WSJ: US Postal Service Reports Record Loss; May Run Out of Money In 12 Months

Today, my friend Ethan forwarded an article from the WSJ that discusses the looming “fiscal cliff” for the United States Postal Service.  Quoting the lede:

A record $15.9 billion annual loss pushed the U.S. Postal Service closer to its own fiscal cliff, and officials say without congressional action the agency is likely to run out of cash within 12 months.

I’ve been writing about this issue for nearly three years, and it appears that the endgame is afoot.  (For convenience, I’ve linked to the related posts here, here, here, and here.)

It will be interesting to see how President Obama and a Republican-controlled House deal with this issue.  More to come.

 

Email Management

Several colleagues have asked me to put up a short blurb on how I manage email.  Much of this stuff is adapted from GTD and some I made up myself.

Key ingredients:

Setup:

1. Create a set of labels to represent priority
Personally, I use six:

  • – 0 EMERGENCY –
  • – 1 Do Now –
  • – 2 Today –
  • – 3 Soon –
  • – 4 Weekend –
  • – 5 Someday –

‘Emergency’ is rarely used.  It means that the sh*t has hit the fan and I’m prioritizing everything below my response to this particular thread.  Meetings are cancelled, other email is ignored, etc.  ‘Do Now’ represents email that I will respond to between meetings and other commitments.  ‘Today’ contains email that must be responded to before I go to bed that night.  ‘Soon’ and ‘Weekend’ are self-explanatory.

Notes:

  • Be sure to include the dashes and numbers in the label names.  The dashes ensure that the labels appear at the top of Gmail’s alphabetized label list, and the numbers are useful for sorting email using keyboard shortcuts. (see below)
  • Set a separate color for each of your labels to assist with visual cues.

2. Create a set of Status Labels

I use two:

  • – Waiting for Response –
  • – Scheduled –

These labels provide additional information, beyond priority, about the current state of the thread.  Waiting for Response should be self explanatory.  The Scheduled label is used to indicate that a meeting has been scheduled, or that I’ve booked time on the calendar to complete a task related to or mentioned in the thread.

3. Set up Multiple Inboxes

Go into Gmail settings and enable Multiple Inboxes within the Labs tab.  Refresh, and a new tab titled “Multiple inboxes” should be available.  Fill out the form, adding in the labels such as label:–0-EMERGENCY– and setting the positioning to “Right side of the inbox.”  (Note that dashes replace spaces in the label field.)

4. Use keyboard shortcuts to make processing email vastly more efficient

If you haven’t already done so, enable Gmail keyboard shortcuts.  This allows you to do things like:

  • Label a message quickly.  Three keystrokes will allow you to assign a priority.  For example, to assign a ‘Do Now’ status to an email, simply type: l, 1, enter. (Label, 1 Do Now)
  • Move between priorities: g, l, 1, enter.  (Go, Label, 1 Do Now)

My days in both Engineering and Finance trained me to NEVER touch a mouse.  So, processing my email using keystrokes only is important.  A typical series of keystrokes could be: j,enter, l, 1, enter, y, j, enter, l, 1, enter.  Starting in the inbox, this translates to: move down one message, open message, label Do Now, Archive (remove from inbox, still shows up in the prioritized inbox to the right), <automatically moved back to inbox>, etc.

There are still some things that aren’t perfect yet.  For example, I wish that I could set a filter to remove the Waiting for Response label when someone responds, or move a Scheduled email back to my inbox once the calendar event is complete, etc.  (Anyone know how to do this?  And, no, I don’t want to pay for Boomerang.)

… and that’s what matters.

Interesting exchange on my Facebook wall over the past few days.

me: (commenting on President Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage)
“It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to do wrong.” – A. Lincoln
Bravo, Mr. President.

a friend:
Yeah. But please admit that before he was only for “civil unions”

me:
Yes, that’s true. And maybe that’s why the Lincoln quote is so appropriate. Take a look at history: Lincoln’s final position on slavery was not the same as the position with which he started. Politics are complicated; moral leadership even more so. But most people don’t care how Lincoln, a Republican btw, evolved to his final position. He ended in the right place – and that’s what matters. Hope you’re well.

PS – Happy Mother’s Day to all the mothers of the world, especially mine!  You rock, Mom – love you!

