Yesterday, Visible Measures released a report that states that audiences chose to watch commercials more than 1 billion times in Q3 2012.
Chose to watch?
People will actually choose to watch commercials?
Apparently so. To the tune of 1 billion times in 3 months.
So, here’s the question. Is a commercial that someone chooses to watch more effective/valuable to the client, than a commercial that someone is forced to watch?
If so, should the agency that creates a commercial that people choose to watch be compensated differently for their efforts?
In this most recent report, Visible Measures indicates that Wieden & Kennedy topped the creative agencies list for Q3 with nearly 77 million views.
At a $20 CPM, 77 million views would have cost the advertiser $1.54M.
Since Wieden’s creative was responsible for saving their advertisers over a million dollars, shouldn’t they see some sort of uptick in their fee from those advertisers?
It would seem so, wouldn’t it?
But how could something like this be monetized?
Opting in to watch a commercial happens on the digital platform. When people opt-in to watch, the data is recorded as to how long they watch for.
What if advertisers paid their agencies based on viewer time spent with their commercials?
It’s hard to argue that the more time the viewer spends with the commercial, the better for the advertiser.
So, shouldn’t it also be better for the agency that created that ‘time spent’?
Most advertisers pay their agencies on a time-based fee system—how many hours did how many people work on their business.
It’s a system that pays for effort.
Now that the digital data exists, why don’t advertisers pay their agencies based on how long the viewer watches the commercial for, rather than how long the agency spent creating it?
Rather than paying for effort, it would allow the advertiser to pay for outcome.
Today, viewers have ever more control as to whether they want to watch a commercial or not.
They get to make the choice.
As do advertisers when it comes to how they compensate their agencies.