Katherine Levy: It's time to clear up this Xaxis data conspiracy theory
It is understandable that some observers in the advertising industry choose to celebrate when a media independent claims a chunk of business against the marketing behemoth WPP.
After all, it would be a pretty drab world if there was just one network to do business with. So a bit of healthy competition and cheering for the underdog is by no means a bad occupation.
But I do think it's unfair to lambast Group M for the sake of it - or presume it employs the dark arts to further its business success.
This is what many people have levelled at Group M's audience-buying arm Xaxis, which launched to great fanfare last summer. Before anyone had worked out how to pronounce the word "Xaxis", a rumour that the company's clients were being forced to hand over control of their data when signing on the dotted line began to circulate.
The belief that Xaxis clients have to sign away their data - and thus the souls of their businesses - remains alive and well. But this is incorrect. Some sceptics also claim that this intelligence could be used by Group M to the advantage of another Group M client, if the original client ever leaves (something Group M convincingly denies).
The truth is Xaxis clients are not obliged to sign away ownership of their data. They are, however, given the choice to opt in to an additional data pooling service, whereby similar clients (let's say, for example, Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz) may both benefit from sharing second-party data (ie. data that is non-client-specific but tells Xaxis that a user has clicked, in this scenario, on an automotive campaign). First-party data, whereby Xaxis knows a user has been spending time on the Jaguar website but has yet to convert, is ring-fenced and would never be used to the advantage of Mercedes-Benz, Group M insists.
As numerous Group M digerati have told me (and I believe them), to not robustly protect first-party data would be mass-WPP suicide. In any case, we all know that the shelf life of this information is often shorter than that of a pint of milk. This alone, therefore, makes it a weak argument that it would be worth Xaxis' time to play off one client's data against another's, should one leave.
The Xaxis supplementary pooling feature may not be the best solution for every client, but it is an option. Group M believes (as does every network) that it has the best audience-buying solution. But rather than carping on about a Xaxis data conspiracy, wouldn't it be more productive to focus on real issues, such as whether Xaxis' proprietory model is more effective than agencies using external demand-side platforms?
Surely that is time better spent.
This article was first published on campaignlive.co.uk
Latest jobs Jobs web feed
- Senior Account Manager fishtank 32k to 42k per year GBP, Maidenhead, Berkshire
- Graphic/Web Designer fishtank 17k to 27k per year GBP, United Kingdom
- ACCOUNT DIRECTOR/SENIOR ACCOUNT DIRECTOR - BTL/SP/Brand Experience - London - £45 - £55k plus bonus Judi Patton £45K-55K plus bonus, London/Greater London
- Digital Brand Manager Nike Europe Competitive + attractive relocation package for foreign hires, Amsterdam
- Head of Media, Marketing & Communications PGA Competitive, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
- senior planner > SPORTS BRANDS collectivo Up to £90,000 plus benefits, London
Integrated digital marketing offers huge opportunities to engage, servic...
With UK consumers spending an average of £1,083 a year online, int...
Conversational Mobile Marketing: Engage Customers and Empower Advocates (Expert Reports) External website
The pressure is on for marketers and mobile operators to embrace a strat...
As a nation, the UK is media and technology obsessed with over half of t...
All customers have the potential to become your brand advocates, driving...
A recent Brand Republic survey revealed that 78% of respondents felt und...