Precision in advertising has always been seen as the central benefit of online advertising. Whereas ratings and circulations can be (and are) manipulated, that isn’t possible with online metrics that don’t lie — assuming everybody uses the same set. Well, they can be deceptive sometimes, but the truth is that the advertising industry as a whole is drifting in the direction of dead-on accuracy when it comes to spending money.

On the TV side, set-top boxes are capable of providing real-time data about usage, and companies selling such have an advantage over those who cling to Nielsen. We live in a data world, and he who owns the data owns the world. Every bit of data is useful and has value. Mix that with the ever-approaching blended world of broadcast, cable and Web, and the possibilities for incredibly precise data expands exponentially. The hope is, of course, that people won’t skip ads they view as relevant. We’ll see.

Online technology today allows us to market directly to specific browsers, and those who’ve yet to begin playing in this arena are falling farther and farther behind. There’s no reason, for example, that a man and a woman have to see the same ads unless the advertiser is pitching to both. Behavioral cookies, registrations, IP addresses; they all form a neural net of specificity that not only makes marketing more efficient, but it also puts more relevant ads in front of people. Oh some of the examples out there today are pretty silly, but we’re learning and getting better at it.

In an online environment of 50% men and 50% women, if an advertiser had $1,000 to spend to get a message in front of the women, he could buy the whole environment and hope they all saw it. If, however, the owner of the environment had the ability to deliver that message to just the women — by individual browsers — the advertiser might still be willing to spend $1,000, but his guarantee is set. The ads are only being served to women! This is more efficient than serving ads based on so-called “women’s content,” like the old women’s sections of the newspaper.

The problem with analytics, however, is that media companies especially play them close to the vest. When a client wishes to see data, the account exec prints off a page of their proprietary counting system or directs the client to a protected Web page where the data is stored. There is nothing wrong with this, but there will always be the necessity of trust when this information is shared, because, well, it’s proprietary. Trust carries with it the possibility of mistrust, because we’re all human, and a big part of the sales game has always been the “tilting” of data to make a sale look better than it really is.

Enter Google Analytics (GA), the overwhelming favorite of the masses. Google is in the business of providing free tools to The Great Horizontal, and GA is perhaps its greatest tool. Powerful, accurate and reliable, GA will provide deep analysis for those who wish to explore their own websites, and it’s plenty popular. We need to note at this point, too, that the real growth in money being spent online by local merchants is on their own efforts to become a form of media company themselves. GA is their friend.

We have been recommending for years that media companies switch to GA, because we would then be providing familiarity to the clients we serve. Google’s definition of “unique visitor” would be the same for everybody. The time has come to take that one step further and share our analytics completely with those we’re asking to spend money with us. That’s right. Anybody who advertises with us should have unfettered access to our data.

Our automotive client in North Alabama, the Damson Automotive Group, is the largest auto dealer in the state and THE top advertiser in the Huntsville market. Ben Boles runs their marketing, and his work has been featured here often. Boles “forces” the sharing of Google Analytics with the media companies in the market, because they won’t get any money from him unless they do. I’m not talking about a page here and there; I’m talking about online access to their Google Analytics where he controls the looking.

Boles, a former TV station Web sales executive, feels strongly that sharing GA is an overwhelming win-win, and that media companies need reports from the car stores just as badly as the dealerships need theirs.

I quickly agree to share our analytical data as long as you let me equally invade your privacy. I’ll initiate the swap. I promise you simple glances will yield usable information that will make everyone better.

For example, I represent the largest advertiser at my former station. I knew everything about their analytics, because I installed them. I knew what ‘worked’ on the TV station site and what did not, as you would expect a good number cruncher to know. Now working for the 5 mega dealerships, I take that knowledge and apply that to our purchases TODAY.

Presuming we all share information, we actually get the complete picture. I know what is driving traffic, clicks and engagement on the TV station’s site. And they know from me how productive their users are on the dealership’s key rooftop website. The end result is no guessing when it comes to rates and expectations. And isn’t that 90% of the sales battle?

Because of our collaboration, and because we both rely on Google Analytics, the numbers match and there are no make goods. Because we are such a large advertiser, our presence lends credibility to their site as a viable advertising medium. Because I know so much about their users, they are crucial to my agenda.

