People-based media measurement still has a long way to go for marketers.
Nearly 70% of marketing and advertising professionals say they have not yet implemented people-based measurement, according to a study by Acxiom's LiveRamp business, a company that helps marketers use their offline customer customer data for online advertising.
The research also found that 94% of marketing executives say a lack of people-based measurement makes it more difficult to create a complete view of cross-media exposure.
Nearly half of the respondents say they worry about not having the ability to link disparate data sets together, with 48% concerned about not having identity-resolution technology and 42% concerned about not having access to enough offline sales data.
The study, conducted by Wakefield Research, surveyed 500 U.S. marketing and advertising executives for “people-based” measurement, defined as the use of anonymized consumer identity data.
In the next three years, LiveRamp says 56% of respondents plan to increase their in-house analytics capabilities, with 52% planning to invest more in marketing analytics technology.
In addition, the company says 75% of respondents say it will help them improve targeting and/or real-time campaign optimization, while 72% say that it will help them optimize customer and prospect insights and improve product strategy, and/or improve the consumer experience.
Wayne, I am interested as to what was meant by 'people-based measurement'.
In all my time of audience measurement they are people-based - either first-hand or second-hand. For example TV is based on PeopleMeters (the clue is in the word 'people'). That is, the set is metered to establish the content and the people use the PeopleMeter to indicate their viewing. With radio diaries, people complete them. People buy cinema tickets and that generates admission data. People indicate the newspapers and magazines they read in readership surveys which can be coupled with sales and circulation data. The internet has moved away from cookies and now (well at least in Australia) our metrics are based on people.
Having said that - yes I agree there is still a long way to go.
Cross-media measurement is a very tricky issue as the existing media currencies are not harmonised. I say this from the perspective of things like ... what constitutes a viewer, listener, reader etc. But also simpler things like geography - TV coverage areas will differ from radio coverage areas which will differ from newspaper distribution areas which will differ from Bureau of Statistics areas ... and GPS data is a moveable feast which too often credits the same person into different areas during the say as they move around and end up overstating audience.
Then there is the issue of how you report. For example, do you report 'time spent using' metrics as a population average or am active user average (the answer is - report both side by side).
The thing is, ALL these data are reported as peopl-based cohorts, and correctly so.
But there is a nagging concern that maybe the marketers mean the phrase 'people-based' to be 'individually identified people-based' metrics.
Can you please advise further Wayne.