Is There a Future for Media Measurement Currency? The Industry Weighs In.

The issue of cross media measurement currency (and by currency I mean a standard metric that can be used as a comparison point between companies and platforms) has been a hotly debated discussion for a while. Now, with the ever expanding access of various data points and the de-accreditation of Nielsen’s local and national TV measurement services, the pressure to come to terms with the state of measurement has never been more pronounced.

In surveying the industry, there are many differing opinions on the future of measurement currency and what it should be. Many agree that some generally accepted metrics and methodology is table stakes. Yet, even beyond that general opinion, there are many divergent views.

When I posed this issue to Research Wonks, a forum for people who work in media and advertising research, analytics and data science, the response was immediate, well considered and over whelming.

Media Currency Agreement - Optimists versus Pessimists

“Currency removes friction in the market … until it’s at odds with what the market needs to function smoothly,” explained Stephen DeMarco, Head of Business Development at Tubular Labs. “Adults 35 and younger spend more time watching social video content than they do linear TV.”

For Aaron Fetters, Head of Client Development at Truthset, the ability to craft a currency in the current media ecosystem is close to impossible. “There is no solution for true cross-platform measurement,” he admitted. “Fifty years ago, the idea that it makes more sense for one independent, neutral party to count and define audiences was understandable. There was one dominant form of media at the time, television. It was not so difficult to apply a single methodology and process to the collection and interpretation of data across all major media owners.”  Now, with media fragmentation across platforms and devices, “the effort to produce numbers which somewhat realistically report the total unique reach (and frequency of exposure) of either an ad campaign or a piece of content and they all come up short for a variety of reasons, largely out of the control of the measurement providers,” he noted.

Arguably the most pessimistic is Chris Squire, SVP Head of Data, Samba. “The outdated, legacy currency measurement barely scratches the surface of advertiser needs via proxy metrics that fall short of measuring the business outcomes that are instrumental to campaign ROI. As the industry approaches a critical inflection point to rethink how advertisers transact with each other, we are excited at the prospect of multiple currencies based on these business outcomes for true ROI insight.”

Media Currency Solutions – Considerations

The ever increasing opportunities to push content across platforms can lead to new and highly creative measurement adaptations while at the same time, pose further challenges.

 “There's a massive move from counting delivery in the form of GRPs to measuring outcomes, whether that's advertising's ability to grow brands, drive engagement or sales,” explained Anne Hunter, VP, Product Marketing, DISQO, because of fragmentation, speed of consumer change and direct to consumer as well as one-to-one marketing efforts.

For Senior Insights Consultant, Laura Chaibi, the ability to form closed loop selling can make the discussion of a currency irrelevant. “In other parts of the world, it is almost problematic when the publisher is also the bank in places like China. They see how much money you have, how you spend it and what you can afford. This is the ultimate closed loops selling – do you need a currency in this market?” she posited and added, “Amazon seem closer to full end to end closed loop selling more than any other platform / publisher (if you can call them that) in the USA that is selling media.”

Setting priorities in measurement solution is the view of Daniel Slotwiner, VP, Measurement, Insights and PMM, Gopuff. He would like to, “See more of a discussion about explicitly measuring ads versus content. I think both need to be measured, for sure, but for trading purposes I think it's time we leave content aside and focus on measuring ads (with some meta data about the context in which/on which they are viewed).”  

Conclusion

In my opinion, some form of standard, generally accepted baseline metric is important for comparison purposes across properties, but just like any wildly divergent industry of competing self -interests, to get all interested parties in agreement is probably a pipe dream. Should we keep the traditional status quo of Nielsen, despite its limitations? Do we migrate to a Comscore with its own set of limitations? Or do we venture into new parameters with another company, TBD? Perhaps a consortium of industry organizations can form a special committee to address measurement standards to either strengthen the current or form a new standard protocol.

For Jane Clarke, Managing Director, CIMM, “There doesn’t have to be one solution for a new currency, because different marketers have different needs and will use different datasets.  We just need common standards to verify ad exposures across media.  Those who provide ad exposure data need to be willing to have that data audited and accredited.” 

As a closing but important added consideration, Ben Tatta, President of Standard Media Index concluded, “It wasn't long ago when there was no debate regarding the currency or any viable alternative for measuring TV.  I suggest that we bifurcate, "measurement" from "currency."   Even if it takes time to transition to a more unified impressions-based currency that doesn't mean we can't change the basis by which we measure performance and outcomes.”        

Let the conversation continue….

This article first appeared in the Hocus Focus Newletter.

 

 

The World is Changing. Stephen DiMarco, Chief Digital Officer, Kantar on the COVID-19 Barometer Study

How is the COVID-19 virus influencing consumers’ behaviors, attitudes and expectations? Kantar has a pulse on the subject according to Chief Digital Officer Stephen DiMarco, with the recently released COVID-19 Barometer. 