Amazon and Advertising

Two posts in two weeks – nice!

Having received multiple recruiting calls over the past year or so, I’ve been watching Amazon’s foray into the advertising business with interest.

Let’s start with a nod to the fact that, in many ways, Amazon’s situation is very similar to the Facebook network opportunity I wrote about two and a half years ago.  In the following quote, I’ve replaced ‘Facebook’ with ‘Amazon’ – and I think the resulting passage sums up the situation nicely:

With regards to [monetizing all that beautiful data], one potential method would be to buy oceans of crap inventory at, say, a $0.50 CPM, add data, and resell it at a $5.00 CPM or higher, keeping the spread, or value creation, or whatever you want to call it.

With that goal in mind, the strategy and tactics become very interesting. Look at this situation through the lens of the emerging trends in DSPs. Where does [Amazon], as data provider, fit? Do they monetize by injecting their data into other DSPs directly? Do they aggregate other inventory, add their data, and sell the finished product to DSPs? Or perhaps, they form a DSP of their own with the [Amazon] data at the core?

Amazon has chosen the last option, essentially forming their own ad network using licensed or home-brewed advertising technology whose sole purpose is to monetize all of the fantastic data that Amazon captures from its customers every day.  Bottom line: Amazon is doing what I thought Facebook should have done years ago.

And I love this strategy.

Back in business school, one of my favorite instructors taught us how sustainable advantage could be created by engaging in activities that were mutually beneficial (‘tightly interdependent’) to each other.  And I think Amazon has done just that:

  • Amazon’s retail business yields not only profits, but tons of data (purchase histories, purchase intent, customer identity, etc)
  • Amazon’s cloud business gives them the ability to analyze and crunch that data at scale.
  • Amazon’s loyalty programs (especially it’s diabolically addictive free shipping program, Prime) virtually guarantee that they see (at the very least) a search intent signal for almost everything I buy, if not the purchase outright.
  • Amazon’s advertising business allows them to monetize this data via online marketing, while presumably driving additional sales to their retail operation.
  • Amazon’s supplier relationships (major OEMs and smaller Amazon merchants) provides  existing pathways through which to drive advertising revenue.
  • … and I’m sure a bunch of other aspects that haven’t occurred to me yet.

In essence, all of this stuff seems to hang together very well, and to a far greater degree than a cursory inspection of the above assets would have yielded (at least for me).

And this brings me to my final point.  Monetization of first party data assets – whether that data is owned by Amazon, Facebook, Google, or any other company for that matter – is going to be an incredibly important question over the next few years.  When all is said and done, I think it will be abundantly clear that companies cannot achieve competitive advantage using commodity data available to everyone.  Such activity is, at best, temporary market arbitrage.  Instead, companies who can harness their own proprietary data in a profitable and privacy-safe manner will prevail.  More on this later!

Underutilized Capital Capacity

Wow – it’s been exactly two years and three days since my last post.  Guess the now-not-so-new gig at Google has been keeping me busy!

I had dinner this evening with an old friend from business school and our conversation wandered into the recent trend of monetizing underutilized capacity in capital investments – which is obnoxious financial-speak for renting out (expensive) stuff that isn’t being used.

The most obvious examples of this are Uber (town cars) and AirBnB (vacation homes).  Both town cars and vacation homes are highly underutilized assets – they stand idle or empty a significant amount of time.  By making this downtime available for sale via the Internet, the owners of the town cars or vacation homes can make a surprising amount of money.  In the case of Uber, the town cars were presumably breaking even or close to it, so the extra sales, minus some variable costs like gas, fall straight to the bottom line.  Every town car driver I’ve talked to in San Francisco absolutely loves Uber, because it makes the time between airport trips much, much more profitable.  (Btw, I’m more or less convinced that San Francisco is the perfect market for Uber – relatively high population density, technically savvy populace with disposable income, insanely bad parking situations, highly unreliable taxis, and horrendously broken public transit.  A perfect storm of positive circumstance for Uber.  But will other cities have the same confluence?  To be determined, I suppose….)

In the same vein, companies like Just Share It (and others) allow private vehicles to be rented on a part-time basis.  Again: monetization of underutilized vehicle capacity, albeit sans driver.