The biggest benefit to sharing analytical data, though, is as true as one of the oldest sayings in business. Two heads are better than one. Presuming someone of like mind is the vendor-half of this analytical equation, it’s much easier to identify trends. Much easier to share best practices. Much easier to… well… analyze the analytics.

Sharing is easy and is nothing to be afraid of. The numbers are what they are. So few people actually look at them with the correct reference perspective that the savvy advertiser takes way more away from meetings like this than one would expect.

The idea of sharing isn’t something easily accepted by people who are used to playing cards close to the vest. In fact, it’s downright counterintuitive, and perhaps even insane. Welcome to the networked world, where the values of speed, transparency and authenticity matter most, and business manipulation ‐ the “managing” of one’s business — takes a back seat to the attraction of simply making a better mousetrap or outserving the competition.

The Great Horizontal challenges all of our history and experience-driven expertise, and the only thing worse than ignoring it is to not to be honest with ourselves about it. The ability of marketers to “watch” as their efforts result in moving the rock for their clients is so satisfing that it probably includes lighting up afterwards. But such efforts are usually manipulative — marketing “warfare” against people who didn’t use to have a say in being so conquered. That’s all transmogrifying into a strange and different universe with rules that seem foreign and out-of-place.

“We sell cars,” says Boles. “We get a thousand users per day. TV stations get tens of thousands per day. Both data sets are rich. Both communicate to the same geographic area.

“Sharing analytical data,” he concludes, “is the key that unlocks the kingdom.

TechCrunch is reporting that its parent company, Aol, is consolidating brands, which is contrary to its previously stated “anti-portal” strategy. This smells to me, but let’s look at what TechCrunch is reporting. Aol is moving from 53 content brands (the company originally wanted over 100) to 20 “power brands.” Here’s the nut of the story:

“More and more stuff is moving towards well-known brands,” says (CEO Tim) Armstrong. “Unless human nature is going to totally change, the Internet is going to end up in a branded environment.”

The Huffington Post will be absorbing many of the former stand-alone AOL editorial sites, and in the process expanding from 28 sections to 36. Armstrong believes that simplifying AOL’s content portfolio will make it easier to sell ads and attract readers. Instead of “300 different things that sales people could sell, now they can focus their sales efforts against key categories.” (emphasis mine)

A couple of things to point out. “More and more stuff” is hardly empirical justification of anything, much less such a big strategic shift. Tim Armstrong is a man with a big gun at his head, and it’s name is “immediate revenue needs.” So he needs money, and he needs it now. What he really needs is easy money, and that’s what’s dictating this strategic move. I don’t think it’s smart, but then I don’t need lots of money quickly.

The admission that consolidation will make things “easier” for sales people is absolutely true. Madison Avenue likes things simple, because Madison Avenue is interested in, well, Madison Avenue, not necessarily in the people footing the bill. Efficiencies gained in doing deals puts more money in the pockets of the agencies but have nothing to do with actual commerce. An agency representing, say, Nissan wanting to “buy” inventory in Baton Rouge will usually grab the top two media properties in terms of reach, so size matters. It’s the way things generally work, and Armstrong is just helping that process. Madison Avenue is the world of commodified ads, inventory and mathematics. Innovation tosses a sizable monkey wrench in the mix, and that will ultimately be its doom.

The problem for everybody is that advertising is changing. Old formulas for mass marketing don’t work online, because, among other things, not all inventory is created equal. Then there’s the no-so-tiny issue of banner blindness, something Madison Avenue can ill afford to even consider. Aol’s anti-portal strategy was smart, because it recognized targeting as king. It’s many brands provided unique data to offer highly-targeted advertising, but selling that is more difficult than selling simple reach to people who don’t care about anything other than making their numbers and doing so efficiently.

As long as that’s the central mission of Madison Avenue, moves like this will be rewarded. I believe, however, that this is only temporary, and that smart media players need to be investing in other forms of commerce-enabling advertising concepts.

The whole mass media marketing machine is a house of cards that will one day collapse under the weight of its own self-interest.