Facebook

Facebook is trialling mid- roll advertising for Facebook Live and we’re suppose to be impressed?

Facebook are the powerhouse of walled garden networks. Publishers have been lured to the garden and are essentially handing their distribution over to Instant Articles for instant reach but how this will affect publishers long term, especially their brands is yet to be seen. Whilst reach seems to be increasing, engagement and time spent visiting the publisher’s sites is declining.

The model is almost pushing publishers to create snackable content for Facebook feeds, rather than perhaps the stories they would have invested time, talent and research in. Ad dollars are generating revenue, but is that revenue helping the longevity of legacy publisher brands?

Advertisers too are lining up, all eager to dive into the deep end of Facebook’s brand pool. Again though, as with publisher brands – many may well find their messages hugely diluted, and their data? Well, it’s Facebook’s data now.

The latest news from Facebook is that they’ll be introducing mid-roll advertising to Facebook Live. It’s being sold as a positive story, but we’re calling them on it right here, right now. No Facebook, just no!

Facebook have jumped on live streaming video because it’s the popular flavour right now, and for very good reason. But their advertising plans are confusing. Like pairing a fine vintage wine with 2 minute noodles and expecting people to be impressed. We’re not.

(Sometimes it’s said best, when you say nothing at all)

It’s not too difficult to coerce influential celebrities and media companies to get involved in creating live stream content – not if there’s a hefty paycheck involved anyway, and that’s what Facebook have offered.

The budget set aside for paid live stream content was set at $50million with various chunks dedicated to attracting and keeping very specific media companies such as BuzzFeed and popular celebs like Gordon Ramsay. It may seem a lot but it’s not an epic amount when you consider the vast amount of content required and the percentages set aside for specific publishers. And what happens when that $50million runs out? What about those publishers or YouTube stars that aren’t benefiting from that contractual pay packet?  Enter advertising, the solution that’s been keeping content free for the masses whilst also paying creators for years. Perfect. Well it could be, but again – no!

Facebook’s consideration of the publisher and their audience’s experience seems to be non-existent. Zuckerberg has always been averse to the idea of pre-roll advertising because according to him it ‘ruins the viewing experience’. However, whilst pre-roll may not be the ideal ad format for all audiences, it is a non interruptive format because it sits before content. What ruins viewing experiences is interruption.

Mid-roll is an interruption – it’s got the word mid in it people, it doesn’t get more interruptive than that. But ‘The Berg’ isn’t concerned, that’s the very model he’s approved for Facebook Live advertising.

Why mid-roll for live stream is fundamentally flawed

The nature of live streaming – is that it is live! That’s why it’s so exciting. So putting an ad in the middle of a live stream seems rather inappropriate, especially as the advertising industry is fighting hard to provide better ad experiences, and making inroads. It’s a backward step being taken by a huge network. There are much better options for publishers to monetise live stream content and engage with audiences, and yes – Coull’s OverStream format is one of those. We’re not going to shy away from the fact we care about audiences, we care about our publisher’s content and their brand and we care about the open web.

Live stream mid-roll ads have ad tech providers scratching heads. As we plough ahead and erode the status quo to forge a better shinier ad experience for our clients, Facebook scream and shout about a terrible solution to monetising an exciting new content format.

The industry and our audiences deserve better than mediocre monetisation solutions in the form of interruptive advertising – from the biggest social platform on the planet no less.

Advertisers and publishers do have a choice. Stop jumping in that pool – it’s tainted and it’s just a matter of time before the blue dye stains everything.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull comment

Coull Quickie – April 2016

In this latest Coull Quickie, Elise reports on linear television and programmatic video ad tech coming together, Facebook officially burying LiveRail, Snapchat increasing the price of its inventory due to the interactive vertical video ad format and the good news for programmatic in the UK. Find out why in this short, but sweet, Coull Quickie.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video

Coull Quickie – March 2016

In this month’s Coull Quickie we look back at the biggest video ad news from the month of March. Join Elise for this quick rundown of programmatic video industry stories including Facebook’s new video ads within Instant articles, Tube Mogul hits out at Google with it’s ‘Independence Matters’ campaign and the CMA cracks down on the labelling of advertising within editorial. All these stories and more in this month’s quickie.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video
The Not So Safe – ‘Safe Harbour Scheme’

The Not So Safe – ‘Safe Harbour Scheme’

More than a month after the ‘Schrems – v – Facebook’ (2015) judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared the Safe Harbour Agreement invalid, the transfer of personal data from the EU to the USA is still not being adequately protected.

Some background

Back in 2000 a Safe Harbour Program was established in order to enable the safe and protected transfer of personal data from the EU to US. EU privacy laws have restricted the transfer of inadequately protected and measured personal data outside the EU.

The programme represents a self-regulatory scheme created by the European Commission and the US Department of Commerce, to overcome the existing restriction in EU privacy laws and more particularly to comply with EU privacy laws and provide adequate protection when data is being transferred from the EU to US.

It was considered that each US company participating in the Safe Harbour Scheme is safe for EU companies to do business with in terms of safe transfer of personal data.

The 6th October 2015 Court decision of the ‘Schrems – v – Facebook’ (2015) changed the whole scenario in the “safety” net. It was held that the Scheme is not valid and it does not give adequate protection of safe transfer of personal data. The decision lead to chaos and opened Pandora’s Box as far as the legal world was concerned. So some of the logical questions that followed were:

  1. What’s next?
  2. How do we protect ourselves?
  3. How is that decision being applied to other similar Safe Harbour Schemes?
  4. What is the CJEU doing?

