The Trade Desk sparked debate when it published its top 100 list, calling out top-ranked media companies it considers the “premium internet”. The ranking of the premium internet has significant implications for aspects of digital advertising such as attention measurement, emotion measurement, and defining and pricing of media quality.
The overall impact of this list is far-ranging; the list could be used to tilt ad revenues toward supposedly high-quality sites; but are they more effective? If so, for which audiences? Is a list of “premium content” fair, or does it invite cultural biases? In a diverse society, who gets to decide what is “premium”? Is premium content worth higher CPMs? What does being designated “premium” confer advantage fairly? What level of transparency is required on methods and assumptions to make such lists useful and acceptable?
On September 18 the ARF will host a virtual Town Hall about what premium content is and whether it is the right construct for trying to assign values to media. We will delve into the following questions: Who gets to define premium? What makes us think that the definition is universal and applies to all segments, all age groups, and all subcultures? Publishers want to claim the mantle of being “premium” and “quality” to justify their higher CPMs, but is the elitism justified? Can marketers justify it on economic grounds? Does it demean and devalue some of the population? Is a premium hierarchy a more useful media planning concept than the more flexible concept of “context effects” that allows for a variety of synergies between different kinds of media and different population segments?
Join us for an impactful discussion. Speakers will be announced soon.