TV Attribution Providers' Data 'Highly Inconsistent': CIMM, 4As Study
- by Wayne Friedman , September 23, 2020
TV attribution results can be all over the place due to inconsistent data inputs, says a study issued by the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement with the 4A’s Media Measurement Task Force.
“Methodology, rather than technology, is [the] root cause of TV attribution outcome differences,” according to the study, …
7 comments about "TV Attribution Providers' Data 'Highly Inconsistent': CIMM, 4As Study".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Very interesting. Another issue---and a very big one---is the fact that the attribution models are attempting to trace the effects of ad "exposures" using device usage---not viewing---as their primary audience base. This creates a huge and variable error margin---depending on what demos and other definitions of consumer targets are being used---that is almost certain to muddle up efforts to interpret results in a consistent manner. You are not going to be able to correlate sales with ad "exposure" patterns or reach and frequency configurations to say nothing of cross platform evaluations when you are 40-60% off whenever you assume that a particular consumer "saw" your message. Same goes for frequency. Your device usage data may tell you that a home "saw" your message six times but, in reality the consumer watched it only twice. Consumers buy products ---not devices.
Thank you Wayne for the article - very illuminating.
I find that the approach to measuring Advertising Effectiveness is very silo-based. Marketing (when done properly) is a very broad discipline involving all sorts of media (and non-media channels), business strategies, creativity, competitor awareness, consumer insights in tandem with marketing intuition ... and a plethora of other factors.
Each and every marketing issue or opportunity has it's own unique solution. Trying to find it in attribution modelling is risky and expensive. There are no short cuts. It's hard yakka which is incongruous with quick fixes.
Recently wrote a study about the importance of TV attribution, especially during a major marketplace distribution such as Covid-19. Specific to linear cable TV attribution, companies that have it figured out were at a significant advantage. Many using faulty TV attribution methodologies were forced to cut back on TV spend in 2020 as they could not determine the effectiveness of their advertising. That said, other advertisers, with better TV attribution methodology, were up hundreds of times over their 2019 spends. If you'd like to learn more, here's a link to the study.
https://www.drmetrix.com/public/Covid-19%20impacts%20on%20DTC%20Television%20Advertising.pdf
Joseph, what do yoe mean by 'hundreds of times'. Please elucidate.
John, here's a link to the study. I checked it out on their website. It's about DTC advertisers and is focused mainly on spending:
https://www.drmetrix.com/public/Covid-19%20impacts%20on%20DTC%20Television%20Advertising.pdf
I see that the link doesn't work but the article in featured along with two others on their home page---you can't miss it.
Thanks Ed.
Joseph, I still can't find the data to support "other advertisers, with better TV attribution methodology, were up hundreds of times over their 2019 spends."
The biggest ad-spend increase I could see was Mirror in Weeks 1-10 at 1267.2% - meaning it was up 12.672x. In fact only one other advertiser was up by more than 10x - Idealvillage Products in Weeks 11-19 at 1116.2% which was up 11.162x