• by Marc Goldberg , Op-Ed Contributor, May 6, 2016

We used to joke about how much of our media spend was wasted. Now the pendulum has swung in the other direction. In the era of digital targeting, we complain about how each campaign requirement prevents scale.

Instead of working to structure a campaign around long-term quality requirements and then carefully testing new ones to see how they fit in, many brands and media buyers pick a target or requirement du jour and throw the rest by the wayside.

The list includes audience targets, location targets, white/black lists, and frequency caps. Viewability is now at the top. It is so hot that George Ivie, CEO and executive director of the MRC, was recently quoted as saying that the organization felt a sense of urgency to put out mobile viewability standards as many people in the digital ad ecosystem are clamoring for them.

My thoughts? We are rushing onto the viewability bandwagon instead of working to fully understand the underlying quality “problem” that viewability “solves.”

I love we are thinking about mobile.

I love that buyers are asking for more accountability.

I love the idea of requiring every ad that’s shown to be viewable.

But let's stop to think for a second...

Having your ad seen seems like a simple enough concept on paper. But the definition of “viewable” does not always equal a quality ad placement. In a rush to ensure that they are keeping up with the times, many advertisers have chosen to emphasize the viewability metric above other tactics that are actually more impactful.

Buyers beware: It’s better to use viewability as a campaign measurement rather than a target. What do I mean by that? “Males over 35” is a target audience. “Fitness content” is a target content category. Viewability “targets” such as “sites with 100% viewability” aren’t going to live up to standards that move the needle on branding or sales.

Case in point: A recent study by Integral Ad Science shows that a lift in brand metrics is significant at levels much higher than current MRC viewability standards, which means that advertisers who focus too strongly on viewability are inviting inventory into their plan that barely meets MRC standards and will perform no better than non-viewable ads.

If advertisers “target” viewability then they expose themselves to inventory that falls far short of campaign quality levels that advertisers would otherwise require.

Publishers have found easy ways around viewability standards. Bad guys can game the viewability metric in other ways that not only hurt the advertiser, but also negatively impact a user's experience:

- Refreshing ads frequently to artificially increase impressions.

- Stacking ads above the fold, limiting an advertiser’s share of voice.

- Using auto-play videos that anger people who don’t want them on.

As an advertiser, you are not the policeman. This is not your problem to fix. You are the shopper. As the shopper you can put things into your cart to buy. If a Web site or app would have been considered bad quality before viewability standards arose, it’s a shame to include them on the plan just because they’ve successfully gamed the system and have decent viewability numbers.

If their content is poor and their audience is wrong, they shouldn’t be on the plan. For the top quality publishers, media buyers should be comfortable under the 70% viewability recommended standard.

Better to share your budget with the type of publishers and app developers that focus on high quality content and that have the audience that matters to your brand. Then you can work together to improve viewability over time. This way, you know you’re spending your budget with the type of partners who will be there for the long haul.

While the hot button issue might be viewability today, and mobile viewability in particular, it could very well be something else tomorrow. Let’s not rush to prioritize viewability in mobile and suffer the same quality issues we’ve found in display.

And whatever the next hot campaign requirement is, advertisers need to stop and think about how the measurement impacts their brand over the long term before jumping on the bandwagon.