Facebook claims its ads have the potential to reach more people than recent U.S. census data shows exist, and that's troublesome for one analyst, who thinks third-party measurement services stand to benefit.From a report: Recently, Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser was intrigued by a trade publication study in Australia that said Facebook was claiming to reach 1.7 million more 16- to 39-year olds than actually existed in the country, according to Australian census data.In reproducing the study for the U.S., Wieser said Facebook's Ads Manager claims it can potentially reach 41 million 18- to 24-year-olds, 60 million 25- to 34-year-olds, and 61 million 35- to 49-year-olds.The problem arises when Wieser pulls up U.S. Census data from a year ago, showing 31 million 18- to 24-year-olds, 45 million 25- to 34-year-olds, and 61 million 35- to 49-year-olds.The upshot: Where is Facebook getting the extra 25 million 18- to 34-year-olds that the U.S. census did not count?"Conversations with agency executives on this topic indicate to us that the gap between Facebook and census figures is not widely known," Wieser said.
An advertising analyst pointed out the discrepancyPhoto Illustration: Dianna McDougall; Source: FacebookHow many young people live in the United States?According to Facebook, there are 41 million adults between the ages of 18 and 24.Facebook also says there are 60 million between the ages of 25 and 34, while the U.S. census puts its estimate at just 35 million.The difference was pointed out by senior advertising analyst Brian Wieser at Pivotal Research, who in a report distributed via email said the discrepancy was not widely known by various agency executives he spoke with about the topic.
Facebook claims that its ads can reach more people in the US than the number of people who live in the US.Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser picked up on the discrepancy after checking potential audience estimates provided by Facebook’s self-serve ad-buying tool and comparing Facebook’s estimates with estimates calculated last year by the US Census Bureau.According to Wieser’s digging — and confirmed by my own checking of Facebook’s and the US Census Bureau’s numbers — Facebook estimates that its ads (running across Facebook, Instagram and its Audience Network ad network of third-party publishers) can reach 10 million more 18- to 24-year-olds and 15 million more 25- to 34-year-olds in the US than live in the US, per Census data.Obvious question: Why would Facebook tell advertisers it can show their ads to 25 million more people in the US than actually live here?The inclusion of residents and travelers would also explain why Snapchat’s self-serve ad-buying tool claims its ads can reach up to 56.4 million 18- to 34-year-olds in the US, or 75 percent of the Census Bureau’s estimate for that population, when ComScore estimates the app reaches only 60 percent of that demographic; Snapchat Ad Manager also pegs the high end of the app’s reach among 18- to 24-year-olds to slightly exceed the total population of 18- to 24-year-old residents in the US.Meanwhile, the US Census Bureau’s figures only include the people who live in the US and rely on people raising their hands in a governmental roll call from which its estimates are extrapolated (Here’s the full methodology).
The company worries that a recent analyst report on these data differences is being reported as a Facebook error.Global sales chief Carolyn Everson: "It’s a challenge for us."Facebook has acknowledged a series of recent advertising-related data errors.But over-counting the population of young people in the US by 25 million is not one of them, it says.Late Tuesday, Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser sent shockwaves across the digital ad ecosystem by publishing a note saying that Facebook's ad targeting system says it can reach 25 million more people than are reported by the most recent US census.Facebook's vice president of global marketing solutions Carolyn Everson told Business Insider that Wieser's note is being misconstrued, and she's worried that Facebook will need to do some damage control with marketers.
Facebook’s estimates of how many people it can reach through ads in the United States isn’t adding up for at least one analyst, which could make marketers think twice about buying video ads on the social network.The tech firm, which has been criticized before for inflating video metrics, claims it can potentially reach 41 million 18-to-24-year-olds, 60 million 25-to-34-year-olds, and 61 million 35-to-49-year-olds, according to Pivotal Research, citing Facebook’s ad manager data.But that’s more than last year’s U.S. Census population estimates of 31 million 18-to-24-year-olds, 45 million 25-to-34-year-olds, and 61 million 35-to-49-year-olds.Get tech news in your inbox weekday mornings.Sign up for the free Good Morning Silicon Valley newsletter.“While Facebook’s measurement issues won’t necessarily deter advertisers from spending money with Facebook, they will help traditional TV sellers justify existing budget shares and could restrain Facebook’s growth in video ad sales on the margins,” wrote Brian Wieser, an analyst for Pivotal Research.
