January 25, 2023
OAAA Unveils New Measurement Standard Based On 'Opportunity,' Not 'Likelihood' To See Outdoor Ads
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, May 18, 2021
Less than two weeks after unveiling new out-of-home ad industry guidelines for measuring digital out-of-home advertising utilizing mobile “identity data,” the Out-of-Home Advertising Association of America this morning released new guidelines for measuring overall out-of-home advertising that appear to be a step backwards.
The new guidelines for impressions-based measurement are based on consumers having an “opportunity-to-see” out-of-home ads, which comes after the U.S. out-of-home ad industry’s de facto currency -- GeoPath’s ratings -- have elevated the industry standard to a “likelihood-to-see” ads.
While it called for a shift back to “opportunity” as the ad industry’s “primary metric,” the OAAA said it is not “entirely” walking away from enhancing out-of-home ad measurement in the future.
“Likelihood-to-see, a metric which takes into account real-time dynamics or variables that impact audience composition and behavior in proximity to the ad, will now be treated as a supplemental metric,” it said.
advertisement
advertisement
It wasn’t clear why the OAAA is regressing the industry standard, when GeoPath, an out-of-home audience measurement service that has operated in the U.S. since 1933 (formerly known as the Traffic Audit Bureau) had already elevated it, or as other ratings authorities such as the Media Rating Council, the Advertising Research Foundation, have been pushing to make audience measurement services better, but it appears that it was made for pragmatic reasons.
“As we emerge from a global pandemic, advertisers have new opportunities to reach the connected consumer in a mobile first, data driven, and digital led advertising ecosystem,” the OAAA states in its announcement, adding that opportunity-to-see “more closely aligns with the same metric used by all other measured media combining predictive audience models with a clear measure of observed audience exposures at OOH displays across all formats.”
The association implied that the move would create more of a common denominator enabling out-of-home audience data “inputs” to work alongside other media in the ad industry’s various marketing mix and attribution models.
OAAA President-CEO Anna Bager said in a statement: “Our objective in setting a new minimum standard for measurement is to support even greater transparency to audience measurement that is timely, consistent and comparable with other channels.”
15 comments about "OAAA Unveils New Measurement Standard Based On 'Opportunity,' Not 'Likelihood' To See Outdoor Ads".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Our objective in setting a new minimum standard for measurement is to support even greater transparency to audience measurement that is timely, consistent and comparable with other channels.”
There is nothing transparent about Maybe .Opportunity to see "OTS" media measurement is everything that is wrong about opaque exageratted media measurement.
Shame on you for saying, well all the other media are exagerating the heck out of their audiences, we should get off the high road and return to the land of bull-shit. The land where CPM meaans Cost per Maybe. Terrible, dumb fricking move!!
Mark: I believe you will endorse my Commentary and response to this woeful move by OAAA. And CPM? Completely Positively Mad! https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/363389/blindsided-why-the-oaaa-didnt-give-others-an-op.html
OOH is distinctly different from other media, for the simple reason that it does not live within content. I don't have to worry that a piece of TV creative that ends up on your TV screen, is in a place you're able or inclined to look. It's not like you're watching TV, and then a commercial comes on, and the commercial plays on the window on the side of the living room. Looking is the entire point of TV (and print); and listening is the entire point of radio/audio.
As a result, OTS is quite different in OOH than in other trsditionsl media. In the early 2000's I consulted with Arbitron as they were exploring the development of an OOH mesurement service, and I learned then that some agencies actually discounted the then-curenct currency (DECs) by up to 95%. Buyside buy-in is essential to currency, and The Traffic Audit Bureau/GeoPath did a great job of launching an innovative mesurement construct in 2009 (EYES ON) that brought unprecedented credibility and trust to the OOH currency data from the buy side.
I don't mean to suggest that a movement to impressions is a bad idea; but the uestion becomes, what constitutes an impression?
Ultimately, I'm curious what advertisers and their agencies have to say about the new minimum standard for OOH currency. That is where the rubber will hit the road segment.
Tony, I like cost per Maybe better. It summarizes the whole farce.
Joshua, OTS is no different, no bigger a boogeyman, in OOH home than other media. Its all a MAYBE. Advertisers should not be investing in audiences quantified and qualified with a MAYBE. Thats backwards and stupid.
Also holds true for TV....do you really think that everyone reported as having the opportunity to see a TV ad actually sees it? Are you drunk on kool-aid? Do you realize that OTS measurements for print do not take into account the size of the ad? Don'tyou think more people are likely to see a double truck than a smaller ad. Do you fully understand how online impressions are counted, do you believe the absurdity of that is any different?
Our media measurement systems are woefully broken. Without good data as an input, all of our so called analytics output is in question.
As an industry we are a bunch of kool-aid drunks marvelling at the emporers clothes.
What is an impression?
Its a connection between a prospective consumer and an advertisment paid for by an advertiser who begs to know How many people will see my ad ,how many times.
