Let’s say an advertiser runs a 3-minute message online.
Let’s say that piece is downloaded 20 million times.
The potential for the advertiser is 60 million minutes of time spent with their brand.
How many of those minutes are actually consumed will be very different dependent on the creative. Some people will watch only 10 seconds of the 3-minute piece while others will watch all three minutes.
Most advertisers will agree that the longer a person is exposed to a brand, the greater the branding impact is on that individual.
Brand exposure potential (media) is very different than actual view duration (creative).
Now let’s assume someone has watched the message all the way through. How many more times does that person have to see that message for it to be effective?
If it said something of interest to them, which it must have or they wouldn’t have watched it all the way through, then once should be enough.
If it wasn’t interesting enough to make them watch the first time, what makes us think that a second exposure will make them watch the second time?
This is why I feel frequency is become a less important metric while view duration is becoming more important.
Before we could measure view duration, we used frequency as a proxy for view duration. A :30 spot with a frequency of three gave the advertiser 90 seconds of potential brand exposure.
The assumption, of course, was that all thirty seconds would be consumed each time.
But now advertisers can run a 90-second spot and actually measure how many seconds were consumed.
If the objective is for 90 seconds of brand exposure, then creativity becomes more important than frequency.
In this way, performance can start to replace potential.
And agencies can be paid accordingly.