Zipcar, City Car Share, et al,  are a bit different.  Instead of monetizing underutilized capacity, these companies allow would-be car owners to avoid underutilization altogether.  In cities like San Francisco or New York, most car owners will find that their vehicles sit in the garage for the vast majority of their existence, getting occasional use on weekend trips to Napa, Tahoe, or the Hamptons.  The owner is paying a lot of money for occasional utilization.  Inefficient!  Instead, Zipcar allows these folks to engage in what amounts to fractional car ownership, thus paying only for the amount of car-time that they actually use.  Ahh, much better.

My favorite entrant into this fray is the hilariously sketchy iPhone app known as Side Car.  Operating in San Francisco, this app essentially turns unemployed or semi-employed citizens who have vehicles into impromptu taxis.  Basically, it’s Uber using random people and their cars.  (A couple of weeks ago, I was picked up by a lady in a beat-up green Subaru who made my buddy Lexi and I sit in the back seat – with her laundry.  True story!)  As far as I can tell, these drivers and their vehicles have no official sanction other than a standard drivers license.   To get around the need to register a taxi or limousine service, the Side Car app calls all fees ‘suggested donations.’  It’s working for now, but if they ever achieve scale, I guarantee you the taxi drivers union will have them shut down.

Which brings me to the larger point:  any change in the marketplace has winners and losers.  In urban transportation, it’s Uber vs Taxis vs Side Car vs Public Transit vs the auto manufacturers.  In lodging, it’s AirBnB vs hotels/motels.  My question: what’s the net effect on the economy as a whole?  Increased vehicle utilization = fewer cars sold = fewer manufacturing jobs.  Presumably, AirBnB = fewer hotel jobs.  Of course, increased capital utilization is good for those who own the vehicles/houses/whatever, but does this benefit everyone equally?  Doesn’t sound like it to me.   These trends are still in their infancy, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

See you next time!  (Hopefully, it won’t be another two years!)

The Curse of Vanilla

Have you ever noticed that it’s the things you didn’t think of that always cause the most trouble?
I’ve been working on Dynamic Creative Optimization (DCO) programs for almost three years now.  And looking back, the issues that have cropped up over and over again are those that I had no clue were coming.
The one that I’d like to discuss today, I call the “Curse of Vanilla.”
A core tenet of DCO is the notion that creative variation leads to higher performance.  This occurs because of a blindingly obvious fact: People are different.  Have you ever thought about how strange it is for a major retailer to target females aged 18-54 with the same exact ad?  Does anyone believe the 18 year-old high school senior in Beverly Hills, CA will respond in the same manner as the 54 year-old grandmother in New York City?  Of course not.
To use a food metaphor, everyone has their own favorite flavor of ice cream.  I love dulce de leche (or, at least, I did until I went vegan – but that’s another post).  The people sitting around me as I write this enjoy: chocalate, mint chocalate chip, cookies and cream, butter pecan, strawberry, pistacchio, coffee, etc.   (One guy kind of looked at me funny and said, “I don’t like ice cream.”  I’m not positive he was in fact referring to ice cream.)
Unfortunately for advertisers, the broadcast paradigm that has dominated advertising for over a century carries with it a limitation: everyone gets the same ad.  In our food metaphor, everyone has to eat the same ice cream.  Now if you’re an advertiser, and you can only provide your customers with a single flavor, the choice is more or less obvious.  Go with vanilla.  It’s not anyone’s favorite, but no one really objects to it.  In fact, the very word vanilla has become synonymous with bland and inoffensive.  If you are forced to pick a single flavor for everyone, vanilla is probably the least bad choice.
Enter online advertising and DCO, where (finally!) advertisers can provide customized creative!  Chocolate? No problem!  Dulce de leche? Fine!  Jalapeno mint chocolate chip?  Sure thing – want a double scoop?  Dynamic creative allows advertisers to have a virtually unlimited number of flavors at their command.   Wonderful – we can finally give everyone what they truly want.
Of course, there is no such thing as free flexibility.  I won’t get into a boring discussion of Bayesian Statistics, machine learning, Taguchi methods, genetic algorithms, and all the other topics that make geek propellers spin.  Instead, I’ll just ask you to trust me: too many flavors of ice cream can make it hard to figure out the perfect flavor for each individual.
So as we began to launch dynamic creative into the marketplace, I made a mental note to myself: “Be sure that advertisers understand that they should keep their creative variations within reason. We have to control them – don’t let them get too excited.”
And sure enough, as we went to market, I re-discovered that age old truth.  I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
“Look at what you can do! Isn’t this great?  You can have billions of ad variations!  You can find the perfect message for everyone!  You can have Jalapeno Mint Chocolate Chip!  Woohoo!”
And as the orders started to roll in, as dynamic creative started to run, I took a close look and noticed that something was amiss.  Given the power to create a virtually unlimited number of ad variations, the advertisers hadn’t created too many – they had created too few!  I didn’t see 10,000 crazy flavors of ice cream – I saw 8.  And every single one of them were minor variations of… vanilla.  Argh.
In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised.  People are creatures of habit.  The danger was never that they would over-use the power of dynamic creative.  The real danger was that they would ignore it altogether, sticking to the ideas that had been drilled into their collective industry norms for over a century.  One identical ad for everyone…  the Curse of Vanilla.
Now that we’re aware of the issue, we’re taking steps to overcome it.  It’s not rocket science: we’re focusing on education and outreach, coupled with an emphasis on those executions where there are natural sources of creative variation – large numbers of products and services, large numbers of geographic locations, etc.
Lessons learned, or perhaps, re-learned:  You can’t predict the future; change is hard; or, as Robert Burns put it: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.”
Now, someone pass the sorbet!

