Let’s talk ↗SIGA PRODUCTIONS / PRACTICAL PLANNING GUIDE
A decision guide for media agencies, publishers and adtech teams comparing trafficking, campaign QA and reporting automation. Start with a repeatable workflow, measurable effort and a clear human review point.
Ad operations automation uses agreed rules and software to reduce repeated work in campaign setup, checks, delivery monitoring and reporting. A useful workflow has defined inputs, an expected output and a way to deal with missing or contradictory information. It also makes clear who can approve a result or change a live campaign.
For a growing media team, the starting question is often which bottleneck is worth solving first. Automating an unclear process can move incorrect information faster. Map the existing handoffs and decide which work should be standardised, which can be automated and which still needs specialist judgement.
Compare opportunities using observed monthly effort, input consistency, exception frequency and the access available to your team. These examples are scoping options, not a claim that every platform supports every action.
Look here when: teams repeatedly translate approved briefs into setup sheets or platform-ready outputs.
First pilot: one brief format, one platform and a small set of fields, with validation and a reviewer approving the output.
Watch for: ambiguous naming, unsupported settings, changing templates and missing platform permissions.
Explore ad trafficking automation →Look here when: reviewers repeat comparisons between approved requirements and campaign evidence.
First pilot: a bounded checklist showing expected values, observed values and exceptions for human review.
Watch for: unavailable fields being treated as passes, outdated briefs and checks that need creative or policy judgement.
Explore campaign QA automation →Look here when: teams rebuild the same data preparation and presentation outputs each reporting cycle.
First pilot: one recurring report with agreed dimensions, KPI definitions, currencies and time zones.
Watch for: incompatible totals, overlapping reach and differences between source data preparation and analytical interpretation.
Explore campaign reporting automation →If the inputs or approval rules keep changing, a focused process/design exercise may be the next useful step. If access is unresolved, assess feasibility before committing to an integration. Our adtech design and architecture services cover those planning questions.
Estimate released capacity, its indicative value and a simple payback period. Use the same currency for every amount. Include human review, exceptions and maintenance in your post-automation estimates. The starting figures below are an illustrative example, not client results, pricing or a savings promise.
Monthly hours released = current hours − post-automation hours. Capacity value = hours released × value per hour. Net monthly value = capacity value − ongoing monthly cost. Simple payback = one-time cost ÷ positive net monthly value.
For example, 100 hours reduced to 40 releases 60 hours. At 500 currency units per hour, the capacity value is 30,000 per month. Subtracting 5,000 in ongoing cost gives a net monthly value of 25,000. A 120,000 implementation cost would have a simple payback of 4.8 months under those assumptions.
Capacity value is not automatically a cash saving. Retaining the same team may release time for other work without reducing payroll. For a cash-payback assessment, use genuinely avoidable costs or evidenced incremental contribution, account for other costs and avoid counting the same benefit twice. This calculator excludes tax, discounting, ramp-up and uncertainty; it is a scoping aid rather than a full ROI model.
Choose one input format and a reviewable output. Record what is included and what remains manual.
Include normal cases, missing fields, conflicting values and known exceptions. Use approved, non-sensitive sample material.
Compare preparation, review and rework effort. Record incorrect outputs and unresolved coverage gaps as well as processing time.
Have the responsible team accept the output, resolve exceptions and approve any production changes. Retain a practical fallback.
Agree ownership, documentation, training and how changes will be tested. Revisit the business case using measured pilot results.
A pilot should answer whether the workflow is useful and dependable for the agreed scope. A fast demonstration alone does not establish production readiness or a fixed delivery date.
Start by assessing the existing tools, approved exports and repeated handoffs. A bounded workflow may fit around the current stack; access, data quality and the intended action determine feasibility.
Not always. A pilot can assess approved exports where they contain the required evidence. Direct integrations, scheduling and live changes need separate permission and feasibility checks. An export-based pilot should not be presented as a live platform integration.
Prioritise the workflow with repeatable inputs, clear rules, measurable effort and manageable exceptions. A high-volume process is not necessarily the best first project if the underlying data or approvals are unstable.
Use measured effort and all relevant implementation and running costs. Separate released capacity from cash savings, then validate assumptions during the pilot. Use the calculator above for an initial comparison, not as evidence of a guaranteed return.
TURN THE CHECKLIST INTO A SCOPE
Tell us the process, platforms, approximate monthly volume, current bottleneck and desired outcome. We can assess whether the next step is consulting, design, architecture, training, R&D or a scoped custom build with end-to-end support.
The website enquiry form prepares a draft in your email app; you choose whether to send it. Keep credentials and confidential campaign files out of an initial enquiry.