• by Josh Chasin , Op-Ed Contributor, April 5, 2011

Recently the IAB, the AAAA, and the ANA have joined forces in an initiative called "Making Measurement Make Sense" (MMMS).  If you're reading this column, chances are that isn't news to you.

I'd been meaning for a while now to use this space to provide a measurement company perspective on MMMS.  As the Chief Research Officer at comScore, naturally it's a topic with which I'm pretty highly engaged.  Then two weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking at the OMMA Metrics Conference in Manhattan.  I knew that the IAB's Joe Laszlo was scheduled to provide an update on MMMS; catch Joe right here.  So I figured I'd use my slot to provide the "vendor perspective." 

So you can watch my presentation right here.  Or, keep reading, and I'll bottom-line it for you.  Or, hey, why not do both?

First off, I want to stress that I am not rebutting the MMMS initiative; rather, I am participating in the dialogue.  And I mean that quite literally; I've had a constructive, ongoing dialogue with Randall, Sherrill, and Joe from the IAB since the initiative first became public.  We're all adults, colleagues, and, I'd like to think, friends.  But I do believe that the input from those of us who actually make the metrics is essential if this initiative is to be successful, and I applaud the IAB for welcoming that input, even on the points where we might bring differing perspectives.

My presentation may be summed up thusly: three pain points, a plea, and a prescription.  To wit:

Pain point #1: The complexity of the ecosystem. One of the objectives of MMMS is to "Define standard metrics and measurement systems that are transparent and consistent to simplify the planning, buying and evaluating of digital media."  But as that great media planner Albert Einstein famously said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible -- but not simpler."

We've all seen the graphic depictions of the digital ecosystem.  In contrast, the TV ecosystem is almost comically simple; advertisers give money to agencies, who in turn buy TV time. Unfortunately, there is no magic number that will make the process of planning, buying and evaluating digital media as simple as TV, because that process is not a simple process.  The ecosystem chart is a map of that process, and the complexity of the ecosystem itself is the problem.  It is one we need to deal with head-on.  

This is important.  When advertisers bemoan the state of digital by saying "if only there was one magic number that made digital as easy to buy as TV," some hear that as a measurement problem.  But I don't think it is.  I think it is a complex-ecosystem problem.  We're very good at the science and algorithms behind efficient delivery of impressions to cookies in real time. It is no wonder that some advertisers, with money to spend on a desirable, engaged audience, balk at digital's complexity.

Pain point #2: We need metrics to quantify the differential value of impressions.  At OMMA I probably overused the vernacular of "engagement" (much to the chagrin of one Tony Jarvis) to describe this concept.  I've also heard it called "Page Value," but that term doesn't allow us to expand the application to other types of inventory (e.g. videos) let alone across media.  Basically, in media math we've always had two core metrics: how many (reach) and how much (frequency.) The product of these two metrics is GRPs.  But the concept of GRPs a priori assumes that every piece of inventory -- each exposure, each impression, each media vehicle -- are of equal value, which we all know intuitively is not the case.

So I think a fine outcome of MMMS would be to determine a single unified construct for differentially valuing inventory units -- exposures, impressions -- based on some measure of the quality of the experience the consumer has with the ad.  What's the relative value of a view of a 30-second TV spot versus the same spot in an online video, versus a banner ad, versus a Facebook "like"?  This of course becomes the cross-media Holy Grail that MMMS seeks.

Pain point #3: Pre-buy versus post-buy.  In TV, a single currency is used for planning, buying, and post-buy evaluation.  But that's because TV hasn't got empirical delivery data.  Since here in the digital landscape we have Page Views and publishers, perhaps print provides a better construct for us.  In print, MRI (magazines) and Scarborough (newspapers) are the planning and pre-buy currencies, but campaign delivery is evaluated after the fact based on circulation.  Online, we have ad server data to tell us how many ad impressions were delivered after the fact, and this is a good thing.  So the layer of complexity that different pre-buy and post-buy metrics introduces is something we'll just have to navigate together.

The plea: We do not need a metrics tribunal.  Here is the point about which I find myself most passionate.  The MMMS initiative calls for a "measurement governance model."  Metrics friends, this is a very bad idea.  The Internet is the most measurable medium, and as I wrote in my very first appearance in this space, back in 2007, that makes us immutably the medium with the most measures.  Metrics are in fact a vital and thriving part of the ecosystem, and like all other sectors of that ecosystem, we thrive on innovation and competition.  The last thing anyone needs is a metrics tribunal.  Such a thing would be anathema to innovation.  No one would suggest a DSP tribunal, or an exchange tribunal; such a notion would be chilling.  Despite the apparent comfort of One Magic Number, such a tribunal would be equally chilling in the metrics space.

Besides, if what we need is a tripartite group (advertisers, agencies, media) to audit and accredit measurement services, we already have one: the MRC.  And if your company wants a seat at that table, George Ivie tells me it's still just $12,500 a year (the best deal in media.) 

The prescription: Improving the narrative.  So what should we do? I think before we set about "fixing" measurement, we need to make sure that the stories we tell are in place. Metrics enhance, embellish, and drive home the compelling stories we tell about the medium.  But we need to make sure we are telling the right stories. Have we made the case for digital in as simple and compelling a way as the case is made for TV, or for magazines? I fear that we have not; that we have let the organic growth we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in this still fast-growing space blind us to the need to tell stories so simple my mom would understand them, about why advertisers simply have to be here. 

Here's the funny thing about metrics.  If you get the stories straight, the metrics will beat a path to your door.  But first let's make sure we've written the stories; then we can all live happily ever after.