This global study measures, “the perspectives of over 30,000 consumers across more than 50 markets. The study answers questions like, ‘How are behaviors and attitudes changing?’, ‘How should my brand be responding and supporting our consumers?’ and ‘Which touchpoints are now more relevant’ among others. It is designed to help the marketing industry help lead reactions within their businesses in the coming weeks and month,” he explained

The first wave of research was conducted between March 14-23, covering consumer attitudes, media habits, impact on online/offline purchase behavior, and expectations from brands. The second wave was conducted between March 27-30. 

Weisler: Have you seen differences and changes wave to wave?

DiMarco: Here are some of the key differences we saw in Wave 2 compared to Wave 1:

      --  Globally, 52% say their day-to-day lives have now been impacted by the current situation – up from 39% in wave 1.

       --  Financial concerns outweigh personal health concerns. 68% of people say the situation demands more proactive financial planning (up from 62% in wave 1), and 60% (vs 53% in wave 1) are worried about the economy’s ability to recover.

      --  Millennials are feeling the most severe impact financially. 78% of 18-34-year olds say their household income has or will be impacted by coronavirus, compared to 71% overall.

      --  National media channels, such as nationwide TV channels and newspapers, are still seen as the most trusted source of information, with 54% of people identifying them as a trustworthy source (up from 52% in wave 1).

      -- Trust in government websites has increased to 54%, vs 48% during wave 1 of the research, suggesting that as the severity of the pandemic increases, people are increasingly looking to their government for information and support.

      --  47% (41% in wave 1) of people expect companies to support hospitals during the crisis, while 39% (35% in wave 1) say that companies should be making themselves available to governments.

Weisler: Were there any surprises?

DiMarco: I think we were initially surprised by how much people are not concerned with getting sick. Their fears are around impact on their daily life (including financially) and the economy, but not actually contracting the virus. Trusted sources of information differ by country. When thinking through this it makes sense, but it does highlight some of the distrust of government/media in the US specifically.        We don’t see a lot of ‘new’ online purchasers, so while online shopping is becoming more prevalent it is not necessarily because of new people trying online shopping. People seem to think online purchasing will increase in the future, but going to the store is one of few excuses to leave the house for many.

Weisler: What about concerns by age and gender? 

DiMarco: With Age, generally, concern is high but grows with age; the 69% of the youngest (18-24) are concerned, and each age group progressively increases through to the 55-64-year-old group, where 79% have high concern. In China, concern is higher than the world average, with 90% or greater of each age group showing high concern. In Italy, concern is more aligned with the global average (in the 71-80% range), and follows the trend that younger consumers are slightly less concerned than their older counterparts. In the US, concern is lower than the global average in almost all age groups (except 35-44, 79% highly concerned). Even fewer younger people show high concern, only 64% of 18-24 and only 57% of 25-34. With Gender, generally, females show greater concern than men – 77% to 70%, respectively.

Weisler: What 50 countries are included?

DiMarco: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, UK, Ukraine, US, Vietnam 

Weisler: What are the differences in attitudes by country?

DiMarco: We looked at some of the key countries being covered around the pandemic – China, Italy, and the US. Concern regarding the virus seems to follow the timeline of geographic spread (greater in China, then Italy, then US). Italy indicates the greatest impact on daily life, while China has especially low expectations on the economic future. Consumers in the US and China indicate higher preparedness in terms of increased shopping.

 Weisler: And what about concerns by key markets? 

DiMarco: In China, concern is much higher (as we saw with age), but is even among females and males (93% & 94%). In Italy, concern is much higher in females (83%) than males (71%). In the US, concern is slightly higher among females (59%), but not a huge gap to male counterparts (56%). 

Weisler: What would you say are the topline takeaways? 

DiMarco: We found:

      --  Staff welfare should be a company’s first priority – brands looking after their employees and offering flexible working are the top two concerns of consumers.

      --  There is still a place for advertising – consumers still find this useful, and continuing to communicate will help brands recover faster. As media behaviors change, there are new opportunities to reach people – consider adapting online and social media strategies as the pandemic progresses in each market.

      --  Consider messaging and advertising strategy carefully – there’s a fine balance between being seen as helpful vs profiteering, so ensure the right tone to build brand.

      --  Financial concerns are a #1 worry, as more than half of people globally (52%) say their day-to-day lives have now been impacted by the situation.

      --  News consumption is up, as people seek to stay informed.

Weisler: What do you think this means for the future?

DiMarco: This will cause a forced trial of new brands because of price sensitivity, availability, where people are shopping could lead to long term changes in purchase behavior. Focus on hygiene is likely here to stay and could cause changes in behaviors: Sustainability, Cashless purchases, Hygiene related behaviors.

This article first appeared in www.MediaVillage.com