Engagement is a word that is being bandied about these days with little agreement as to what it actually means.
Yesterday, CIMM (Coalition For Innovative Media Measurement) came forward with a definition of engagement in a commercial.
Here it is:
The amount of attention and involvement a viewer gives to an advertisement. The greater the attention and involvement, the more likely that viewer will retain memories and will feel more predisposed to that product that is advertised.
What I find fascinating about this definition is that according to CIMM, engagement can be measured as an amount. The amount of attention and involvement a viewer gives to an advertisement.
Which means if we are going to measure engagement in a commercial, we can start by measuring attention to a commercial.
Can we do that?
Forced attention, in the way of forced views, obviously won’t work. The attention given has to be in complete control of the viewer. Otherwise, how can you prescribe any viewer involvement to the attention given?
But when the viewer is allowed to opt-in and out of a commercial of their own volition, then yes, it appears that attention is measurable.
What CIMM's definition also seems to imply is that how long a consumer stays “engaged” is entirely dependent on the creative itself. Once a consumer opts in to watch, the media that got them there becomes irrelevant.
Engagement, in other words, is primarily the responsibility of creative, not media.
What makes this interesting is this. As we all know, what can be measured can be monetized. And since we can measure attention, it means we can monetize engagement
And since engagement is the responsibility of the creative, if an advertiser wants to hold their creative agency financially accountable for delivering engagement, they should be able to do so.
Will agencies agree to this?
Ninety-nine percent of agencies will not (at least not initially). Why? Simply because they know their work isn’t very engaging.
As for the 1% who will.
More on that next time.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Commercials and Engagement
Dave Trott, a brilliant advertising man, wrote the following.
“For me, there are two requirements for anything I read. I have to learn something. Or I have to be entertained. If I’m not getting either of these two, why would I keep reading?”
This holds true not only for reading, but also in regards to watching commercials.
Am I learning something? Or, am I being entertained?
Two simple questions that should be the starting point for any creative brief.
But it’s the last part of Dave’s quote that I find most intriguing. “If I’m not getting either of these two, why would I keep reading.” For commercials, of course, we can substitute “watching” for “reading.”
Or in other words, if I’m not getting either of those, why would I stay “engaged.”
Today, the industry talks about engagement as a media issue.
It’s not.
It’s a creative issue.
As such, we can measure “engagement.” It’s the amount of time that the viewer continues to watch the commercial.
One other thing that Dave’s logic seems to imply.
Engagement is not something that we do.
It’s something that is in complete control of the consumer.
Not unlike their money.
Ironically, the greater the amount of time a consumer spends with a brand’s advertising, the more inclined they are to spend money on that brand.
So here’s the formula.
Engagement = time.
And, as we already know, time is money.
“For me, there are two requirements for anything I read. I have to learn something. Or I have to be entertained. If I’m not getting either of these two, why would I keep reading?”
This holds true not only for reading, but also in regards to watching commercials.
Am I learning something? Or, am I being entertained?
Two simple questions that should be the starting point for any creative brief.
But it’s the last part of Dave’s quote that I find most intriguing. “If I’m not getting either of these two, why would I keep reading.” For commercials, of course, we can substitute “watching” for “reading.”
Or in other words, if I’m not getting either of those, why would I stay “engaged.”
Today, the industry talks about engagement as a media issue.
It’s not.
It’s a creative issue.
As such, we can measure “engagement.” It’s the amount of time that the viewer continues to watch the commercial.
One other thing that Dave’s logic seems to imply.
Engagement is not something that we do.
It’s something that is in complete control of the consumer.
Not unlike their money.
Ironically, the greater the amount of time a consumer spends with a brand’s advertising, the more inclined they are to spend money on that brand.
So here’s the formula.
Engagement = time.
And, as we already know, time is money.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Pre-Roll TiVo
It seems that what consumers would enjoy more than anything else right now is a pre-roll TiVo, so that they could fast-forward through pre-roll commercials online.
Pre-roll, which survey after survey has confirmed, is one of the most irritating forms of advertising known to man. Every advertiser has that data on hand. So you would think that perhaps advertisers would take that info to heart.
Instead, the forecast is that pre-roll advertising will increase by 62% this year.
In other words, advertisers have taken the most irritating form of advertising available and said let’s do more of it.
Let’s spend more money on advertising that people try their best to ignore, or disable, or fast-forward through.
That should work.
Some advertisers, knowing how irritating pre-roll advertising is, include a count-down so that the viewer will know how much longer they have to sit through the commercial before what they really want to watch starts playing.
You would think that advertisers would wise up.
But, for reasons only know to them, they don’t.
The way I see it, there are three possible reasons why this is so.
1. Lazy
2. Cheap
3. Stupid
I know, you all want option 4, don’t you?
All of the above.
Pre-roll, which survey after survey has confirmed, is one of the most irritating forms of advertising known to man. Every advertiser has that data on hand. So you would think that perhaps advertisers would take that info to heart.
