ADM To Unveil Ad Unit Standards For Downloadable Media
Apr 1st, 2008 | By James Lewin | Category: Making Money with Podcasts, New Media Organizations 
The Association for Downloadable Media (ADM), an industry organization formed to focus on best practices for podcast advertising and metrics, will be introducing its ad standards and guidelines at the upcoming ad:tech San Francisco show April 16 and 17, 2008.
Get the Download focus areas will appear in several formats at ad:tech including:
- Four ADM Forum sessions designed to provide the downloadable media audience with ad standards & guidelines and market insight;
- An ADM Get The Download booth for added accessibility to the association and its members; and
- An urban roof-top party set to bring out some of the industry’s best creative talents.
The ADM also has four forum sessions planned, taking place in rooms 130/131 of the Moscone Convention Center. Forum topics include:
- Downloadable Media: The State of the Industry featuring findings based upon previously unreleased data from Arbitron/Edison Media Research Internet and Multimedia 2008 – The Podcast Consumer Revealed III study. April 16, 9:15 – 9:55 a.m. Rooms 130/131.
- Downloadable Media Advertising Standards – New ad unit standards will be introduced for public comment. April 16, 10:00 – 10:45 a.m. Rooms 130/131.
- Downloadable Media Audience Measurement Guidelines – The ADM’s recommendations for measuring podcast listener/viewer numbers will be publicly introduced. April 16, 11:00 – 11:45 a.m. Rooms 130/131.
- Marketing with Downloadable Media: Podcasts & Vidcasts – an overview of various forms of advertising and sponsorship through a showcase of some of the most impressive campaigns in the market. April 17, 10:45 – 11:30 a.m. Rooms 130/131.
Note: Podcasting News publisher Elisabeth McLaury Lewin is a member of the ADM.
Of course, the ADM has priced their dues so that most of the membership and committee chairs are either network or advertiser honchos with a vested interest in keeping pricing friendly for their particular industry interest. It will be interesting to see whether or not the independent producer will be remembered in the equation. Given some of the players at the ADM, I suspect they won’t.
Eric
Eric – Why is it the ADM’s job to remember the indie podcast producer?
Isn’t the indie guy supposed to be looking out for his own ass?
If an indie guy is waiting around for anybody to look after him, he’s an idiot.
The second part of Eric’s comment is the important part. Will the new ADM “standards” be offered because they benefit the individual parties involved in ADM leadership or because they benefit podcasters? Let’s hope it’s the latter. But frankly, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Eric & Scott –
What are your main concerns with what the ADM is doing?
The primary focus of the ADM is coming up with ad standards for downloadable media, like the IAB did with Web banners.
Does it matter that a Full Banner is 468 x 60?
Not that much – but it helps to have SOME standard, because it means that advertisers know what they are buying and site owners know what options to provide.
James what if that “standard” leaves me with a deal that’s not as favorable as I negotiated beforehand? What if the “standard” means I have to adopt a certain piece of hardware or software that I don’t want to use? What if the “standard” forces me to use a metrics technology that competes with one my company already uses or has a financial interest in? Who’s keeping the “standard” makers honest and making sure that they don’t set these “standards” in a way that is going to benefit ADM brass v. the professional podcaster?
I could go on but you get the point.
Scott
Nobody adopts standards that suck. If the ADM comes up with something idiotic, their standards will be dead in the water.
It’s in all commercial podcasters’ best interest to come up with some standard, however arbitrary, for podcast advertising and metrics. Otherwise, large advertisers will continue to spend their money elsewhere & podcasters will continue having to try and explain just what they have to sell.
James I hate to tell you this but “large advertisers” are spending their money with me and several other podcasters that I know right now. They apparently don’t know that they are required to spend their money elsewhere.
This is my point. Some of us are doing just fine without these so-called “standards.” And standards set by a group of people representing less than one percent of an industry are not standards.
Scott
Proposed standards don’t become industry standards unless they are useful and people like you and your advertisers choose to use them.
I don’t understand your fear of people proposing standards, especially since they are voluntary. And as member of the ADM with the concerns you’ve raised, are you working within the organization to influence these standards?
James my “fear” is based on simple facts. And since you seem to want to have this dialog in a public forum let’s go for it.
1) It’s nice that your FINALLY disclosed that your wife is on the ADM board. Perhaps this explains your blind loyalty to ADM.
2) The ADM was formed in SECRET. They had a closed process. They haven’t shown ANY willingness to listen to counter ideas. I presented many in the form of a survey filled out by 100 podcasters. None of the points raised in the survey were adopted by ADM.
3) Your statement that the standards don’t become standards unless they become useful is naive. Susan Bratton is a good salesperson. She won’t care whether or not people like these standards. She’ll cram them down the industry’s throat.
4) I am a member of ADM in order to monitor their activities – not change their minds. They aren’t interested in my input. My only hope is a. that the standards are valid – b. if they’re not valid that I can make enough noise to get the rest of the industry to hold them at bay.
5) You simply ignored my previous points and deflected the conversation – but those points remain. They are valid concerns. If you weren’t so busy defending ADM’s every move – and actually took a moment to consider a different point of view, you might at least privately agree they are valid. See #5 & 7 above for a recap.