Thursday, April 21, 2011

If USA Today Can Pay Writers Based On Views, Why Can’t Advertisers Pay For Creative Based On View Duration?

According to the rumors, USA Today is thinking about paying bonuses to writers based on page views. The more people that click-in to read an article, the more the writer makes. After all, the more people that click-in, the better it is for USA Today.

It’s a pay for performance model that digital data now allows to be implemented.

If writers for USA Today can be paid on such a basis, why don’t advertisers pay their agencies on something similar for their creative output?

What first needs to be determined is what is of value to the advertiser.

Clicking in to watch a commercial is certainly of some value. But that’s only where the value starts. The true value to the advertiser lies in how much of the commercial is actually viewed.

Watching all 60 seconds of a 60-second spot is more valuable to the advertiser than if only 10 seconds out of 60 seconds are watched.

This viewer time spent is now measurable as view duration.

If it’s of more value to the advertiser, then should it not also be of more value to the agency that created it?

In other words, shouldn’t agencies be paid more for doing better and less for doing worse?

Chances are, the rumors will come true and writers for USA Today will soon be paid based on the number of viewers that click-in.

I think the same can be said for agency’s being paid based on view duration.

1 comment:

  1. It's an interesting idea that I bet advertisers would like and agencies not so much. A pay for performance model might result in better creative, although I often wonder how much uninspired creative is a function of the agency just doing what they're told by the client.