ADS AS CONTENT:  I think it’s fair to say 99.99% of visitors to any digital publisher are going there for content and not the ads.  In fact, the challenge for consumers is often to navigate around the ads to get what they came for.  That’s how the marketing concepts of Native Advertising, Embedded Content, and Value Exchange were born . . . ie: weave your brand message into the content and/or reward visitors for interacting with your ad by giving them more content.  But what if the script was flipped?  In other words what if the ads themselves performed the same duties of entertaining, informing or inspiring as the actual content does?  That’s the point made in the following AdWeek guest column article.  It’s important to note it was authored by Celtra CMO Alex Saric, who works for one of the leading rich media creative providers in the industry.  So yes, he has a business motivation to get clients to start thinking of ad creative as content.  But even that bias doesn’t diminish the importance of the point he’s making.  (link)

CONFESSIONS OF A MEDIA AUDITOR:  As you know the issue of digital traffic fraud is white hot in the industry right now.  There’s a growing client demand for publishers, networks, and agencies to be transparent about who ads are being served to and if they’re actually being seen.  The following Digiday article tackles this issues as part of their “Confessions” series.  They’ve anonymously interviewed an industry insider, in this case an actual third party media auditor, for an unfiltered view on what’s really happening around the topic of ad fraud.  It’s a fairly insightful piece, especially on the issue of poor third party source traffic creating a shit in/shit out environment.  And yes, I even appreciate the ominous grey-on-black Mr. Robot style head shot which sets the tone for the piece.  J  Solid read!  (link)

IS IT NATURE OR NURTURE? . . . TECH STYLE:  Finally today I’d like to leave you with an interesting question to ponder.  As a father of four high school/college aged children it feels like I’m constantly stroking tuition checks.  So naturally I ask myself is the college degree worth the expense or do “born with” skills matter more?  In the tech world there are several famous examples of true innovators (and now billionaires) who never finished a four-year degree – think Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to name a few.  So does creative genius need to be cultivated on a college campus or can it just happen with the right combination of ambition, creativity and resources?  Six years ago Paypal founder and serial entrepreneur Peter Thiel thought the answer was no, and he put his money where his theory was by creating Thiel Fellowships.   Recipients, called “Thiel Scholars”, are paid $100,000 over two years to drop out of college and create a Silicon Valley startup.  Mr. Thiel has funded dozens of these Fellowships since 2011, giving us the perfect test lab to answer the question about how essential a college degree is.  Business Insider features several of these stories in a “where are they now” style article.  Admittedly some of the Thiel Scholars they didn’t follow weren’t as successful, but the estimated success rate over the six years is about 50%.  A fairly impressive number and some amazing success stories to be sure. (link)

Have a great Wednesday guys!