January 25, 2023
What's The Value Of An Engaged Consumer Minute? Turns Out It's $1.81
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, July 30, 2018
At a time when so-called “rewarded, opt-in” advertising models are gaining steam on Madison Avenue, MediaPost asked Advertiser Perceptions to poll a representative sample of advertisers and agency executives on what they consider the per-minute value of engaged consumer attention is worth.
Turns out, it’s a median of $1.81, but marketers averaged about 10% more -- or a median of 17 cents more per engaged minute -- than agency executives.
Many of the “rewarded,” “opt-in” or other incentivized models being explored don’t necessarily offer consumers cash for completing an engagement with a brand’s advertising. The dollar valuations serve as a baseline for understanding the economics of what could be a new model for value exchange in the advertising world.
advertisement
advertisement
Among respondents citing “other,” the verbatim responses ranged from “5 cents” to “80 cents” to statements such as “depends on product or demo” and “This is really very hard to answer. since there many factors that play into determining a worth.”
7 comments about "What's The Value Of An Engaged Consumer Minute? Turns Out It's $1.81".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
For a moment I took this half seriously. With a sample of 300 people AND no hard guidelines as to how anyone in the survey determined "value" other than for a very narrowly-defined universe, this is just cocktail party fodder.
Joe, it's interesting to compare these findings---or estimates----with the typical experience of a TV advertisers who pays about 3 cents per "viewer" per minute. Of course about half the time the "viewer" is not even in the room or is not paying attention---so make that 6 cents. And, to be fair, even when "watching" a 60-second commercial, attentiveness wavers from second to second---so make that 9 cents per viewer. Ah---then there's the question of whether the viewer is even interested. Let' s say that only 20% of them are---for a typical advertiser. That raises the cost of a typical, broad based TV buy--- including lots of people who aren't really interested---to about 45 cents, per viewer---or a lot less than the projected $1.81 for "Reward Opt-In" viewers. Finally, there is the question of reach. With a poorly targeted mass audience buy on TV you eventually---like in a month---reach about 65-70% of your total target group and still more over a longer interval. How does that compare with "Reward Opt-In"?
@ Marcelo Salup: You are welcome to take it anyway you want -- seriously, half-seriously, or flippantly. The research and the findings are what they are. The sample is not a general market, consumer survey, but is part of an ongoing panel of high-level industry executives managed by Advertiser Perceptions. We have been working with them and reporting on various findings of research conducted by them for about a decade. Some of our readers have taken them seriously.
@ Ed: Mass market reach is not the only criteria marketers utilize when engaging consumers. I don't believe the rewarded opt-in model has been utilized on mass market TV, though forms of it have been tried for years in various interactive test-beds, addressable TV, etc.
The Mobile Marketing Association, OpenX and MediaMath recently conducted surveys of both consumers and ad execs on the model for mobile video advertising. You can see their results here:
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/322780/industry-group-finds-consumers-love-rewarded-ads.html
Joe my point is that even if you are targeting an ultra small and selective target group---like left -handed people aged 18-22.5 who like spicey katsup as part of their tuna salad----you still need mass reach of that particular group or you may be whistling "Dixie" with over reliance on any form of "Opt-In" program. The Opt-in" idea is fine but only if you get a significant number of targeted people to do so and the cost is reasonable.
Ed: Almost all forms of advertising, marketing and media communications require an opt-in at some point. Take TV, for example: consumers always have the option of leaving the room, turning the channel, turning their head of simply ignoring it. Rewarded, opt-in models require the consumer to complete an ad engagement explicitly. Usually, they are done in digital media environments where that can be controlled. I don't think that's something that can be done on conventional linear TV, so it's impossible to compare that form of rewarded, opt-in engagement model. It requires that the consumer do something first -- complete an ad or some other brand engagement -- in order to receive the reward.
Joe, I agree that one way or another people "opt-in" to ads or they don't. All I'm saying is that any advertiser with a specific target audience---no matter how defined---should be concerned with how many of those targeted people "opt-in". In a "rewards" program, this process is stimulted by the reward so, naturally, an unknown number of people will "opt-in" and, presumably will be more engaged by the ad pitch. But how many?----- is my point. With TV and other traditional media, you are resonably assured of reaching most of any group you define at a certain fairly low cost. What percentage of the average "Opt-In Rewards" target group actually opts-in? Is it 2%, or 5% or 25%? The answer would weigh heavily in my decision whether to go this route. I'm not opposed, but am simply posing a question, relative to costs---that most advertiser CMOs should be asking.