Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Should Advertisers Continue To Be Forced To Pay Full Fare For An Impression That Doesn't Make One?

Let's face it. Nielsen gives advertisers information from which they can plan. TiVo gives advertisers information from which they can pay.

Nielsen delivers demographics - projecting who will watch what. TiVo delivers "durationgraphics" - showing exactly how long somebody watched something.

In other words, TiVo does what Nielsen does, only better, in regards to an impression's impact.

Matt Freeman had a great quote the other day. "An impression shouldn't be called an impression if it doesn't make one." Amen, Matt.

Nielsen sells impressions. TiVo further defines those impressions through time spent with the message, basically calling BS on those impressions that don't make one.

Hence the question: Should advertisers continue to be forced to pay full fare for an impression that doesn't make one?

Advertisers have always known that all impressions weren't created equal. But they never had enough information to pay less for those impressions which were, well, less then impressive.

Now they do. Which is why most media agenices don't want to share time-spent info with their clients. Where's the upside for the media agency?

Little do they know that their fear is misguided. After all, once a viewer decides to opt-in to a commercial of interest, the media agency's job is done. Length of view is not the media agency's responsibility.

It's the creative agencys.

For more on this, check out yesterday's post. Only by delineating responsibilty and accountability will we be able to accept something other than the inadequate information that is provided by Nielsen.

Sure, it has its place.

But that place is no longer at the head of the table.

Just something to think about as we head into the upfronts.

No comments:

Post a Comment