some aspects can be automated, such as when 1 million human-viewable impressions are served based on an agreed-upon vendor, the publisher is paid a certain amount of money. Smart contracts are being [tested in several sectors](, including government and finance. The biggest challenges are education, a lack of awareness, client-side development and adoption, and the code must be written properly, just like any other piece of software. I would expect the emergence of third-party companies that focus on smart contract law. But as the world looks at ways of speeding up transactions of all sorts, including currency and data, the ad tech industry might need to move in this direction. The result would be better definitions around what is bought and sold, the terms and specifications required to deliver and an automated immutable contract. Think about it: Contracts that hold up for all parties involved. That would be the perfect gift for Q4. Follow 614 Group ([@614group](), AdMonsters ([@AdMonsters](), Beeler.Tech ([@Beeler_Tech]() and AdExchanger ([@adexchanger]() on Twitter. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor Message [Ready to go Server-Side?]( [Download your guide to the transition now]( [www.rubiconproject.com/the-move-to-server-side-header-bidding]( © 2017 AdExchanger.com | 41 East 11th St., Floor 11 | New York City | NY | 10003 AdExchanger and AdExchanger.com are trademarks or registered trademarks. All rights reserved. To make changes to your email preferences or to unsubscribe, please [click here](

Marketing emails from adexchanger.com

View More
Sent On

13/12/2019

Sent On

20/09/2019

Sent On

03/09/2019

Sent On

26/07/2019

Sent On

26/07/2019

Sent On

23/07/2019

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.