Breakit recently revealed that Facebook claims to reach more people than is found in Sweden, according to statistics SWEDEN.the Data, which are available in the Facebook Ads Manager, form the basis for advertisers to spend their annonsmiljoner.”Incorrect data leads to incorrect investment."Facebook's measurement problems will not necessarily deter advertisers from spending money with Facebook, but they assist traditional television sellers to justify the existing bugdetar and can limit Facebook's growth in the videoannonsförsäljning on the margin," says analyst Brian Wieser, to CNBC.In the target group of 25-34 years claim Facebook a reach of 60 million people, compared with 45 million people, according to the folkräkningsdatan.It was, in essence, that there are natural explanations for Facebook's inflated figures.
With around 240 million users in the US alone, advertisers know that Facebook offers them a massive potential audience.But the social network has been accused of inflating the figures when it comes to how many people see video ads on its platform.A Pivotal Research Group analyst said Facebook Ad Manager’s claim that it can potentially reach 41 million 18- to -24-year olds and 60 million 25- to -34-year olds is inaccurate.The United States doesn’t have that many people in those age brackets.US Census data shows there were 31 million people between the ages of 18 and 24 last year, ten million fewer than what Facebook claims it can reach, while the 25-34 age group consisted of 45 million people, a difference of 15 million compared to Facebook’s numbers.Pivotal Research Group’s Brian Wieser wrote that while Facebook’s “measurement issues” are unlikely to deter its advertisers, they will go some way toward justifying the existing budgets of traditional TV ad space sellers and could hinder Facebook’s growth in video ad sales.
(Reuters) — Disney will stop providing new movies to Netflix starting in 2019 and launch its own streaming service as the world’s biggest entertainment company tries to capture digital viewers who are dumping traditional television.Disney’s defection, announced on Tuesday alongside quarterly results showing continued pressure on sports network ESPN, is a calculated gamble that the company can generate more profit in the long run from its own subscription service rather than renting out its movies to services like Netflix.Disney stock fell 3.8 percent in after-hours trade.The new Disney-branded streaming service will follow a similar offering from ESPN that will be available starting in 2018, the company said.The streaming services will give Disney “much greater control over our own destiny in a rapidly changing market,” Chief Executive Bob Iger told analysts on a conference call after earnings, describing the moves as an “entirely new growth strategy” for the company.Disney has some experience with the direct-to-consumer model in Britain and could make more money in the long run from its own service, but the move could be “financially less advantageous” in the near term, said Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser.
‘Transparency issues’ has been a phrase that has dogged (if not defined) the new media age, and the advent of automated media trading has only propelled the issue further up the agenda.With four-in-every-five US digital display ad dollars transacted programmatically in 2017, according to eMarketer, the negative effect (or money wasted on) non-viewable ads, fraud (in its various forms), etc, can no longer be dismissed as negligible.Marketers are now under increasing amounts of pressure to demonstrate an ROI on media spend (Pivotal Research’s influential analyst Brian Wieser explains this succinctly here) meaning adtech is now firmly under the microscope of the procurement departments of some of the advertising industry’s biggest spenders.It is arguably this dynamic that has denoted 2017 in the evolution of adtech, or the ‘transparency debate.’ Besides the brand safety question raised to much opprobrium earlier in the year, 2017’s transparency debate has largely centered on ‘take rates’, aka the ‘adtech tax’, which refers to the money charged by each player in the programmatic supply chain throughout the course of a campaign.It could be argued that Rubicon Project’s much spoken of legal tussles with The Guardian over just this issue that has put it front-and-center of the media business, with many questioning if similar legal disputes will follow.This aspect of the transparency issue has occupied the mind of AppNexus chief executive Brian O'Kelley, the man behind one of the industry’s first online ad exchanges, as of late.
Brian Kersey / Getty ImagesTV ratings continue to slide, yet advertisers keep pumping money into TV.It's becoming apparent that YouTube and Facebook's recent public mishaps might have cost them a chance at grabbing TV ad budgets.But in the advertising market, the timing of Facebook and YouTube's recent mishaps (centered around shoddy measurement and ads ending up in the wrong places) appears disastrous.Just look at the latest TV ratings numbers released earlier this week by Pivotal Research's Brian Wieser."Total day and prime time viewing of traditional TV programming among adults 18-49 fell by double digits again, while internet-connected-device-based viewing – most of which is not ad-supported – rose yet again by around 50% year-over-year. "
p Driving down costs has been a recurring theme throughout the marketing industry for years, but the edict has become more aggressive over the last 12 months, curtailing growth in the advertising sector and souring the mood at the upcoming Cannes Lions festival, according to Pivotal’s senior analyst Brian Wieser."This concept of zero-based budgeting or 'forgetting about everything you did last year and look at everything from scratch' tends to mean lower spending on marketing and paid media," Wieser said in a recent interview with Beet TV.While marketing procurement has long been in place with big brands, the additional affect of "zero-based budgeting" techniques increasingly being employed by marketers is having a negative impact on the growth of the paid-for industry, especially in television, according to Wieser.He said a confluence of both procurement cost cuts and a new approach to accounting are having a really negative impact on the growth of the industry, with the depressive effect felt across all media, not just in digital.This will result in a “sour mood” prevailing during this year's Cannes Lions, despite a the last 12 months also seeing some "great creativity."This point was demonstrated last week when the Wall Street Journal reported that ad agencies are cutting costs, as “most ad holding companies are facing political and economic uncertainties, soft first-quarter earnings results and spending cuts by their clients”.