Its 2021, and we remain distant from the answer. All very tragic.
@Mark Sherman: I'll defer to the authorities about the logic of the move, but speaking as a speaker of the English language, I think your use of "maybe" may be a little overworked here.
See definitions of "opportunity" vs. "likeliehood:"
op·por·tu·ni·ty
/ˌäpərˈt(y)o͞onədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.
"we may see increased opportunities for export"
like·li·hood
/ˈlīklēˌho͝od/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the state or fact of something's being likely; probability.
"young people who can see no likelihood of finding employment"
It was my understanding that the eyes-on measurements reported that about 50-60% of those passing by in a vehicle---I assume this meant a car---looked at the average poster for at least one or two seconds. That seemed to me to be a reasonable approximation of OTS, though not, necessarily of ad impact. In fact, it jibed with camera research I did long ago to make the same determination and deal with those who then claimed that "nobody looks at outdoor posters". Not true then----or now.
If the new plan is to go back to "raw" traffic counts---or pass bys--- this is a move that will harm, not help, the OOH industry. Why? Because nobody will bother about the eyes-on part as the findings are ---stupidly---kept secret when they should get wider coverage. This, in turn invites a reincarnation of the old myth that nobody looks at OOH posters. How does that help OOH ad sales? As for comparisons with other media, forget about that. No media savvy advertiser---or agency---- accepts the "raw" audience numbers for any medium when making such comparisons. There are always adjustments---sometimes based on facts; sometimes based on biased thinking---or lack of same.
Joe, to me OTS says for your $3 ; 1,000 persons will have the opportunity to see your ad. That sounds to me like may see your ad, might see your ad. Maybe.
LTS says for your $3 1,000 persons are lieky to see your ad, probably will see your ad.
LTS is a much less exagerated proxy for ad exposure....what advetisers are buying. Problem is that LTS is a smaller number than LTS and sellers can't deal with this deflation of their box car numbers.
Ed, with the greatest of respect, which you certainly deserve. Its 2021 and adjusting and handicaping numbers to reduce them to something closert to LTS assumes media people understand the weakness of the system, arn't drunk on kool-aid. Not enough media people do understand, and not enough advertisers care.... If the advertisers cared about good measurement, they'd be willing to pay for it.
@Mark Sherman: That is what likely means, but I think the "proxy" and "exaggeration" part is your interpretation. Ultimately, the value of any marketplace metric is up to the marketplace to decide.
Mark, I have to agree with you about the lack of education about what the "audience" numbers really mean--and I also agree that too many media people simply go with the flow. However, I was referring to those "savvy" advertiser media execs and their agency counterparts who I still encounter---often as subscribers to my publications--- who are willing to make adjustments not only to OOH "impressions" but also to other media---for example, to local market average quarter hour TV ratings---which include zapped commercials---and the national ratings which are average minute and delete zapped commercials. They may be a rare breed, but they are still around. So don't give up too soon. We are not alone.
Joe, you say that my notions of exageration and proxy is "my interpretation". If so, its after spending 40 years building Canada's largest independant media services firm and having a very succesful exit. Erwin Ephron developed a handicapping system for my agency that reduced audiences by up to 60%. I' guess that Erwin and I had similar interpretations about exageration in media measurement. I just don't buy your argument that a metric is suitable because the market has decided it is. Thats how sheep drunk on kool-aid think.
There are reasons that advertisers dont trust their agencies, one of them is the incredulous numbers we so blindly peddle.
@Mark Sherman: As I said in the first place, I'll defer to the authorities about marketplace metrics. I was just commenting about the English language.
It may be that Canadians use it differently than Americans.
Joe, we use the English language the same way. We spell colour and favour differently. We spell money and bull shit the same way.
Sory Joe but as a Canadian I have to agree overall with Mark. However, perhaps an article on the extensive array of the various basis, uses and definitions of the term "impressions" in the media industry is needed from you as THE industry's most experienced observer?
I guarantee you will obtain many many variations! It would, I suggest, underline the various "abuses" and BS value of the various "impressions" metrics used in our industry. More importantly your piece could, once and for all (?), reveal the fundamental critical importance to advertisers and their agencies of requiring MRC accredited audience exposure metrics for all content from all media, like that provided by GeoPath for OOH and interestingly PPM for radio, whether for planning, buying, selling or especially for outcomes modeling.
To that I must add, for the justifiably esteemed, Josh Chasin a plea. Moving any media metric to the gutter of impressions and all their short comings is a really bad idea. I fully appreciate they are a convenient, low cost, less complex, easy way out to a media metric but brand andn campaign success is at stake! As a member of the cognoscenti in media research globally, you are aware that currently "Attention" (ARF Level 4) is being considered as the new media currency. This is a value level ABOVE LTS (ARF Level 3) which is a value level ABOVE impressions (ARF Level 2). QED?