Have you ever noticed that it’s the things you didn’t think of that always cause the most trouble?
I’ve been working on Dynamic Creative Optimization (DCO) programs for almost three years now.  And looking back, the issues that have cropped up over and over again are those that I had no clue were coming.
The one that I’d like to discuss today, I call the “Curse of Vanilla.”
A core tenet of DCO is the notion that creative variation leads to higher performance.  This occurs because of a blindingly obvious fact: People are different.  Have you ever thought about how strange it is for a major retailer to target females aged 18-54 with the same exact ad?  Does anyone believe the 18 year-old high school senior in Beverly Hills, CA will respond in the same manner as the 54 year-old grandmother in New York City?  Of course not.
To use a food metaphor, everyone has their own favorite flavor of ice cream.  I love dulce de leche (or, at least, I did until I went vegan – but that’s another post).  The people sitting around me as I write this enjoy: chocalate, mint chocalate chip, cookies and cream, butter pecan, strawberry, pistacchio, coffee, etc.   (One guy kind of looked at me funny and said, “I don’t like ice cream.”  I’m not positive he was in fact referring to ice cream.)
Unfortunately for advertisers, the broadcast paradigm that has dominated advertising for over a century carries with it a limitation: everyone gets the same ad.  In our food metaphor, everyone has to eat the same ice cream.  Now if you’re an advertiser, and you can only provide your customers with a single flavor, the choice is more or less obvious.  Go with vanilla.  It’s not anyone’s favorite, but no one really objects to it.  In fact, the very word vanilla has become synonymous with bland and inoffensive.  If you are forced to pick a single flavor for everyone, vanilla is probably the least bad choice.
Enter online advertising and DCO, where (finally!) advertisers can provide customized creative!  Chocolate? No problem!  Dulce de leche? Fine!  Jalapeno mint chocolate chip?  Sure thing – want a double scoop?  Dynamic creative allows advertisers to have a virtually unlimited number of flavors at their command.   Wonderful – we can finally give everyone what they truly want.
Of course, there is no such thing as free flexibility.  I won’t get into a boring discussion of Bayesian Statistics, machine learning, Taguchi methods, genetic algorithms, and all the other topics that make geek propellers spin.  Instead, I’ll just ask you to trust me: too many flavors of ice cream can make it hard to figure out the perfect flavor for each individual.
So as we began to launch dynamic creative into the marketplace, I made a mental note to myself: “Be sure that advertisers understand that they should keep their creative variations within reason. We have to control them – don’t let them get too excited.”
And sure enough, as we went to market, I re-discovered that age old truth.  I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
“Look at what you can do! Isn’t this great?  You can have billions of ad variations!  You can find the perfect message for everyone!  You can have Jalapeno Mint Chocolate Chip!  Woohoo!”
And as the orders started to roll in, as dynamic creative started to run, I took a close look and noticed that something was amiss.  Given the power to create a virtually unlimited number of ad variations, the advertisers hadn’t created too many – they had created too few!  I didn’t see 10,000 crazy flavors of ice cream – I saw 8.  And every single one of them were minor variations of… vanilla.  Argh.
In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised.  People are creatures of habit.  The danger was never that they would over-use the power of dynamic creative.  The real danger was that they would ignore it altogether, sticking to the ideas that had been drilled into their collective industry norms for over a century.  One identical ad for everyone…  the Curse of Vanilla.
Now that we’re aware of the issue, we’re taking steps to overcome it.  It’s not rocket science: we’re focusing on education and outreach, coupled with an emphasis on those executions where there are natural sources of creative variation – large numbers of products and services, large numbers of geographic locations, etc.
Lessons learned, or perhaps, re-learned:  You can’t predict the future; change is hard; or, as Robert Burns put it: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.”
Now,meone pass the sorbet!

