FIFA World Cup 2018 Infographic Part 3: Content

Knowing that the United States was not competing in the 2018 Fifa World Cup, people were skeptical about how many Americans would tune in to watch the other countries compete. Now, as the semi-final games approach, it is clear that not having a home team to root for, the United States is simply not as interested in this year’s competition as they were in 2014. Bloomberg has reported that the number of American viewers watching the games has fallen by 44%. In 2014, the games averaged about 3.55 million viewers, and this year its around 1.98 million.   
       

Fox and NBCUniversal’s Telemundo, who together paid more than $1 billion, for the rights to the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, were somewhat expecting this decline. After the announcement in October that the US would not be competing, Fox lowered the audience it guaranteed advertisers as much as 20%. In order to still prompt excitement for the games, these networks focused their attention on Mexico’s appearance in the competition, hoping to gain viewership from bilingual fans. This found success as Telemundo’s most watched game, with 6.6 million viewers, was Mexico vs. Germany on June 29.

Despite the lack of World Cup interest in the United States, other countries all over the world are bringing in record-setting viewer numbers. 19.9 million people tuned into BBC to watch England beat Sweden to advance to the semi-final game. Those numbers only reflect people watching in their living room, not taking into account the hundreds of people that gathered at pubs to watch the game. When these fans are taken into account, the total number of people that watched that game, jumps closer to 30 million people.


Whether the number of viewers watching in respective countries is higher or lower than the competition four years ago, media analysts are focusing on the number of fans tuning in on their mobile device or streaming. BBC has reported that their online platform has had more than 31.2 million people watch the group match round. This is shocking when compared to the 32 million viewers who used an online platform throughout all of the 2014 tournament in Brazil. It is clear that the shift in favor of cable cutting is affecting all areas of television, even one of the most-watched global events.

More and more people are shifting away from cable, but still finding ways to tune into the games. Streaming, online or mobile, or choosing to watch the games at a pub or bar is making it trickier to track the specific number of viewers so far in the tournament. However, it gives advertisers more ways to reach consumers. In MediaMath’s World Cup Infographic, they outlined trends to watch during the tournament. Some of the best ways to reach fans were on streaming sites such as espn.com and sites where people can easily check scores, such as skyscore.com. We will have to wait until a final winner is decided and the games conclude, to see how the numbers from this year’s tournament compare to 2014 – who’s final match alone had 1.013 billion viewers. But for now, as media consumption trends change, advertisers need to stay up to date on the plethora of ways to reach fans, beyond cable television.


 


Digilant’s FIFA 2018 Digital Advertising Infographic covers who the consumers are, social media trends, how the content is consumed and by who, and more!

Download the full infographic here and don’t forget to share #DigilantData.

Interested in learning more about the impact on retail during the World Cup? Check out Part 4 of our FIFA World Cup 2018 Infographic series here.

 

 

Facts and Figures For Programmatic Media In-Housing

In 2018, more and more media buying and marketing teams are being asked to draw up proposals and plans for taking the programmatic portion of their budgets in-house.  While the claim behind this strategy is to innovate and take control of a brand’s programmatic future, the economics might point to something besides a complete in-house strategy as the way to go.
There are also different ways of in-housing. For some brands it means setting up their own agency trading desk and using that to deal directly with demand side platforms (DSPs). For others it involves bringing on board an ad tech partner or an agency of record that will be part of setting the strategy, but also responsible for pushing all the buttons when it comes to ad buying execution.

But let’s start at the beginning, why is in-housing taking off in the first place? The short answer is that marketers came to realize that a large share of their budgets were not being used to buy ads, but to fund the 5000 companies that have become part of the ad-tech LUMAscape. While in-housing doesn’t solve for all of that undisclosed share of the budget, it does force marketers to demand a more open or transparent business model from their agency or ad-tech partners.


Recent surveys suggest that more brands are having a serious look at bringing programmatic in house. A report from Infectious Media indicates that many marketers (more than 4 out of 5) want increased control over their programmatic efforts, but fewer than 2% of respondents have actually taken the steps to make it happen. It’s no wonder why brands have been scrambling to figure out the best way to manage their programmatic budgets.

The Challenges to Bringing Programmatic In-House

So what has been the challenge for advertisers to bring programmatic in house?  We’ve narrowed it down to what we think are the four most obvious issues.

  1. PROGRAMMATIC TECHNOLOGY IS COMPLEX:
    Requires a unique skill-set, technology in-house requires an expert or multiple experts at the helm.
  2. A FRAGMENTED ECOSYSTEM:
    Unlike other forms of digital advertising such as search, the market is not dominated by a single player but instead there are endless sources of inventory, numerous DSPs, multiple programmatic models to navigate. Marketers have to string together six to eight specialized solutions to accomplish their programmatic buying goals.
  3. TALENT POOL IS RELATIVELY SMALL for programmatic experts, with most professionals based at agencies in tech hubs such as San Francisco or New York.
  4. In addition to programmatic execution, brands also need to consider factors such as PLANNING, ANALYTICS AND BRAND SAFETYMost of which are enabled by 3rd party platforms and require expertise.

With most companies only being able to afford one or two internal programmatic experts, it seems that the budget has to match the resources necessary.

Brands must be spending at least $20 million programmatically before they even consider taking programmatic in-house, in order to generate a high enough level of savings to make the transition worthwhile.

– Wayne Blodwell, CEO of The Programmatic Advisory

The Solution is a Hybrid Model

At the end of the day most marketing and media buyers want the ease and safety of a single solution for their marketing services.  As much as having more control and transparency over programmatic media buying seems more cost efficient, the required investment in talent and expertise to navigate the ecosystem should not be overlooked.

The advantages of going direct make sense; control over their own first party data, disclosed contracts and platform logins, but until larger players absorb point solutions in the ad-tech LUMAscape your budget needs to start at something like $20 million to make the investment worthwhile.  Frankly not everyone is ready to jump in at $20 Million, so for those of you who are not there yet you should consider a hybrid model where you own the contracts and data and your agency partner, like us, owns the rest, at least for the foreseeable future.

Like what you see? Join the 500+ clients that have partnered with Digilant.