Challenges in the measurement of viewability continue to be ironed out. The MRC is well underway with the analysis of campaign-level data for billions of impressions in the current round of
reconciliation work. The IAB and its members are working together to develop educational tools and harness the accumulated knowledge from the publisher community about viewability
implementation. And, to try to ensure that the meaning and value of viewability are clearly understood by both buy and sell-side stakeholders, the 3MS team is developing more ecosystem-wide
educational programs.
Nearly every day, the same questions arise about why viewability matters -- and even what it is. Despite the manifold efforts to explain, and the unmeasured
though undoubtedly high reach and frequency of trade press articles, blog posts, social media posts, real-world conversations, panels, and outright disputes, there is a reservoir of misunderstanding
and misinformation. Among my favorites are:
1. The industry standard is not enough.
Fact #1: The standard is sufficient for what it is
intended to measure. That is the “opportunity to see.” It is backed by empirical science. The MRC has presented and written about the underlying work that found that in
80% of cases when an impression meets the requirements for viewability, the ad fully renders.
Fact #2: If your creative is unappealing and/or not effective, no amount of being
viewable will help the brand.
2. Viewability is about being viewed.
Fact #1: Viewability is about a digital video or display ad rendering on
the screen, and providing an “opportunity to see.”
Fact#2: This is a more precise level of accountability for the measurement and payment of an
individual ad than in other media. Even TV, which has not had a problem providing an “opportunity to see,” has commercial pod or average commercial minute ratings as currency, not
individual commercial ratings.
3. GRPs measure quality.
Fact #1: GRPs have nothing to do with quality. GRPs are solely a way of counting
exposures.
Fact #2: There are many -- perhaps too many -- metrics that are being used to measure engagement.
Fact #3: Engagement may not be the
only or even the best construct for a set of variables and metrics that define advertising impact.
4. Viewability in and of itself is the end game.
Fact #1: Under the auspices of 3MS, a new definition of engagement was published by a task force of publishers and agencies in a paper entitled “The Advertising Engagement Spectrum: Defining and Measuring Digital Ad Engagement in a Cross-Platform
World.”
Fact #2: Without a comparable core currency unit for exposure measurement, R+F/GRPs and effectiveness metrics cannot be standardized.
5.
MRC accreditation for viewability vendors holds for mobile.
Fact #1: As yet, there is neither a standard for mobility viewability measurement, nor is there even
one single accredited vendor.
Fact #2: The MRC issued Mobile Viewability
Measurement Interim Guidance on May 4, 2015.
Yes, we have issued, stated, written about these items before. That’s the point -- in order to break through the
clutter on everyone’s computer and calendar and solidify what is known, we recognize that we must reiterate the facts on a regular basis until they become rote.
It is worth noting
that the progress that is occurring is palpable. Across the ecosystem there is consensus that for brand advertising, viewability is table stakes, and that we must -- and will -- continue to move
forward.