RTBs vs Managed/Direct Buys

[gbmack]

i've heard the argument that managed/direct buys are 'premium,' while dsp rtb buys are 'remnant,' but 'premium' for one advertiser isn't necessarily so for another.

what are the advantages for an advertiser to purchase managed/direct buys when rtb technology is more efficient?

perhaps it's because not all publishers have adopted rtb technology, but wouldn't they in the future when they realize its advantages?

 

[JoseArmando]

I think the thing here is that the good converting traffic (eg: first few impressions of a new visitor or most traffic during good hours) is sold as premium in managed buys then what's left is sold on exchanges over RTB. So basically premium is better for all advertisers since it converts better. That's how I understand it but I don't do a lot of media traffic, so I might be wrong

 

[gbmack]

I think the thing here is that the good converting traffic (eg: first few impressions of a new visitor or most traffic during good hours) is sold as premium in managed buys then what's left is sold on exchanges over RTB. So basically premium is better for all advertisers since it converts better. That's how I understand it but I don't do a lot of media traffic, so I might be wrong

makes sense.

i believe that it's the branding guys who contribute to the survival of dinosaur ad networks/direct site buys.

over time, rtb programmatic buys will win out. it's much more dynamic (fluctuating CPM) than static fixed-rate (fixed $ per CPM) price buys too, which is an advantage as it is more precise. without programmatic buys, you also have to deal with insertion orders, out clauses, documents, etc. i fucking hate dealing with legal documents.

rtb programs take a much smaller margin, and there is much more transparency between publisher and advertiser as opposed to ad networks.

an analogy would be akin to a drug dealer. yeah, you could go to the medical marijuana dispensary and get your marijuana through an organized system. or you could go direct to your drug dealer for a lower price, but it's not as organized. both models will survive, but one inevitably wins out in the end.

 

[jackinthebox]

Premium inventory is your perceived high value stuff - homepage, custom ad units etc. Mostly brand buyers who care more about where they appear and want to run a set campaign - x number of impressions, targeting this audience affinity.

Gbmack is correct in that most premium deals still happen through manual negotiation, documents back and forth. The bigger publishers tend to get the lion share because they have the traditional sales teams and real world contacts who can sell it.

If you're doing direct response, premium inventory isn't normally any better than remnant and usually worse.

If you're a brand buyer, say a movie studio, who wants to get out the word about a big blockbuster, you do a premium deal for a homepage takeover on YouTube or the Facebook logout page. On a smaller scale you might do some custom ad units on a movie fan site like Aint It Cool News.

 

[bigwavesurfer]

RTB isnt necessarily always remnant inventory. It really depends on how good the sites sales team is. They may not be selling out all their inventory. Your bid could beat the bid of the direct buyers. Sometimes you can get top of the impression chain buying through RTB. So in short it depends. Ideally though if you do have a placement that is working, it is worth trying it direct as well. As programmatic rises, you'll see people with the technology to change bids on the fly for individual impressions that are more likely to convert. In these cases the CPM bid can be bumped to +100% for the impression. Many people fail in buying Exchange traffic because they dont understand the marketplace or what they're up against. There are tech teams building out bidders that can take data and make decisions infinitely faster than you can. As JackintheBox says premium inventory isnt necessarily better than remnant inventory. You just have to test.

There are several advantages of going direct vs buying through a bidder. You may be able to get a discount on the inventory. RTB's typically dont take much margin but that could be enough to take a campaign from negative/breakeven into the green. The second being is that you can guarantee your placement. The third is that if you spend a lot of money with the traffic source you can begin to develop a relationship with that company. With that relationship, you can get little advantages that will help you to succeed. You might be able to get a discount on paying for traffic over longer periods of time. You might be able to get an exclusive contract for the offer you're running. Just think a little outside the box.

 

[JSanti]

Thing with the big branding guys is they have like a $5k lifetime customer value. That's the crap that bids the CPMs up and keeps your direct response campaigns running 3am in the morning on the YFuFu channel.

The great thing with RTB is that those premium placement guys usually pay a mixed price. What ALL the traffic is worth, the shit mixed with the good. So if the shit is worth more to you you win it. If the good part of a certain audience is worth more to you, you win again. The big agencies are way behind on optimization/targetting, so that's where we come in.

so split test, recognize audiences that love to buy shit right then and there, profit.

 

[Paper_Chase]

I hate to say it bro but media buying is DEAD. Sponsored snapchats are the way of the future...