Using only audience data would be like selecting members of an Olympic basketball team solely based on specific bits of data like age, height, and weight. Even if you’re a junior league coach, you probably know that a lot more goes into the decision of putting together your team; player compatibility, agility, hand-eye coordination, and an interest in the sport itself. Age, height, and weight data need a frame of reference (context), and the same goes for cookie data. All audience data needs context, and that’s where page level, semantic targeting comes in.

The advantages of semantic data are monumental and game changing. Relying solely on cookie data is a dead-end for advertisers. The key differentiator among buyers and publishers will be how companies interpret audience data and semantic data together. Semantics and other page level data can provide valuable information on a page’s content, quality, and safety, allowing buyers to assess the relevancy of the page’s meaning in the context of the ad. The high cost and lack of scalability of cookies further adds to the appeal of semantic targeting.

Another thing to consider if you are targeting a particular cookie list or set of users is there’s a good chance that the data you have is the same exact data your competitors have. This means that you are competing for the same impressions and paying more for those users to see your message.

Semantic targeting provides a solution for these challenges. It gives you more bang for your buck than user data alone by ensuring that your ads are placed on relevant, high quality and safe pages for your audience as well as your brand. In terms of scalability, utilizing semantic targeting data would allow you to scale your campaigns beyond the limitations of user based targeting.

With the increasing amount of inventory and content available today, it is vital to be able to view that inventory in a standard language, or definition. Semantic and page level data targeting is key in gaining visibility and normalization across a growing inventory from multiple sources.

Buyers must look beyond user data and cookies to page level data for impressions that are relevant, providing you with the results you want at tremendous value.

I think we can all agree that UGC is more risky to advertise on then non-UGC due to the nature of the content and human expression. I can see why further segmenting Moderated UGC as an approach to identifying better quality UGC content is desirable to some. Unfortunately, in practice it doesn’t work. Blindly targeting ads to moderated UGC environments gives advertisers a false sense of security.

Take a look at the terms of service of some of the top content sites on the internet and you’ll start to see some commonality in how many of them address their responsibilities in moderating content that is posted by its users:

“While we do not and cannot review every message…” and “Although we strive to maintain high standards for this Site…” or “Although we have no obligation to screen, edit or monitor…”

The problem for sites is that although they have best intentions to moderate and police the content posted on their sites, they don’t want to be responsible if they miss something or if it takes time to take something down.

Further, sites use a combination of automated, human, and crowdsourcing techniques in order to identify and remove content that does not meet their guidelines. This is time consuming, expensive, and the more popular a site is, the more comments it will have, and the larger the potential for failure.

The IAB defines unmoderated UGC as:

“UGC sites that do not have a clear set of posted guidelines on what type of content is acceptable and do not take an active position in reviewing content for compliance with posted guidelines.”

What we are left with is a contradiction in the practice and the definition.  Although sites “have a clear set of posted guidelines on what type of content is acceptable…” none of them commit to “take[ing] an active position in reviewing content for compliance with those posted guidelines.” Advertisers should think carefully and be realistic in their expectations of what they are trying to avoid when choosing to exclude UGC, or include moderated UGC, in their targeting.

Advertisers face a dilemma. Avoiding sites by their domains, or by general classifications like UGC, creates significant missed opportunities, especially when targeting users. But including moderated UGC gives advertisers a false sense of security and is not necessarily an effective indicator of quality or safety.

As an alternative, first advertisers should make sure that they have defined and articulated what content does not align with their brand or message. Then they should work with providers that can identify and protect them from that content on each and every page, rather than relying on broad segments of content like UGC moderated UGC, or domain white/black lists.

Of particular note (and I think the Twitter-mad digerati in attendance would agree) were the keynotes. Nolan Bushnell, the founder of Atari, Chucky Cheese and 20 other startups was a riot and an inspiration