TV's New ROI For Marketers: Thor

TV advertisers would love to get guarantees for their TV buys, based on actual stuff they sell. Is this realistic in the near term? Probably not. 

But long-term, industry experts say this can be a critical step in helping TV marketers secure a better return-on-media investment.

All this would come at a price. In offering such high-level ROIs, marketers would need to fork over higher premiums for buying commercial TV time.

Even then, some TV sellers would have a slew of complications to consider.

If TV networks moved away from their system of guaranteeing how many people watch TV shows, via Nielsen measurement on its currently C3/C7 metric, it could create a hornet’s nest of different ROI standards for each industry or marketer. It would also impact media-buying specifics, the time of year a media buy is made, and whether it’s a scatter or upfront deal.

Reports suggest TV networks want a new alternative, pushed by a third-party ad-tech company. The effort is called “Thor” -- based on consumer behavior around purchases.



There are few specifics here. Does this mean targeting TV viewers “prompted” by TV commercials who engage on a marketer’s online platforms? Or those who actually buy products and services?

TV ad executives already have a keen awareness of business dynamics of their major ad industry categories -- automotive, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, telecommunications, movie marketers and financial.

Now, they would have to specifically guarantee consumer purchase gains as it pertains to just TV commercials they run. Would TV sellers have to identify this TV exposure, discounting other media that marketers have bought, such as digital, print, outdoor or radio?

Even then, what about other parts of the TV ecosystem that ran the same commercials causing consumers to buy -- broadcast networks, cable networks, syndication, local TV stations and local cable?

One of the most important and famous gods in Norse mythology may have the answer.

5 comments about "TV's New ROI For Marketers: Thor".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics, October 16, 2017 at 9:24 a.m.

    Fine for digital, Wayne, but how does this apply to "linear TV" buys which are where national TV ad dollars garner most of their reach and audience "impressions"?

  2. dorothy higgins from Mediabrands WW, October 16, 2017 at 2:11 p.m.

    Oh good grief.  We can’t even figure out who is really watching when and where. 

  3. John Grono from GAP Research, October 16, 2017 at 4:25 p.m.

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.   Where to start?

    First, TV networks should be focussing on providing quality entertainment, news, current affairs, sport coverage etc.   And you know what ... counting eyeballs is a good start.   if 'renting' those eyeballs by buying an ad results in brand sales for a marketer well then jolly good.   But how does the network factor in the quality of the ad message - something completely out of their control.   Does the same ad-break offer different guarantees for different brands and creative?

    But sales outcomes should never be the primary focus of any media company.   That is not to say that ROI for advertising is not important - of course it is.

    It is a vanity in the extreme that a single medium or a single media owner may think that ads inserted into their content is the reason for brand sales uplifts.   They may be a factor - but never the reason.   That also applies even if they were the only medium used in an ad campaign.

    Take the following example.   An ice cream manufacturer goes 'all in' and puts all their adspend into, say, skywriting.   They eagerly await the results.   Woo hoo - +25% sales.

    Buoyed by the results they do the exactly the same thing six months later and the campaign tanks and sales were down -50%.

    Why?   Because the first campaign was in summer and the second campaign was in winter.

    The marketer confused correlation with causation.   This is a mistake made by way too many marketers.   In the headlong race to solving everything with data, the algorithm is overtaking common sense (which is becoming increasingly uncommon.

    Machines and algorithms can only assist and never replace real marketing smarts.

  4. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, October 16, 2017 at 5:10 p.m.

    Here's where I start:  

     is a 2011 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Paramount Pictures. ( Wikipedia )

    So, what's new about new-age media measurement that seems as if it can only aspire to be fictional and funny as a global answer to the question of how advertising works?  
    Where is the proof of concept?  Where are the validity tests?  

    Super!  Heroic!  
    Now, I get it.  
    Not really.

    Well-expressed, Ed, Dorothy & John.

  5. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, October 16, 2017 at 7:55 p.m.

    What is the goal of the advertisers is to tell you what you need and want and have you buy it. It is not about what the consumer wants. They are there to mold, shape, influence, shame, conjole you to be loyal to them. BUY BUY BUY with the subtlety of virus. On the other hand, so they pay attention to where the results come from or from where the marketers are getting paid to reveal ? It's complicated and meant to be so.

Next story loading loading..