The ad industry is facing an increasingly complicated media world within which audiences use multiple devices to consume content selected from a broad variety of choices. People consume at times and in places that meet their needs, not the content providers. And those in advertising have been trying to make sense of all this with a set of tools that were imagined in a different age.
It’s time to think beyond the currencies, and to consider audience measurement in the round.
The issues are clear even if the solutions are not. They come down to money and clarity of purpose. We are blessed with many professional audience measurement businesses. What we don’t have is a brief.
Defining the desired outcome in broad terms is actually the simple part because most people agree with the basic principles. The need is for cross-media research that guides advertisers towards the ideal communication channel mix to meet their goals.
The group that needs to drive this forward is the advertisers. Vendors, of all shapes and sizes, have no interest (nor should they) in looking beyond the borders of their own worlds. Agencies should contribute, but they’re not a realistic source of major funding.
The advertiser is the ultimate beneficiary of any system that helps improve any aspect of marketing and should be at the forefront of driving improvements.
Furthermore, as the beneficiary, advertisers — and not just the biggest — should pay. Why should a traditional media form pay for anything that risks revenues moving to the platforms? Or, vice versa.
Audience measurement is an important contributor to advertising success, and beyond. It can help quantify different qualities of exposure by channel. It can expose dishonest data that is not part of an approved validation system. It can undermine the spread of fake news. It can explain how different communication channels feed off each other and work together. It’s no exaggeration to say that accurate audience measurement plays a part in ensuring a democratic, fair society.
It can be compared to industry-administered ad regulation. The only people who benefit from an unregulated ad market are those who seek to lie and cheat. Those who tell the truth, in a creative and interesting way, benefit.
Advertisers benefit from a system of regulation by not spending time in court arguing over whether or not Persil really washes whiter. It’s a fast, flexible system that moves with the times, the language, and the fashions. Advertisers are right to fund it.
Ad regulation in the UK is funded by a levy on ad spend, for instance. It’s collected simply, fairly, and proportionately. It’s been tried before as a funding mechanism for audience measurement in South Africa, successfully.
It offers a secure funding base from which roadmaps can be drawn up. It engages and involves advertisers in the debate. A small fraction of a percentage could deliver a healthy annual pot.
Let’s assume a 0.1 percent levy in the UK, as an example. Total ad spend here is of the order of £20 billion; 0.1 percent equals £20 million. Let’s assume that not all media spend is monitored or eligible so bring it down to £12 million. Assume a collection rate of 50 percent, so that’s £6 million.
What would the funds raised be used for?
There are three parts to an advertiser driven initiative (or set of initiatives). In the UK, Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB), et al, do what they do well, and they’re watched like a hawk by their stakeholders.
The first part needs to address issues around the giant platforms and should be able to progress without substantial advertiser funds beyond staff costs. Stakeholders need to agree on common definitions, such as “what is a viewer.” An objective program of data validation and verification needs to be put in place.
It's not a one size fits all method. Some basic principles need to be laid down, and the advertisers are the only people — possibly in conjunction with the regulators — to do it. Continued major advertiser support for the platforms should be made conditional on these reforms taking place.
Any costs should be the responsibility of the platforms.
Part two consists of desk research: looking around at what others do, seeking ways to combine datasets from different sources; and, looking at how small changes (such as adding questions to existing studies) could yield significant results.
Part three would be a program to deliver a cross-media planning data framework for the industry.
Is a Facebook video impression the same as a TV impression, and if not, what is the comparison? Are ads in a printed newspaper read as carefully as TV broadcast ads are viewed? What is an influencer campaign on YouTube worth and how can the value be maximized? How does an editorial exposure generated by PR compare with an ad on the same website? Is a radio 30-second commercial the same as an OOH exposure, and if not, what’s the comparison.
Ask any agency planner these questions and you’ll get answers. But they will be based on opinion and experience, maybe some client-specific evidence — not considered and measured industry-wide research.
Comments