Have you ever noticed that it’s the things you didn’t think of that always cause the most trouble?

I’ve been working on Dynamic Creative Optimization (DCO) programs for almost three years.  And looking back, the issues that have cropped up over and over again are those that I had no clue were coming.

I’ve named the one I’d like to discuss today the “Curse of Vanilla.”

A core tenet of DCO is the notion that creative variation leads to higher performance.  This occurs because of a blindingly obvious fact: people are different.  Have you ever thought about how strange it is for a major retailer to target females aged 18-54 with the same ad?  Does anyone believe the 18 year-old high school senior in Beverly Hills, CA will respond in the same manner as the 54 year-old grandmother in New York City?  Of course not.

To use a food metaphor, everyone has their own favorite flavor of ice cream.  I love dulce de leche (or, at least, I did until I went vegan).  As I write this post, the people sitting around me enjoy: chocolate, mint chocolate chip, cookies and cream, butter pecan, strawberry, pistachio, coffee, etc.   (One guy kind of looked at me funny and said, “I don’t like ice cream.”  I’m not positive he was in fact referring to ice cream.)

Unfortunately for advertisers, the broadcast paradigm that has dominated advertising for over a century carries with it a limitation: everyone gets the same ad.  In our food metaphor, everyone has to eat the same ice cream.  Now if you’re an advertiser, and you can only provide your customers with a single flavor, the choice is more or less obvious.  Go with vanilla.  It’s rarely anyone’s favorite, but no one really objects to it.  In fact, the very word vanilla has become synonymous with bland and inoffensive.  If you are forced to pick a single flavor for everyone, vanilla is probably the least bad choice.

Enter online advertising and DCO, where (finally!) advertisers can provide customized creative!  Chocolate? No problem!  Dulce de leche? Fine!  Jalapeno mint chocolate chip?  Sure thing – want a double scoop?  Dynamic creative allows advertisers to have a virtually unlimited number of flavors at their command.   Wonderful – we can finally give everyone what they want.

Of course, there is no such thing as free flexibility.  I won’t get into a boring discussion of Bayesian Statistics, machine learning, Taguchi methods, genetic algorithms, and all the other topics that make geek propellers spin.  Instead, I’ll just ask you to trust me: too many flavors of ice cream can make it hard to figure out the perfect flavor for each individual.

So as we began to launch dynamic creative into the marketplace, I made a mental note to myself: “Be sure that advertisers understand that they should keep their creative variations within reason. We have to control them – don’t let them get too excited.”

And sure enough, as we went to market, I re-discovered that age old truth:  I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

“Look at what you can do! Isn’t this great?  You can have billions of ad variations!  You can find the perfect message for everyone!  You can have Jalapeno Mint Chocolate Chip!  Woohoo!”

And as the orders started to roll in, I took a close look and noticed that something was amiss.  Given the power to create a huge array of ad variations, the advertisers hadn’t created too many – they had created too few!  I didn’t see 10,000 crazy flavors of ice cream – I saw 8.  And every single one of them were minor variations of… vanilla.  Argh.

In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised.  People are creatures of habit.  The danger was never that they would over-use the power of dynamic creative.  The real danger was that they would ignore it altogether, sticking to the ideas that had been drilled into their collective industry norms for over a century.  One identical ad for everyone…  the Curse of Vanilla.

