Which is better?
If a commercial is irritating? Or, interesting?
It seems obvious, doesn’t it? But if all an advertiser is worried about are GRPs and impressions, then isn’t irritating equally as effective as interesting?
After all, an impression counts as an impression regardless whether anyone actually watches the commercial or not.
Which maybe explains why so much advertising is so poorly done. Because it doesn’t really matter.
The creators of the commercials aren’t punished if nobody watches.
Nor, are they rewarded if people do find the commercial to be interesting.
What if we changed that? What if the longer that people watched a commercial for, the more the creators of that commercial would make?
The shorter the view duration, the less the creators would make.
Wouldn’t this lead to better advertising?
Sure, but c’mon, you say. Name a company that will do that—put skin in the game—betting on their ability to create work that actually involve viewers.
They’re a “production agency” that I’m associated with and this is how they like to be paid. Based on performance measured as view duration.
You can check them out here.