Excess TV Campaign Ad Impressions: Too Much of a Good Thing?

One of the dark secrets of television advertising is the ad impressions waste that occurs in a campaign. Waste is defined as impressions that reach the wrong audience or reach those who have already been over-exposed to the ad. When an advertiser targets adults 18–49, for example, there is a good chance they will also inadvertently reach both older and younger viewers in their media mix.

A recent study reported in MediaPost found that more than half of a typical campaign’s TV ad impressions are wasted. Although that’s a large percentage, impressions waste is not always bad and can actually be beneficial. Here’s why.

The Current Posting System Is Antiquated

The current method of ascribing target audiences for campaigns is age and gender, and not all 18–49s are alike, nor should 50+-year-olds be dismissed. By accepting a certain level of so-called waste, advertisers may reach audiences primed for their products and services that were previously ignored.

Targeted Segmentations Can Convert Swing Consumers

Even those advertisers who are not relying on age/gender proxies and instead use targeted segmentations can benefit from waste. Targeted segmentations speak to those who have a high propensity to purchase or may already be purchasers. But what about swing consumers? There is a value to exposing your message to those who may be on the fence or are open to hearing different messaging. Think about the Democratic candidates appearing on Fox News, as reported by The Hill. Sure, there will be those viewers who are not open to the messaging, but there are some who might be.

Effective Reach Levels Are Not as Low as They Used to Be

In a landscape of increasing distraction and multi-platform devices that have different quality levels of exposure, the theory that three ad impressions are enough has been debunked in several studies. A study reported in New Neuromarketing found that 10 exposures are needed to effectively influence consumers’ attitudes toward a brand: “You have to get into their brain to really create attitude changes. Multiple exposures of a clear message can cause a transfer of information to long term memory, which in turn affects consumer attitudes.”

The most efficient way of capitalizing on impressions waste is with media that offers both targeted opportunities, such as a local presence, and a certain level of mass reach, as is the case with television. Savvy marketers who understand the targeting complexities and consumer evolution in the media ecosystem shouldn’t worry about ad impressions waste but should instead find ways to maximize its value.

This article first appeared in the Videa blog.

Managing Local TV Market Traffic in the Ad Tech Age

Local traffic systems are often legacy systems, having processed local TV market buys for the industry for years. Now, in an age of greater data diversity and granularity, many of these systems are straining to keep up—but the future of local TV market traffic must bring change.

You Need Data and Reach

With big data sets now available to measure television, a low sample size should be a thing of the past—even at the local level. “Of the local agency clients (of Rentrak) with whom I have spoken, they have stressed the importance of stability in the ratings, availability across all networks, ‘no zeroes,’ and the ability to characterize the audience beyond age-gender,” says Caroline Horner, co-founder of advertising agency SpicyTequila. Horner also notes that advertisers buying across multiple markets want consistent metrics and tools.

This means local traffic systems should be able to import more granular data to better track contract inventory. There’s also a need to go beyond ratings and delivery as a measure of success in trafficking contracts. Reach is becoming even more of a must-have for advertisers—but few systems have updated or attempted to address either reach or target reach. “The growing importance of local reach and the need for updating the reach methodology is a common conversation,” says Horner.

Read the full article at the Videa blog.

What is the Value of a Digital Ad? comScore knows.

comScore, known in the industry as the expert in digital measurement, is taking an aggressive cross platform position with the acquisition of Rentrak, the recently announced a measurement deal  with Viacom and partnership with Adobe. I sat down with Andrew Lipsman, comScore’s VP of Marketing Insights, to get his perspective on all of these recent advancements in conjunction with comScore’s efforts at perfecting the calculation of true digital ad performance.

comScore, according to Lipsman, is embarking on work in reach and frequency measurement as a way to link devices and platforms under common metrics as a way to qualify clean impressions and their  impact.  This effort is a result of the tech debate to measure viewability, fraud and ad blocking.  The question comScore posed  - What is the value of a digital ad? – will, once answered, help identify clean impressions in terms of true, accurate reach and frequency.

“We conducted three different pieces of research over the past year,” explained Andrew, “that ultimately provided insight into what validated reach and frequency looks like when you qualify impressions based on the opportunity to see. We synthesized that research into our latest Value of a Digital Ad report, which provided new insight into how a better understanding of those metrics changes what we thought we knew about digital ad effectiveness, such brand and sales lift.” Reach measurement is challenged in digital, according to Andrew. Gross reach and frequency in digital is overstated because it includes non-viewable and fraudulent impressions.

There is also overstatement of reach due to server side reportage versus unique audience visitor counts, which can often vary by a factor of 2 or 3. This is because server-side measurement counts the incidence of unique cookies but there could be multiple browser uses or deleted cookies that are then re-loaded. Also, when you overstate reach with server-side analytics, you are also understating frequency by a corresponding amount.

Once you can account for gross reach and frequency correctly, you then need to examine the traffic of bots or ads below the fold to determine the actual validated reach and frequency. “Roughly half of all digital ads are not viewable,” noted Andrew, “When the reach and frequency are properly validated it is a much better indicator of how to effectively build reach and how much frequency can be tolerated. Validated reach and frequency, while lower than gross, offers more accurate insights and less waste.”

In cross platform measurement, it is important how to understand digital in relation to television. Part of what makes digital comparable to TV is the opportunity to view, but digital must be accountable for those instances where there is an inability to view. This is quite a challenge. According to comScore, only 48% of digital impressions are viewable. 45% are non-viewable human (often those ads that are below the fold) and an additional 7% are non-viewable invalid traffic (bots).

This effort takes on a bigger context beyond the accurate reporting of cross platform performance. When you can optimize media allocations, advertisers can spend more effectively.

This article first appeared in www.Mediapost.com