Instead, the forecast is that pre-roll advertising will increase by 62% this year.
In other words, advertisers have taken the most irritating form of advertising available and said let’s do more of it.
Let’s spend more money on advertising that people try their best to ignore, or disable, or fast-forward through.
That should work.
Some advertisers, knowing how irritating pre-roll advertising is, include a count-down so that the viewer will know how much longer they have to sit through the commercial before what they really want to watch starts playing.
You would think that advertisers would wise up.
But, for reasons only know to them, they don’t.
The way I see it, there are three possible reasons why this is so.
1. Lazy
2. Cheap
3. Stupid
I know, you all want option 4, don’t you?
All of the above.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Thinking Small
BMW Mini is putting their advertising account up for review.
The reason isn’t based on the performance of the current agency—Butler Shine Stern & Partners. Nor is it based on sales. Rather, it’s being mandated by Mini’s procurement department.
In other words, they want to pay less.
Here’s how a Mini person put it.
"Mini USA has been very satisfied with BSSP's services," Tom Salkowsky, manager of Mini USA marketing, said in a statement. "They have helped support Mini's growth over the years with groundbreaking, never-been-done-before creative. We are simply adhering to BMW Group corporate purchasing procedures by going to RFP."
Butler Shine Stern & Partners will participate in the review.
They shouldn’t.
Instead, they should tell Mini goodbye.
If advertisers can mandate reviews based solely on procurement, agencies should be able to fire advertisers based solely on stupidity.
Advertisers want big thinking from their agencies.
And yet, advertisers give their agencies small thinking in return.
At least, when it comes to small thinking, BMW Mini lives up to their name.
Then again, perhaps it should be called BMW Petty.
The reason isn’t based on the performance of the current agency—Butler Shine Stern & Partners. Nor is it based on sales. Rather, it’s being mandated by Mini’s procurement department.
In other words, they want to pay less.
Here’s how a Mini person put it.
"Mini USA has been very satisfied with BSSP's services," Tom Salkowsky, manager of Mini USA marketing, said in a statement. "They have helped support Mini's growth over the years with groundbreaking, never-been-done-before creative. We are simply adhering to BMW Group corporate purchasing procedures by going to RFP."
Butler Shine Stern & Partners will participate in the review.
They shouldn’t.
Instead, they should tell Mini goodbye.
If advertisers can mandate reviews based solely on procurement, agencies should be able to fire advertisers based solely on stupidity.
Advertisers want big thinking from their agencies.
And yet, advertisers give their agencies small thinking in return.
At least, when it comes to small thinking, BMW Mini lives up to their name.
Then again, perhaps it should be called BMW Petty.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Telling versus Storytelling
The above is from something said by David Lubars, chairman and chief creative officer of Omnicom’s BBDO North America.
The actual Lubars quote is “Humans prefer storytelling to just telling.”
Is he right? Of course he is.
Think about it. Telling someone to do something, or telling them about a product, is very different than telling someone a story.
A story motivates them to lean in. To listen. To intrique.
Just telling someone something comes with no such motivation.
Storytelling used to be what separated great commercials from run-of-the-mill commercials. But as the viewing audience started to fragment, the powers that be thought shorter was better.
We only have a limited time with them, so we better say it quick, was the prevailing thought.
Delusional thinking.
As the messages got shorter, advertising became all telling and no storytelling. The result?
People lost interest even faster. Comnmercials became intrusions. Something to avoid.
That may be changing.
The recent report out of Ad Age is that the upcoming Super Bowl will be enhanced with multiple spots longer than thirty seconds.
In other words, stories.
Let’s hope so.
Because while it’s true that the audience has fragmented on the digital platform, it doesn’t mean we need to speak faster to gain their interest.
Gaining interest isn't about speed. It's about content.
In other words, storytelling versus telling.
End of story.
The actual Lubars quote is “Humans prefer storytelling to just telling.”
Is he right? Of course he is.
Think about it. Telling someone to do something, or telling them about a product, is very different than telling someone a story.
A story motivates them to lean in. To listen. To intrique.
Just telling someone something comes with no such motivation.
Storytelling used to be what separated great commercials from run-of-the-mill commercials. But as the viewing audience started to fragment, the powers that be thought shorter was better.
We only have a limited time with them, so we better say it quick, was the prevailing thought.
Delusional thinking.
As the messages got shorter, advertising became all telling and no storytelling. The result?
People lost interest even faster. Comnmercials became intrusions. Something to avoid.
That may be changing.
The recent report out of Ad Age is that the upcoming Super Bowl will be enhanced with multiple spots longer than thirty seconds.
In other words, stories.
Let’s hope so.
Because while it’s true that the audience has fragmented on the digital platform, it doesn’t mean we need to speak faster to gain their interest.
Gaining interest isn't about speed. It's about content.
In other words, storytelling versus telling.
End of story.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Cost of Failure
According to the 2010 Executive Summary of The 4A’s Television Production Cost Survey, the average cost to produce a 30-second national commercial was $324,000.