p Vivendi’s €2.36bn offer to buy Havas came as little surprise to the industry, but whether the French advertising group can remain an impartial intermediary after it becomes a key asset in the European media giant's arsenal is the question many observers are now asking.He is also the father of Havas Group chief executive Yannick Bolloré."If you look at the P of Vivendi and look at Havas’ results; there’s not a lot to be happy about.Now it finds itself with Canal making huge losses, issues in Italy with regulators and now they’ve bought Havas, which isn’t setting the world on fire.Chief marketers have been scrutinising their media spend after last year’s ANA report highlighting the practice of media rebates and have remained on high alert about the “murky” media supply chain that was recently called out by Procter & Gamble’s Marc Pritchard.It wasn't a point lost on Pivotal Research's senior analyst Brian Wieser, who pointed out that if the core parts of an advertising holding companies are to work with content owners as sources of distribution, then they have to be “relatively agnostic as to which media owners they work with in order to satisfy client preferences.”
p /p p /p Sure, Snap had a disappointing quarter — to say the least.But does one bad quarter equal a single-digit stock price?p Brian Wieser thinks it should.After Snap reported Wednesday that it missed Wall Street's expectations for revenue, earnings and daily active user growth, Wieser, an analyst who covers the company for Pivotal Research Group, dropped his target price for Snap's stock to $9 a share and reiterated his sell rating on it./p p With the Snapchat provider's sales coming in light, Wieser revised down his long-term revenue outlook for the company and, in turn, his price target./p p While Snap's revenue drop was "consistent with the company’s prior guidance," he wrote, it "nonetheless represents a surprising element of seasonality in the business, and risks of less growth ahead than we previously expected."
Internet advertising revenue continues to grow, thanks to mobile, but the Silicon Valley duopoly of Facebook and Google swallowed up almost the new money.The internet ad industry's annual report this week shows that desktop ad revenue fell for the first time since the financial crash of 2008/2009 and mobile spending raced past it.Mobile advertising now makes up more than 50 per cent of internet advertising revenue, passing the landmark for the first time.But alarming for the digital ad business, which seeks to act as an alternative for brands and publishers to the duopoly of Google and Facebook, the Silicon Valley giants are swallowing most of the growth.Two analysts have read the runes and came up with different calculations, but they don't differ by much.Pivotal Research Group's Brian Wieser – who you may remember commenting on the recent YouTube ad boycott – reckons the duopoly handles 77 per cent of gross digital ad spending, up from 72 per cent in a year.
Google and Facebook together accounted for an astounding 99% of revenue growth from digital advertising in the US last year, according to an analysis of IAB estimates by Pivotal Research senior analyst Brian Wieser on Wednesday.In a note to clients seen by Business Insider, Wieser said that both ad giants captured a combined 77% of gross spending in 2016, an increase from 72% in 2015.Facebook specifically accounted for 77% of the digital ad industry's overall growth, he noted.The overall US internet ad industry grew 21.8% from $59.6 billion to $72.5 billion in 2016, according to the IAB.But due to Google and Facebook's dominance, "the average growth rate for every other company in the sector was close to 0" last year, according to Wieser.While Pivotal's calculations aren't exact, (Facebook and Google don't disclose their specific ad-only revenues from the US), Weiser wrote that the data highlights "the degree to which Google and Facebook dominate the industry presently.""The big point is that if Google and Facebook are the primary interfaces to buyers, over the long-run they own the relationships and the related data," Wieser told BI via email."Every partner they work with is subservient.”Get the latest Google stock price here.NOW WATCH: WPP CEO Sir Martin Sorrell on Snapchat becoming the 'third force' to Google and FacebookLoading video...
