Lots of talk these days about measurement that makes sense.
Or, as some like to put it, measurement that matters.
Everyone seems to be pooh-poohing GRPs and talking about how impressions are becoming less impressive.
And while all that is true, the quest continues to find a metric that puts digital on an equal footing with TV.
If the best measurement we have for TV is an impression, and impressions are obviously flawed, why would we be searching for an equally flawed metric for digital?
Josh Chasin, Chief Research Officer of comScore said something interesting in a recent article. “Reach tells us how many and frequency tells us how much, but what we have to add is a third foundational metric that tells us how good.”
In other words, Mr Chasin is saying we have to move beyond this whole idea of quantity (of impressions) to the idea of quality (of the impressions).
At the moment, digital can do that for us.
So why in the hell are we trying to find a metric that puts digital on an equal footing with TV?
It seems to me that we should be looking for a metric that puts TV on an equal footing with digital.