This tool was announced in 2013 by a different part of the company: https://doubleclick-advertisers.googleblog.com/2013/09/googl...
>Build beautiful HTML5 creative with ease.
creative what - repeated later, "However, even though the amount of mobile and tablet work is expected to increase, cross-screen creative can be difficult to adopt".
This just hurts so much. They don't want to call it "content" because ... it doesn't qualify as such? It's just -- "some creative."
If it were a noun instead of an adjective it would seem okay for me but this is just too marketing.
I suppose just an upvote would suffice, but I had to applaud you.
When reading the link I quoted from, I actually didn't realize it was talking about ads. I thought it was talking about any kind of content. I do wonder about something. I thought that Mobile platforms have a distinct advantage in displaying ads, in that most people (for example me) do not run any form of ad blocking on their mobile devices.
If this is true - and if the page a bit upthread that I'm talking about and quoted from is talking about ads - then when doesn't that page mention this advantage at all? (From the advertiser's perspective.)
No, that's wrong. "Creative" is professional jargon, it refers to the content of the ad when divorced from the medium or the delivery channel.
But otherwise "stuff" is an ambiguous term and "creative" is industry jargon.
"We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week."
and
"We have to work on the ads to show to the client next week."
(in the way that a programmer could just as easily write, "I have to make some changes to the code" and "I have to make some changes to the program.")
? If, however, you're not equally likely, is it because the second one has some different meaning? What is that different meaning?
This is way less awful than KPIs, by the way.
You're overthinking it. It's not akin to saying "electronic computer program"; it's akin to a programmer saying "code" as opposed to "software" or "an app." It's a building block, just as a piece of software often requires front-end and back-end development, the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there.
>I work in marketing, "creative" is used for pretty much any kind of ad/marketing product while in the production process.
that it was limited to ads. I didn't realize it would also be used for other things.
> the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there.
This is interesting, thanks. But what I was trying to get at, is to make sure you guys aren't confusing each other, are you careful to use 'creative' instead of 'ad' (since the latter can include the mechanism)? Or is this not a distinction you're careful about?
I'll give you an example - programmers are careful to say "binary" or "executable" if they want to talk about the program as compiled as opposed to as written (source code).
so is "creative" also something that you would use to be careful to distinguish the "creative element on its own" as opposed to the mechanism?
It sounds like your answer is yes, that's correct - I'd just like to get a confirmation.
"Our creative review process is taking too long."
"Can you pull all the ads for that creative?"
"How good the creative is matters a lot more than how you deliver it."
(I haven't worked in ads since 2012, though, so my memory of the jargon may be off.)
The others are clear.
It smacks of desperately wanting to be hip and cool.
It's just industry jargon that evolved over time. It's used because it compresses a key industry concept.
There's about as much motive to use the term "creative" to sound cool in advertising as there is to make "dongle" sound sexual in consumer electronics.
Including this: "a new JavaScript API in Google Chrome, called Intersection Observer, which provides viewability measurement for your mobile and desktop web placements without the need for Flash. Built directly into the Chrome Browser, Intersection Observer improves viewability coverage for all video and display formats across screens by solving technical challenges associated with mobile viewability measurement. It also provides faster browsing and less battery drain, improving the consumer experience."
I don't use a web browser built by an ad company, but what does this mean in human language?
It's actually pretty hard to detect except through indirect means, one of which was to use a flash object to monitor for framerate changes. On-screen objects would render with a higher framerate. Google seems to have built out an API so that you can just explicitly check.
For marketers, this is actually a big thing because it means a key success metric (did people actually see your ad?) can be measured more reliably.
You can disdain advertising or marketing in general and you'd have a point, but what you quoted is actually describing a well thought out solution to a common industry problem.
This stuff is all geared at advertisers who want better tools for designing ads and landing pages, and publishers who want to create ad supported sites more easily. So they are using industry jargon that people in the space (like myself) will be familiar with. Yes it is "marketing to marketers" (not sure about the lesser remark), but that doesn't make it any less specific.
I'm not sure which specific page you are referencing, but this is all technical advertising jargon that means very specific things.
"Viewability" is a technical term referencing whether an impression is viewed by a user. As advertisers increasingly demand more transparency around ad inventory quality from publishers, viewability is a newer metric that the industry looks at. Here's a good starting point from the IAB for how they classify it [1].
Determining whether an ad has been in view has some technical challenges which you might be familiar with if you know much about front-end stuff. At a quick glance of your quote, this references improving the way a pages viewability of ads is measured on mobile by removing the need for Flash for sites to signal "hey, this ad impression is viewable (and thus more valuable)!" Flash bad, this good.
Here's some further reading[2] on the technical challenges from a company that handles inventory where these metrics are a factor.
Look, we get it, you don't like marketing. And yeah, my industry can lay it on thick sometimes, but this is about as poor an example of that as it gets.
[1] https://www.iab.com/guidelines/state-of-viewability-transact...
[2] http://productblog.appnexus.com/evolution-of-viewability-mea...
That said, this is largely about decrapifying the web (getting rid of Flash is a good thing right?) and the parent also crapped all over a profession and industry while proving to be rather uninformed about it. So no, a little negativity isn't called for.
What happens is people only associate advertising with marketing, which is really only one piece of it. Furthermore, they take one type of advertising, with data-hungry and sometimes intrusive online ads, and extrapolate their negative feelings towards that to ALL of marketing. Thus, anyone involved in marketing is a lesser person than them.
Advertising itself is not a bad thing, it's a critical part of any capitalist society. I just don't understand how we got to the point where seemingly every ad is as annoying as it could possibly be, that every ad company is just in a race to the bottom of "how can we be as intrusive and unsubtle as possible."
But I get what you're saying. I feel the same. But like I said, there must be a reason.
Marketers aren't dumb.. they wouldn't invest so heavily in this if it wasn't effective.
Those are two different distinct forms of marketing, one of which I have no issue with, other than my impending financial ruin.
So they're just unethical? Your logic can be used to justify a bunch of terrible things.
>Nobody enjoys getting raped, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.
>Nobody enjoys getting scammed, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.
>Nobody enjoys getting robbed, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.
Well... That didn't last long.
Anyway, it's a really mundane piece of jargon. It's like you're rolling your eyes at people who use 'access' as a verb.
But below in this thread I asked for example usages and the person I asked said:
>"We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week."
That does not match the definition you just linked.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/creative#Noun
it says "creatives" are people "some of the creative" (and the like) would be the things. It explicitly calls it uncountable in that definition. So does the wiktionary entry need expnasion, or was the example usage I received, wrong?
"Creative" as a noun meaning content shown in a single advertisement with the plural of "creatives" is definitely in use in the places I've worked, which include a magazine/traditional publisher and a silicon valley tech company that has a large market share of the advertising industry.
Last modified: April 14, 2014