Now that we’re aware of the issue, we’re taking steps to overcome it.  It’s not rocket science: we’re focusing on education and outreach, coupled with an emphasis on those executions where there are natural sources of creative variation – large numbers of products and services, large numbers of geographic locations, etc.

Lessons learned, or perhaps, re-learned:  You can’t predict the future; change is hard; or, as Robert Burns put it: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.”

Now, someone pass the sorbet!

Consolidation in the optimization space picking up steam…

Since uncooperative conditions (rain, thunderstorms) in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico have killed my golf game, I may as well throw up another blog post….

Story released yesterday:  Mediamath Acquires Adroit, Combines DSP with Dynamic Ads

Analysis: At first blush, this deal makes sense.  I haven’t seen performance data for MM, but assume their optimization algorithms are up to snuff, and will dovetail nicely with the dynamic creative and self-service UI chops of Adroit.

As with the Adobe/Omniture move into Level 2, the question will now be – can they execute?

Zooming up a level, the pace of consolidation seems to be accelerating.  In this case, Level 1 (media optimizer) acquires Level 2 (creative optimizer).  However, if you look at each of the three levels of media optimization, there are multiple recent examples of consolidation/integration:

1.    X+1 venturing into landing pages (level 1 to level 3)
2.    Adobe/Omniture announcing creative optimization (level 3 to level 2)
3.    MediaMath purchasing Adroit (level 1 to level 2)
4.    Adchemy (building levels 1, 2, and 3 from scratch)
5.    Aggregate Knowledge (building levels 1, 2, and 3 from scratch)
6.    Dapper (building levels 1 and 2 from scratch)
7.    Choicestream / MyBuys / other recommendation engines moving into advertising/creative (level 3 to level 2)
8.    … and more that are only rumors and/or under NDA at this point

There’s an interesting dynamic (no pun intended) evident in the quotes by CEO Zawadzki. On one hand, he stumps for the simplicity of a unified solution:

“Even agencies that recognize the value […] are deterred by the complexity of navigating multiple technologies and making sense of the results. The combined Mediamath and Adroit systems could remove some of those obstacles, said Zawadzki.”

Yet in the same article he leaves the door open for working with other (now competing) creative technologies:

“‘We will and do continue to support other dynamic creative solutions,’ like Tumri and Teracent, stressed Zawadzki.”

The reason why such seeming double-talk is necessary is because it has not yet become clear whether integration via partnership or consolidation/unification via acquisition (or internal build) will become the dominant trend among the various participants in the display optimization landscape.  Consolidation yields simplicity and likely, in my humble opinion, better performance.  Integration allows flexibility of partner choice – enabling the mixing and matching of participants from each of the individual optimization tiers.

My bet, and apparently the bet of companies like MediaMath and others mentioned above, is that simplicity and performance will eventually carry the day over flexibility.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Ok, enough ad tech talk – back to vacation!

(PS – on a more personal note, congratulations to Dan Faga and Vivianna Padilla on their impending nuptials!)

Even worse than anticipated: USPS projects deficit of $100-200 Billion over next 10 years

Wow.  Courtesy of the official blog of the USPS Inspector General:

“The Path Forward” of the Postal Service

The money quote:

“The Postmaster General warned that if the Postal Service continues to operate as it is, it will run a cumulative debt of $238 billion over the next 10 years. Even if the Postal Service institutes every conceivable control within management control – product and service actions, productivity improvements, workforce flexibility improvements and purchasing savings – it can only shrink the debt to $115 billion.”

Adobe enters dynamic ad market

The longstanding rumors about Adobe/Omniture entering the dynamic ad space came true today.

Omniture Announces Display Advertising Solutions for Increased Return on Ad Spend

Interesting on a number of levels:

1. As discussed, we see a continuing trend of optimization companies migrating into adjacent segments.  In this case, a L3 player has migrated into L2.  (Did ADBE just become a potential buyer of DSP technologies? That would complete their stack.)  Strategically, I like it – execution will now be the key.

2. Adobe/Omniture is much larger than most other participants in this space, the principal exception being Teracent/Google.   Though they’re new in the space, expect them to leverage existing relationships to sell these additional services through.

3. The potential impact this may have on Flash as the de facto standard for dynamically generated ads.