As CTV advertising spend continues to increase and more people are watching video across different devices, will click-through rate (CTR) finally go the way of the dodo?
Ask any agency vet what they think is the most useless digital advertising metric and you will universally hear CTR. Most veteran marketers will say the same thing when asked, but the metric keeps perpetuating. Why do so many marketers still use CTR as a measure of their performance?
The simple answer is, it’s easy. The more complicated answer is that CTR can be gamed. The true answer is that non-marketers understand it far easier than they understand all the other metrics we use to measure performance up and down the customer journey and the performance funnel.
CTR is an easy metric to explain: The audience saw an ad and they clicked on it. It is also an easy way to explain view-through: They saw an ad, they didn’t click on it, but they still went to the site later.
advertisement
advertisement
CTR and VTR are basic metrics that anyone can explain. They are not truly indicative of digital ad performance anymore because of two reasons. First off, the numbers for both are very poor. Secondly, the nature of the web has changed dramatically, and click-through and view-through are simply fossilized in time.
As I noted at the beginning, more dollars are being spent on CTV these days, but CTV is not very clickable. There are some platforms that allow you to click, but most don’t, and even more of the audience doesn’t know they can click when the opportunity is there. Then you add social media into the mix and while much of that is clickable, most of the audience is too intent on scrolling, so they neglect to click at all.
One of the most interesting advancements in social is the “save for later” action. It’s better than a click, and probably more indicative of a delayed desire to purchase.
The fact is, CTR persists because digital advertising is fragmented in so many ways -- in terms of channels, metrics, activation models and journeys. There are many ways to reach the desired destination of a purchase or customer acquisition, and a good marketer has to account for them all.
CTR is unfortunately as close to a common denominator as the industry has provided, but maybe it’s time for that to change. It is a short-term leading indicator for performance and you have access to it right away -- no waiting for a third party presentation or some other delayed form of feedback. It doesn’t require a complicated study, like brand lift or favorability.
That being said, what other metrics satisfy these needs and can be more easily understood by non-marketers, enabling marketers to both measure their performance as well as convey that performance to the rest of their organization?
Attention does feel like it could become that metric. If you fail to capture their attention, none of the rest of the journey really matters. Attention is captured across formats and channels, and it does feel like the lowest common denominator at the beginning of the journey. Maybe attention can be the primary metric, finally replacing CTR completely?
Cory, if you are a search advertiser who pays only if there is a clickthrough, why would you care about attentiveness. The various sellers mere chunk out tons of "impressions" but you only pay by the CTR so what's ,the problem?
To answer my own question, the problem is that there is another kind of CTV adveretiser--and a big one. It's the traditional TV adevertiser--a branding advertiser, who pays every time the ad message is on-screen---no matter whether anyone is there, let alone paying attention to the commercial. That's were attentiveness really matters---and it's coming--slowly but surely. My company will be offering a very interesting report on TV attentiveness shortly which traces the evolution of attentiveness measures and explores their future---ending with an idea that might really move things forward. Stay tuned.
For those wondering, I meant "merely" not "mere" in the second sentence of my reply.