That said, the publishers should only be accountable for exposure, not engagement.
So, how do they get paid for engagement?
By not claiming to create it.
My belief is that engagement, or what happens inside the video, is the responsibility of the creative, not the media.
Once a viewer clicks play, media is off the hook.
But what's happening is that media is being sold based on impressions, or cost per click, or time of engagement. Some even charge on a complete view basis. It's an either/or deal?
Why? Where's the money in that?
Why doesn't media admit that the best that they can do is drive the horse to water? Media isn’t responsible for the horse drinking that water. And, media’s certainly not responsible for how much the horse drinks.
Why isn’t media proclaiming this to the heavens?
Why isn’t media saying, “Hey, pay us for what we do well, building an audience for the advertiser. Hold us accountable for how well we do that, in fact, we’ll give you the exposure data that will allow you to hold us accountable for what happens "outside of the video."
If media companies did that, then engagement data would no longer be part of the package that the advertiser now gets at no cost when they make a media buy.
This doesn't mean that engagement data isn't important to the advertiser. After all, engagement data is something that advertisers will still want so that they can hold their creative agencies accountable for creating engagement.
All it means is that media companies could position engagement data as an additional cost to advertisers. Which means it becomes an additional revenue stream for media companies.
Instead, media companies want to own “engagement.”
If I were a media company, I think I'd rather own an additional revenue stream.