Josh Chasin, the Chief Research Officer of Comscore since 2007, has joined VideoAmp as Chief Measurability Officer, a title and a role that he says reflects the future of the media marketplace.
Chasin, who is the second top Comscore executive to jump to VideoAmp, follows Anthony Psacharopoulos -- who recently joined as senior vice president-vertical sales after 18 years at Comscore, most recently as executive vice president.
The move follows the restructuring of Comscore’s senior management team late last year, following a period of leadership and investor uncertainty that resulted in former Rentrak CEO Bill Livek being named CEO and executive chairman of Comscore. Comscore merged with Rentrak in 2016.
Chasin, meanwhile, says he was attracted to VideoAmp because, in some ways, it’s similar in its growth stage to the version of Comscore’s organization that he joined in 2007: a fast-growing, entrepreneurial organization surrounded with young people and big ideas for the future. He also says he feels like it is an under-leveraged service that he can help break through to the next level based on his experience and expertise.
Before joining Comscore, Chasin held senior research roles in some of America’s greatest traditional media researchers, including Simmons, Arbitron and Nielsen, and is highly regarded in the media research community.
“When I joined Comscore, it was a time when it was transitioning from a startup to a bigger company in its evolution and that was really fun and exciting,” he explains, adding: “I came in and brought the traditional audience measurement expertise and overlaying that component to Comscore, but not messing with what made the great: the tech-savvy that was in their DNA. I wast to do the same thing at VideoAmp.”
A big part of that redirection, he says, will be the way the advertising and media industry are shifting from the concepts of “media research” and/or “audience measurement” to “measurability,” which is what his new title and role reflects.
Chasin, who was privy to top advertising and marketing executives as part of a World Federation of Advertisers initiative recently, says, “What I heard from brands most is the evolution from measurement to measurability.
“Measurement is things like ratings. What we used to have, but what advertisers want to know is how to track their campaigns impression-by-impression to know what device they got sent to, what households were associated with those devices, and what people were behind the screen of those devices, as well as what targeting attributes are associated with them. It’s no longer about what impressions they’ve gotten, but what was the impact of those impressions.”
Josh is a quality research executive. A great get.
Echo that Jack. Josh is also a deep thinker and a great communicator. Wherever he goes, clarity follows. This is a great step for a great man, and an even greater step for the industry.
Plus 1 to Jack's comment.
Josh, congratulations and keep in touch.
Agree wholeheartedly but have never seen Josh look so serious! Josh is one of the few in the advertising and media research industry that:
The Ad Effects or "measurablility" embrace all the dimensions of the marketing campaign, most importantly the creative, including the brand's in-going equity position. As such these metrics are well beyond the media effects or should we say, beyond media's "responsibility" per the hierarchy of effects in the ARF's "Making Better Media Decsions". To have Josh on the the forefront of this measurement versus measurablilty evolution and ensuring that they are both valid is terrific.
In my opinion, this is unquestionably a serious loss for comScore and a coup for VideoAmp. Hearty congrats to one of our stars!
Tony youi make very valid points. Yes, attention and effectiveness is the Holy Grail.
But I have reservations. While marketers bray that they need such measurement, I don't see many stepping up to the plate to (i) work on definitions, design and trial of such systems (ii) commit to funding such systems on an ongoing basis (iii) accept that it is not a media company's responsibility to provide such data and analysis given that so many external factors and parameters are oustide of every media company's control.
This holy grail is further muddied by the fact that not all media are measured on the same basis. The only common metric is time (but not always reported). But there are two dimensions to measuring time. For a TV programme average minute audience is the gold standard - because it is live.
But consider (say) a lifestyle magazine insert in a weekend newspaper. It may accumulate (say) 45 minutes reading over the week. That could have a value to a lifestyle brand far exceeding 45 minutes viewing of a 2-hour movie.
Are the media companies in the best position to provide the data and judge effectiveness? Clearly not!
Media agencies are the closest third-party with access to the data, in-depth media knowledge of the intricacies of each medium and each property within that medium, as well as the analysts to run econometric models to provide effectiveness results.
But in my experience, advertisers are very loathe to (i) pay the media agency to perform what is basically a marketer's responsibility, or (ii) take the issue in-house and do the hard work internally.
Despite all that I always have hope that with incremental improvements across the board , every year our understanding improves.
P.S. Qantas has grounded all international flights ... so no catch-up in NY in late April with the cognoscenti.
John and Tony, you are both right. The problem---almost never articulated---is that most CMOs---the real agency clients----believe that coming up with the best product positionning story and creating the most effective ad messages---mainly TV commercials---- is virtually the whole ball game in terms of agency performance for each brand. This is why advertisers---branding advertisers---do not invest their ad dollars in media audience, attentiveness or effectiveness research and why so many go along with "corporate" upfront TV time buying--- trying to get the "best deal" -aka the lowest CPMs----for all of their brands combined. Once the resulting---and highly inflated--- commercial minute viewer GRPs are dolled out to the brands it's assumed that the commercials will select interested consumers from the assumed masses of eyeballs. Everybody understands that many viewers---but not all, Douglas---- zap or avoid commercials. But so long as results are evident in the brands' ad awareness studies and the sales charts indicate some degree of responsiveness---which they usually do---why get involved in all of those boring media numbers?
Frankly, I don't see this unfortnate situation changing---despite all of the blather about revolutionizing TV time buying. As for other media, let's face it, except for digital video and OTT/AVOD---all simply alternate forms of "TV" where consumer communications are concerned----you hear nothing at all. That, too, is bad---in my opinion, but that, sadly, is the reality in far too many cases.