More than 70% of media buyers in the U.S. and three other key markets agree that all forms of TV should be sold on impressions, according to the latest converged TV report from TVSquared.
The research included a survey of 300 U.S. client and agency buyers by Advertising Perceptions and …
Based on the replies as cited in this article, I assume that the sample did not include a fair proportion of major national TV time buyers who account for 90%+ of the national TV ad dollars actually spent. What's needed to evaluate such study findings are breakouts of the answers by spending levels in the various media. For example if 20% of the respondents claimed to handle brands spending $10 million or more in national TV yearly how do their replies compare with those whose clients spend much less or nothig at all?
Without the definition of "Impressions" this piece is puzzling. If the "impressions" referenced are defined as 'content rendered counts' aka MRC's so called, "Viewable impressions", then surely we have the blind leading the blind at least based on the proponents of attention metrics (which are based on the target group and the context). Their position is that without attention (persons based versus device based) there can be no outcomes. In addition they have found that ratio of attention to these nebulous impressions varies wildly by media platform, content, duration, screen size, etc., etc. etc. Conseqeuntly, 'impressions' are a very poor surrogate for delivering campaign effectiveness.
As Ed will no doubt confirm, weekly reach of the brand's target grouip based on Eyes-On or attention is still an optimal media planning/buying approach.
Tony, I will confirm that reach is rated far higher than frequency by most branding advertisers---though the time frame varies and is usually about a month for such evaluations. As I commented in my first post, I doubt that the sample is representative of your typical national TV advertiser as they are not as confused-----or muddled in their thinking---as the respondents to this study appear to be---judging by some of the reported findings. As for buying by "impressions" not GRPs, that's just a great leap sideways as branding advertisers will continue to want to attain certain reach and frequency levels---at specified GRP levels ----and such goals are always going to be expressed in percentages. Worse, it is far from established that a "page view" of 2+ seconds for a digital video commercial is equal to a complete playout of a "linear TV" commercial from start to finish---with no other content on the screen in terms of ad exposure or impact. So what good are comparisons of "impressions" across platforms when their value may vary in ways we have yet to determine?
This whole TV should be bought on impressions narrative is mind boggling to say the least. I've been reading numerous comments on this topic that say TV buying should be audience based. OMG!
It's staggering that so many who see themselves as pundits do not understand the very basics of an $80 Billion industry that has been doing business the same way for 60 years. Rating points , GRPs.. are simply audience impressions expressed as a percentage of the population. We have been buying Television based on audience impressions for 60 years. Duh!!
Media buyers have been reporting ratings and audience impressions complete with CPMs to their clients since the sixties.
The lack of basic understanding around how linear TV has been traded for decades is tragic. Thank you Ed for being there day in day, out to set the youngins straight.
If one surveys a group about something they should have knowledge of, but are actually ignorant about....dangerous misleading results and headlines like this are perpetuated.
All quite tragic IMHO.