Insights from two US media mavens
Background
“A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma.” Winston Churchill used this phrase to describe Russia. Perhaps it applies to ‘cross-media measurement’ or XMM? XMM has enormous technical and data complexities, fiercely competing business forces and positions, and an apparent unfamiliarity with the ARF Media Model, “Making Better Media Decisions” which unequivocally established the role of media within the campaign process from ad (or content) dissemination through to sales. All this in an environment of on-going abuse of established media terms and definitions, notably in the US.
The asi virtual Conference adressed XMM on Friday November 6 asking, “Will the cross-media dream come true?” ISBA, UK’s Advertiser Association and the Association of National Advertisers, ANA, US have each launched an initiative to develop an XMM approach, based on the recent Technical Design proposed by the World Federation of Advertisers, WFA. These projects hold great promise for media planners, media buyers and media sellers to plan and negotiate via a common media currency.
Unfortunately, many have already jumped to “Outcomes Measurement” rather than “Media Measurement”. Understandable, but “Outcomes Measurement” is an entirely different measurement challenge and one in which media plays a role but along with a wide array of many more powerful forces (creative, pricing, promotions, brand equity position, etc. etc.).
The Advertisers needs are ultimately to evaluate ‘Outcomes’ for insights into developing ad campaign strategies and plans. The media’s needs are for a common harmonized media currency. Consequently, Media’s role, concerns and responsibilities extend only to optimizing people’s exposure to content or to ads. These two legitimate industry needs are incompatible but connected via a hierarchy of effects. So, it is critical not confuse the two measurements.
POV’s of Jonathan Steuer & Josh Chasin
Ultimately what should the industry expect from an XMM advertiser driven initiative and what are some of the key considerations? Two highly experienced media research leaders offer their observations. Interestingly they both recently joined VideoAmp, US: Jonathan Steuer is EVP, Strategy & Currency and Josh Chasin, Chief Measurability Officer and may be referred to as J&J.
Should an XMM solution serve ad/content planning, ad trading or both?
Using his deep media agency experience, Steuer underlined the old media adage, “Buy what you plan, and plan what you buy” which was echoed by Chasin, so, both! Recognizing that relationships between planners and buyers are, “often very muddied”, J&J underlined this requirement to ensure a meaningful relationship between planning and buying based on a common currency.
Is Unduplicated Reach a Key?
J&J were unequivocal in stressing the importance of being able to estimate unduplicated reach for any target group for any media mix, via any device for any platform. Having unduplicated reach will, “address the advertiser’s fundamental concern with excessive frequency” although as they noted, “the higher frequency of heavy viewers of any media platform will always be a concern.”
J&J believe reach estimates will, “be driven by establishing a database of privacy protected unique IDs for a census of people to which media data will be appended” which is the key to any subsequent de-duplication. “Personifying the plethora of device data is the complex part of any solution.”
Will privacy requirements be an ultimate barrier?
J&J were emphatic. “Privacy will make the database and serve to protect all parties and fend off regulation.” Maybe??
Can the ARF Media Model be Ignored?
J&J appeared to balk at the opportunity for any new XXM solution to establish a universal media currency as ‘eyes-on’ or ‘ears open’, i.e., “viewing” or “hearing”. These dimensions are identified as “exposure” – Level 3 in the ARF Media model. Some existing media currencies provide for “gross impressions” estimates which are based on vehicle exposure versus actual content or ad exposure. Gross impressions reflect Level 2 in the ARF model which J&J considered, “ok in the near term” for any XMM solution.
Per Ed Papazian, Media Dynamics, Inc., there can be chasms in delivery between device tuning, Level 1, sometimes referred to as “viewable impressions” and “exposure”. Ad or content exposure reflects ARF Level 3! I pointed out that the, “royal we” have wanted actual ad/content “exposure” data as a common media currency for the last 25+ years! Due the relative simplicity and availability of capturing dissemination, device, or circulation data, could the XMM initiative be stuck with a common currency of little value to advertisers or programmers?
“Attention”, Level 4, has also been raised as a potential common media currency but it was generally agreed that this metric is beyond media’s responsibility due primarily to the confounding effects of the creative execution in any :attention measurement. The asi Conference examined this dimension on Wednesday November 4th.
The question, “Can we agree that it is unreasonable to make media operators responsible for campaign response and/or sales, i.e., campaign Outcomes, ARF Level 8?” was left on the table. As noted, the media element in any ad campaign is merely, albeit importantly, a facilitator not the primary Outcomes driver.
Are Panels a part of the Solution?
Steuer opined, “Big Data and panels can be friends.”, and noted that the WFA Technical Design embraced the principle of panels to personify device data at the least, and offer the potential for various calibrations of any final data set.
Should XMM go Beyond TV/Video?
“An unequivocal Yes!”
Role of Industry Orgs?
J&J both agreed that the work being done and in progress in the US by CIMM and MRC will be important considerations for any XMM solution.
The final US XMM approach will surely require a consortium of collaborators that must be paid as contributors to the final database. Who will be the stakeholders of the ANA XMM? Does it need to be a Joint Industry Committee, JIC, and therefore be industry owned, priced, and distributed to licensees? (JIC’s do not exist in the US than GeoPath which measures Out-of-Home.)
This business dimension is fraught but not illegal in the US. J&J merely suggested that an ANA industry database would be able to be imported/appended to other device/people/profile databases in a privacy compliant way. However, it was pointed out that this is only valuable if the resulting “mashed data” is any good, relevant, and meaningful to clients and their brands.
VideoAmp appears to be attempting to achieve an XMM solution and beyond. So how would any ANA “solution” dovetail into VideoAmp’s offerings? Would VideoAmp likely become a collaborator and therefore part of the research vendor consortium?
As the builder of the industry’s first Cross-Platform Measurement device-based solution, “VideoAmp has the same vision as the WFA.” J&J stated that, “Video Amp is evolving into a bespoke software and data solutions company and see its offerings as part of other XMM solutions”. It will also be, “a data provider to the marketplace although not the data marketplace.” Apparently, “some VideoAmp software is already open source in the spirit of the WFA design.”
Considerations Moving Forwards
With the best possible intentions, are ANA and/or ISBA going measure the wrong thing, ‘Outcomes’, right (at least technically) and falsely label it as ‘Cross-Media Measurement’?
Perhaps advertisers should be reminded that Attribution (including multi-touch) and Mixed Media Models attempt to assess the overall marketing effects – outcomes – and the contribution of an array of many variables included in the model well beyond media. These techniques are “bespoke” and operate on a brand-by-brand, campaign-by-campaign basis. Typically, they only explain around two thirds of the variation in sales or outcomes at best and often with limited accuracy.
As assessed by Jim Spaeth of Sequent Partners at the recent ARF AudienceXScience Conference, Attribution models could be improved significantly by using more accurate, consistent, comparable data inputs. This included using common, cross-media currency data– ideally actual audience ad viewing or exposure data. Because …. if there is no audience exposure, there are no brand campaign outcomes!
