| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSObviously, my first reaction was "But of course." After all, an impression is an impression, isn't it?
"Well, consider," said the online publisher, "on my site, I can tell you how much time a viewer spends with a commercial message. True, the advertiser might be buying a 30-second impression, but what if the viewer only watches five of those 30 seconds?"
"Now let's say another advertiser buys a 30-second impression, of which, on average, 25 seconds are viewed? Are both impressions, the five-second impression and the 25-second impression, of equal value to the advertiser?"
My response was, "Of course not. The 25-second impression is much more valuable."
"So," said the online publisher, "should I be able to charge more for that?"
In the past, an impression was just that -- a metric that indicated "how many" might be watching something. In the digital marketplace, we can actually tell "how long" the impression lasts.
In other words, an impression now has an added value based on the amount of time spent with the message.
For example, if an advertiser runs a 30-second spot in front of one million people and discovers that, on average, only five of the 30 seconds are viewed, the total time-spent with the brand is 5 million seconds.
Now let's say another advertiser runs a 30-second spot in front of only half as many viewers-500,000-but average time-spent with the message is 25 seconds per viewer. Total time-spent with the brand in this case would be 12.5 million seconds.
In other words, a 150% increase in time-spent with the brand for approximately half the media cost.
"I'm definitely offering a service with this data," said the online publisher, "saving the advertiser a huge amount of money. How do I get compensated for not only saving them money, but improving their brand's performance?"
"Well, first off, you didn't improve the brand's performance," I countered. "The agency that created the message did. Involvement in a message is not the responsibility of the media agency, or, of you, the publisher. Involvement is the responsibility of the creative agency."
He asked, "So do you think I can continue to sell impressions on a CPM basis to media agencies and start to sell involvement on a time-spent basis to creative agencies?"
Perhaps it was the bourbon, but I found this to be quite a provocative question. As viewing audiences continue to fragment and the long tail grows ever longer, online publishers will need to find additional revenue streams to augment CPM.
Is time-spent the answer? It certainly is a measurement metric that online publishers have at their disposal.
"But rather than creative agencies, what if you sold the time-spent data directly to advertisers?" I asked him. "They're the ones that are paying for the creative to be developed. You would think they would want to know if, indeed, they are getting their money's worth. And, down the road, perhaps even paying their agencies for creative based on how well it involves people in the message."
He liked the idea of selling both CPM and Time-Spent. And together, we thought of a few advertisers who might be open to such thinking.
Because it seems fairly obvious that as viewing audiences continue to fragment and increasingly control shifts to the viewer, time spent with a brand's messaging is becoming as valuable as the number that see it.
As he got up to leave, I thanked the online publisher for his time. "You know," he said, "the way I look at it, time-spent is nothing more than an impression in the control of the viewer."
And, with that, he was gone.
3 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
Thanks for taking the time to read my piece today in Mediapost.
From your comments, it appears that you have doubts as to its practicality. So, let me address your doubts one by one.
1. You say that publishers already have difficulty with inventory. Apparently, you and I are talking to very different publishers. What I have found is that there are a large percentage of publishers looking for more advertisers.
It seems that you also think that this new model requires an impression to pass some sort of time spent test to be sellable. Not at all the case. Time spent doesn't impact on how impressions are bought and sold in the slightest. Impressions are the currency of media. Time spent is the currency of creative. Media agencies can continue to sell impressions. All we're offering advertisers is another way to add value to the data that already exists and is being accumulated by publishers. This data tells advertisers whether their thirty second spot delivered 5 seconds or 25 seconds of involvement.
2. I agree that creative agencies don't have any say in media. That's exactly the point of time spent. And, why it is a creative issue and not a media issue. I think most media agencies will say that they don't have any control over how long somebody is involved with the creative. They just bring the eyeballs to the creative. I agree. But, Olivia, time spent with a commercial message can now be measured. If media isn't responsible for that, then who is? The creative agency? Correct. The reason they won't say "talk to the media agency" is because the good ones actually want to be held accountable for time spent. Right now, good creative agencies are leaving money on the table as all creative, good or bad, earns the same retainer. What we're offering is a way for good work to be worth more than bad work.
3. You're right, most advertisers do not delineate between creative performance and media performance. That's because, until now, they had no way to do this. But now that we can, don't you think they will want to?
What we have done is offered a way for media to be paid to do what they do, deliver eyeballs.
And for creative to be paid for what they do, deliver involvement.
Very separate functions be paid for under very different criteria.
While you say you think this sounds like a publisher trying to monetize some unexpected successful metrics, perhaps you should look at it as a publisher who understands that how we evaluate and compensate performance in the analog world doesn't hold water in the digital world. New methods are needed. This is one.
Try it .
You'll quickly see for yourself how well it works.
Best,
Gregory Wilson 415.905.0392
1. Publishers already have difficulty with inventory. The estimating tools that they currently have already provide a tremendous amount of error when it comes to delivery. According to this conversation, publishers will not only say that "IF" I have an impression available, but now that impression needs to pass a 75% view rate? Can you say, "BILLING NIGHTMARE"?
2. Creative agencies typically do not have any say in how media is purchased - that is the goal of the media group. So, no matter how much you shop around to creative shops, their answer is going to most likely be "Talk to the media group."
3. Taking this to the advertiser is certainly the best approach. However, most clients are not involved in the day to day when it comes to media buying and campaign maintenance. They also typically do not clearly define the difference between creative performance and media performance. You will then get pressure from your media people to come up to this PROMISED (as that is how clients will hear it and communicate it to the planners) interaction rate - even if the creative is not revamped.
What this sounds like to me is a publisher trying to monetize on unexpected successful metrics.
connie made a similar point about how to qualify the time spent on one page. the user could be looking at anything during that time, so how do you prove that any one person actually spent a given period of time staring at your ad?
also, as an online publisher i'm always interested in a possible to metric to prove the value of time spent in respect to a branding message, which mark r brought up as well. because everything is supposed to be tracked, clicked, engaged, etc in the online environment, branding becomes free to the advertiser and the publisher gets screwed. i hope the internet does become the new tv, that way we'll be compensated fairly for providing a branding platform.
At the end of the day, the biggest problem for this publisher is the virtually unlimited -- and, ironically, still growing -- number of impressions on the web. Unless his impressions are convertible, he's just another guy with a site.
TV has limited inventory -- and it's own proof of performance of sales against GRP loads -- and with audiences in decline, competition for those essential GRPs drives prices up.
Creative agencies aren't in the buying/pricing business and shouldn't be.
For me the ad would have to be so compelling for me to tune into it for the duration.
And as Ms. Terrwilliger wondered aloud, when computers start tracking my eye movements.. that's when I will be totally creeped out. What's next your keyboard shocking you if you try to exit from an ad?
I teach a college level voiceover acting class and every semester I need to immediately figure out how the class thinks - what method of imparting information works for the individuals in that class. Some must see the instructions. Some hear it. Some have to repeat it back to me. Some just never get it.
The bottom line for testing advertising effectiveness is dollars leaving wallets to buy the goods.