Luckily there are a few alternatives that currently limit access through the legal abyss created by the Safe Harbour Scheme’s inadequacies. Businesses are able to use these as a short term fix but they aren’t guaranteed and they certainly aren’t the solution.

There are a few alternative options that we’ll explain below:

The EU module clauses contract

Quite simply, this represents a template approved by the EU commission which incorporates all the rules that need following in order that a business be considered to have adequate data transfer protection.  For increased safety it is preferable those clauses remain just as suggested in the template, because the Commission has implemented all the necessary conditions, which cover the wide range of privacy laws, so it provides good protection guidance. However, the clause contract does not and cannot promise a 100% protection, nor can it stop US authorities bypassing these constraints to access the information they need/want.

Unfortunately, US legislature is different than European legislature, and the difference is profound. US laws allow for the large scale collection of personal data without effective judicial control. To add insult to injury, the public authorities in the US are not subject to Safe Harbour and US entities are bound to disregard the protective measures contained in Safe Harbour where they conflict with US law enforcement, national security or public interests.

Mutual Agreement

If the concerned parties wish so, they can sign a mutual agreement which will cover the “safe” data transfer, which again gives an EU company slightly better protection than the alternative of none. It is highly risky though as either party might miss something of great importance and that can result in unprecedented, long term damage.

BCR Scheme

Another option is the Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) scheme that offers a safe area that enables multiple transfers within group companies, which are utilizing the recognition system. This is highly likely to be implemented in the new Regulation in the EU in 2016, but in the meantime a guidance of use for Model Clause and Binding Corporate Rules has been issued.

The statement emphasizes the unlawful nature of the Safe Harbour Scheme, stating specifically that ‘ “If by the end of January 2016, no appropriate solution is found with the US authorities and depending on the assessment of the transfer tools by the Working Party, EU data protection authorities are committed to take all necessary and appropriate actions, which may include coordinated enforcement actions .” Or in other words there is a deadline for finding a solution to the Safe Harbor problem.

Consequences

The consequences for companies that transfer personal data from the EU to the US, whether intra-Group or to third parties, are as follows:

  • If your business is Safe Harbor certified, or it transfers EU personal data to a US company using Safe Harbor, you will need to consider adopting alternative solutions immediately. These may include, for example, the Model Clauses or BCRs.
  • If your company transfers EU personal data to the US using the Model Clauses or BCRs, you should be aware that these mechanisms may also be found to raise many of the same concerns that caused the CJEU to invalidate the Safe Harbor program; however, for the time being, the WP29 Statement would appear to mitigate the compliance risks arising from reliance on these measures.
  • Businesses should take stock of their data protection and data transfer practices in order to ensure that their practices conform to the commitments that they undertake pursuant to the Model Clauses or BCRs, and should consider ways of addressing compliance risks if the January 2016 deadline for concluding the Safe Harbor negotiations is not met.

Global Perspective

The next question to consider, is what about the Safe Harbor Scheme (Canada)? How is that affected by the recent Court decision? At the moment the Canadian Scheme is still deemed to be valid. But of course the same questions have aroused as in the Schrems’ case. It is a matter of time, according to many legal critics that this Scheme will be deemed as no longer an adequate protection provider. The EU commission is working on a whole piece of legislation that will hopefully be applied to all other Schemes too.

If we look at Israel, which recently has become known for its massive impact on the Digital Market, their ILTA (Israeli Law Information and Technology Agency) has stated that according to their laws it is prohibited to transfer personal data without adequate protection. Now after the 6th October decision they are also facing the same problem as all the EU countries. They also refer to EU Model Clauses, but they consider that even this can not be adequate protection. According to Israeli Law, companies should consider other alternatives such as strong encryption, change of server location and individual consents.

Resolution

If we look at this issue from a global perspective, it’s easy to see how widespread the effects are. All businesses involved are being forced to fall back on a plan B, which although doing the job of plugging a hole right now, won’t provide full and adequate protection. While everyone involved is doing their best to be understandable during this time of instability, and rely on good faith and good business practice between partners, they’re also waiting to hear some good news in January 2016. The hope is that by then, a new unified decision will be implemented and held valid for all those affected.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull comment

Coull Quickie – September 2015

In this month’s Coull Quickie Elise wraps up the latest news in online video advertising and digital media, including: the latest industry acquisitions, revelations post iOS 9 update and Facebook lets measurement company Moat come in and analyse its video ad performance. For the full wrap up just click play and enjoy.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video

Coull Quickie – July 2015

This month Elise talks about Google’s announcement to turn off all non-important plug-ins come September 1st, reveals new industry acquisitions and investments and Facebook’s new plans for digital advertising.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video

Coull Quickie – June 2015

The Coull Quickie for June is here. Get a wrap up of all the digital advertising news for last month. Elise talks about Cannes Lions 2015, introduces a new company that aims to give publishers their power back and looks at Snapchat’s new ad format as well as Facebook’s immersive advertising plans. It’s all here in the Coull Quickie for June.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video

Coull Quickie – May 2015

In the Coull Quickie for May we bring you a snap shot of the biggest ad tech news of the month – including the biggest acquisitions, Facebook’s new instant articles format, Twitters latest release, the MRC’s new mobile measurement guidelines, and we reveal while some big brands are pulling budgets from premium media companies. It’s all here in the Coull Quickie for the month of May.

Posted by simonholliday in Coull video