This comes out to $10,800 per second.
Let’s say the advertiser first runs this commercial on the digital platform and finds out that most viewers, on average, only watch five out of thirty seconds. This means that this advertiser is wasting $270,000.
Most advertisers would pull the spot and start making changes before spending the big bucks on television.
But a few are getting ahead of the game and realizing that instead of paying full fare up front for production, they can pay based on how long viewers are actually engaged in the commercial.
After all, the longer viewers are involved with the commercial, the greater the chances are that the commercial will motivate them to consider the product.
This new model of production compensation is called View Duration Compensation.
The theory behind it is that instead of paying for the agency’s and production company's time and effort, the advertiser pays for production based on outcome. The outcome in this case being how well the commercial holds a viewer’s attention.
We now know that attention is the most evasive thing that a brand can attempt to earn online. While in the past, the model used to be share of voice = share of mind = equal share of market, today’s fragmented digital platform makes obtaining share of voice much more difficult to do.
Which is why many are thinking that a new model of effectiveness needs to be considered. Somethng along the lines of share of time = share of mind = share of market.
Fortunately, we can now measure share of time. The old saying is that what can be measured can be monetized.
View Duration Compensation allows advertisers to monetize the share of time that their agencies and production companies create for them.
Of course, advertisers can continue to waste $10,800 per second.
But now that they don't have to, why?
This comes out to $10,800 per second.
Let’s say the advertiser first runs this commercial on the digital platform and finds out that most viewers, on average, only watch five out of thirty seconds. This means that this advertiser is wasting $270,000.
Most advertisers would pull the spot and start making changes before spending the big bucks on television.
But a few are getting ahead of the game and realizing that instead of paying full fare up front for production, they can pay based on how long viewers are actually engaged in the commercial.
After all, the longer viewers are involved with the commercial, the greater the chances are that the commercial will motivate them to consider the product.
This new model of production compensation is called View Duration Compensation.
The theory behind it is that instead of paying for the agency’s and production company's time and effort, the advertiser pays for production based on outcome. The outcome in this case being how well the commercial holds a viewer’s attention.
We now know that attention is the most evasive thing that a brand can attempt to earn online. While in the past, the model used to be share of voice = share of mind = equal share of market, today’s fragmented digital platform makes obtaining share of voice much more difficult to do.
Which is why many are thinking that a new model of effectiveness needs to be considered. Somethng along the lines of share of time = share of mind = share of market.
Fortunately, we can now measure share of time. The old saying is that what can be measured can be monetized.
View Duration Compensation allows advertisers to monetize the share of time that their agencies and production companies create for them.
Of course, advertisers can continue to waste $10,800 per second.
But now that they don't have to, why?
Friday, January 06, 2012
Likes Versus Engagement
By now, we all know that the number of “likes” that a brand gets is virtually irrelevant.
Unfortunately, the way the industry currently defines “engagement” makes that term virtually irrelevant as well.
“Liking” a brand takes milliseconds with very little thought involved. Engagement is something that is created over time. And, time can be measured on the digital platform.
The problem with “engagement” is that the industry still considers it to be a term that somehow defines media effectiveness. I think that engagement, the length of time that someone interacts with a brand, is a measure of creative effectiveness.
Media gets the horse to water, so to speak. Creative makes the horse drink. How long the horse drinks is dependent on two things. How thirsty the horse is. And how good the water tastes.
It has nothing to do with the getting the horse to the water.
Maybe this year – and we can always be optimistic at the start of a year – the industry will come to some agreement that while reach is the responsibility of media, building a relationship – measured as time spent - is the responsibility of creative.
Engagement is a measurement of time spent with the brand. The more time spent, the stronger the relationship. Otherwise, why would someone spend their valuable time with the brand?
The onus of creating this time spent resides in the hands of the agencies to create the kind of stuff that people actually want to spend time with.
Media gets them there. Creative keeps them engaged.
Or, not.
Unfortunately, the way the industry currently defines “engagement” makes that term virtually irrelevant as well.
“Liking” a brand takes milliseconds with very little thought involved. Engagement is something that is created over time. And, time can be measured on the digital platform.
The problem with “engagement” is that the industry still considers it to be a term that somehow defines media effectiveness. I think that engagement, the length of time that someone interacts with a brand, is a measure of creative effectiveness.
Media gets the horse to water, so to speak. Creative makes the horse drink. How long the horse drinks is dependent on two things. How thirsty the horse is. And how good the water tastes.
It has nothing to do with the getting the horse to the water.
Maybe this year – and we can always be optimistic at the start of a year – the industry will come to some agreement that while reach is the responsibility of media, building a relationship – measured as time spent - is the responsibility of creative.
Engagement is a measurement of time spent with the brand. The more time spent, the stronger the relationship. Otherwise, why would someone spend their valuable time with the brand?
The onus of creating this time spent resides in the hands of the agencies to create the kind of stuff that people actually want to spend time with.
Media gets them there. Creative keeps them engaged.
Or, not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
