Written By Kate Zimmermann | September 26, 2006 | Share This |

Over the past 10 years, the rapid development of communications technologies has created a wealth of online data. Much of that data is misrepresented, however, because of outdated systems of measurement. Today, speakers John Chandler-Pepeinjak - Atlas, Mainak Mazumdar - Nielsen//NetRatings, Gerard Broussard - GroupM, Lauren Weinberg - Advertising.com, Konrad Feldman - Quantcast, and Moderator David Smith of Mediasmith, presented the current and future potential of online measurement, with speculation on how to create meaningful numbers for new media.

John Chandler-Pepeinjak began the session with a chart, shown below, of what we can and can’t track.

Noting that Clicks are the only metric tracked across almost all types of media, John continued by showing a comparison of cross-media measurement vs. the traditional Marketing Mix. He pointed out that, though most advertisers prefer the Market Mix model, the Internet often doesn’t show up as being “effective” until you place it in cross-media studies. Konrad Feldman agreed, “The web today demands better measurement.” The long tail, he said, holds thousands of individual niches that contain valuable behavioral information – but to glean data that can accurately inform advertising decisions, better direct measurement has to be developed.

Mainak Mazumdar continued by presenting a slide on Digital Audio and Video Measurement Methodology (see below).

Lauren Weinberg then discussed Engagement Marketing, in relation to a study recently conducted by her company. Advertising.com found that 50% of marketers considered Conversions to be an accurate definition of “engagement”, 45% associated it with Lift in Awareness, and 40% thought it was Time Spent With Ads. Her point was that there’s no standard of metrics, which is why marketers have to look at what can be measured along with how it speaks to engagement. Below is her slide on the “Rules of Engagement”.

Together, the panelists expressed that the online industry is in a unique position to take the lead on media measurement. Engagement is a very hot topic this year, but analysts are still uncertain of exactly how to pin it down.

At this point, the panel went into the Question and Answer Session.

Question: What are the biggest issues with measurement today? Should the emphasis be on measurements presented here, or does it involve other things?

John replied that there are two things to look at: 1) emerging media - online, web video, podcasting, digital video, etc. Marketers should encapsulate already existing measurements into new media metrics. 2) Traditional media is understood primarily in terms of reach vs. frequency. The key issue is deciding how to weigh the tradeoff between the two, as measurement is translated from old to new media.

Gerard Broussard followed John, saying that marketers should be using metrics to answer the question: What sort of critical mass are these media going to achieve in the next few years, and how are they going to affect my business in the short and long term? He speculated that new media testing will become a serious business in the next couple of years.

John asked, At what point does a marketer stop testing and start incorporating the new media into the overall campaign? Gerard repeated, “Critical Mass”, estimating that the point of critical mass is anywhere between 10 – 15% of a population. Mainak made the comment that although emerging media are important, the market still needs to support them. Everything is “emerging” right now, but there’s not always a support in the market place in terms of metrics. Is there a sustained demand for new networks like YouTube and Myspace?

David agreed, saying that clients often ask about new media products with no understanding of scale. Its his job to ask, Is it going to scale to a market of “critical mass”?

Question: If Reach and Frequency are “outdated” for measuring new media, is there a new measurement for engagement?

Gerard said, “Reach/Frequency is a necessary evil” – that’s because it works. It’s critical for determining return on investment for clients. Konrad agreed, and said that you have to always be able to measure the performance by measuring input (with reach and frequency) to assess the output. He believes we’re going to see developments to alternative pricing models. New media has to be measurable against the same sorts of objectives as search and direct marketing.

Lauren commented that no matter how much talk there is about “engagement”, reach and frequency remain the most important metrics for clients.

Question: 62% of offline purchases are driven by online sales - so what conversations are do you use with clients to correct expectations, and to show complete yield of advertising?

Gerard rephrased the Question: What types of measurement can you use to see the impact of online offline? He then responded by saying that offline impact can be teased out of the publisher’s website by measuring likelihoods. The panelists nodded in agreement as the session came to an end.

Topics: Conferences & Events |