Theater is an effective way to garner headlines, but it’s not always reliable when it comes to siphoning money from platforms.After the Times of London published an exposé about YouTube ads appearing against racist videos, brands began to pull their ads from the Google-owned platform in a move to gain any kind of possible leverage against the ad giant.But this kabuki theater is really more about power and money than moral outrage, which was demonstrated last week when advertisers suddenly demanded discounts from Google, even though ads have run next to extreme content on YouTube for years.Brands and publishers want to get power back from powerful platforms, but at least so far, the damage appears negligible, according to ad tracking data.Forecasts on the impact of the pullouts have been mixed.Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser said brand pullouts could potentially cost Google about $1 billion in annual revenue, but he was upfront in noting that “it’s all guess work” and that “in the short term, it’s not a given there will be any direct negative impact.”
Snap Inc. surged in its debut as a publicly traded company Thursday, after raising a greater than expected $3.4 billion in an initial public offering.Shares of Snapchat's parent company opened for trading at $24, up about 41% from the IPO price of $17 apiece.At the opening price, Snap had a valuation of about $33 billion.The stock closed at $24.48, up 44%.Snap's cofounders, Evan Spiegel, 26, and Robert Murphy, 28, rang the opening bell on the exchange earlier Thursday.At the IPO price, Spiegel's stake in the company is worth at least $4.5 billion.Murphy's stake in Snap is valued at closer to $3.9 billion.Speaking on the floor of the exchange, Glenn Carell, director of NYSE floor operations for Global Trading Systems, said the price discovery took a long time because of heavy demand from buyers who didn't get allocations they wanted in the IPO itself.
Shares of Snap Inc. got slapped with a "sell" rating as they made their trading debut.The parent company of Snapchat opened up at $24, up 41% from the initial public offering price of $17 per share.It was a solid start for the first social-media IPO since Twitter went public.But Brian Wieser, an analyst at Pivotal Research Group, placed a price target of $10 on the stock, or 58% lower than its opening price."Investors in Snap will be exposed to an upstart facing aggressive competition from much larger companies, with a core user base that is not growing by much and which is only relatively elusive," Wieser said in a note on Thursday."It has a promising and innovative advertising offering, but so far it is still mostly unproven and difficult to quantify its ultimate scale.Investors will also be exposed to a novel corporate structure operated by a senior management team lacking experience transforming a successful new product into a successful company.
Still Awaiting New Flight Plan.Crash Those are a few examples of the brutal analyst notes about Twitter, following the company's dismal Q4 results that missed expectations.As many as 20 Wall Street analysts who cover Twitter slashed their price targets or downgraded their ratings for the company as of Friday morning.The sharp drop in revenue that Twitter now forecasts for the first quarter  "seems difficult to fathom because of what it indicates about the current pace of revenue deceleration," wrote Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser.emphasis ours After plunging 11% on Thursday following its Q4 earnings results, Twitter's stock tumbled another 5% on Friday.Clipped wings"In the past, we have made the argument that Twitter would need "two wings" to succeed user growth/engagement & robust ad $s ," said UBS analyst Eric Sheridan in a note to clients downgrading Twitter to a "Sell" rating and titled "Can't fly with broken wings.""In light of its Q4 earnings report and management's initial take on '17 , we see Twitter as struggling to increase a mix of user time & mainstream adoption despite being at the forefront of many real-time global events and needing to re-position its ad business around a smaller cohort of ad products driven by video in the face of hyper-competition for branded ad $s targeted at digital video by Google, Facebook/Instagram, etc."Twitter's took in $717 million of revenue in the last three months of the year, versus Wall Street estimates of $740 million.
Nearly every major tech stock is down on Thursday, one day after Donald Trump was officially elected president.Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are all in the red, despite the broader market being up.While the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up more than 200 points in midday trading on Thursday, the tech-heavy Nasdaq is down about 20 points and was down as much as 60 points earlier .Brian Wieser, an analyst for Pivotal Research, said tech stocks are getting hit because people are concerned inflation might be higher under Trump."Interest rates are spiking, presumably because of concerns of higher inflation under the new administration," Wieser told Business Insider by email."As a result, anyone whose value is more dependent on future cashflow is worse off.I think that s why we are seeing a fall-off in technology/software focused companies vs. the other media companies I cover, where moves haven t been very significant."Here's how some of the major tech stocks are faring on Thursday:Apple: -3.13%Google: -4.05%Microsoft: -3.07%Facebook: -4.06%Amazon: -5.04%Yahoo: -3.01%Netflix: -5.07%Twitter: -5.07% And here's a look at the divergence between the Dow in black and the Nasdaq 100 in grey :Trump's tech planTrump and the tech industry have been at odds throughout the presidential campaign about issues such as immigration and free trade.