Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Opportunity To See Versus Opportunity To Involve

It seems rather ridiculous, doesn’t it, the current debate over whether advertisers should be required to pay for an ad impression that never shows up on someone’s screen?

The Association of National Advertisers is now suggesting to its members that they only pay for impressions that offer a ‘minimum opportunity to see’.

For online display ads, this translates to 50% of the ad’s pixels being viewable for at least one second.  For online video ads, two continuous seconds.

Are 50% of the ad’s pixels being viewable for one second, ONE second, really any better than not being viewable at all?  Can the advertiser now sit back and say, “Okay, now I feel like I got my money’s worth?”

What's more, when it comes to video messaging, is it really the viewability of the ad that’s most important?  Or, how involved people are in the message itself?

According to Tony Haile, CEO of Charbeat, “There are two things that are proven to show recall recognition.  One is the quality of the creative.  The second is the amount of time that ad accrues.  Price on that time, and attention becomes a way for marketers to be more effective.”

Pricing on viewer time spent?  Interesting.  So rather than worrying about whether a 30-second video message was in view for 2 seconds, perhaps we should be worrying about whether a 30-second video message held someone’s attention for the full 30 seconds or not.

Every commercial has what I call an involvement factor related to it.  For instance, the opportunity to involve for a thirty-second spot is thirty seconds.

But that’s just the opportunity.  The real question is, what was the return on involvement (ROI) for that opportunity?

To figure that out, you divide the opportunity per involvement (thirty seconds for a thirty second ad) by the involvement per opportunity (time spent involved with the ad).

If a :30 ad involves viewers for :15, then the Return on Involvement for that ad is 50%.

The higher an ad’s return on involvement, the more effective, it seems, it will be in the marketplace.

So while the ad community spars about viewability and the importance around 'opportunity to see', perhaps they should be adjusting their sights even further down the road.

It’s not the opportunity to see that’s ultimately most important.

It’s the opportunity to involve.

And, the involvement per opportunity that each video message delivers back to the advertiser.

One final thought, Shenan Reed, president of digital for MEC, North America, wants to start equating viewer time spent to GRPs on TV, so as to potentially create a new metric for everyone to use against time.  She wants to coin CP30, a play on CPM with the 30 referring to seconds.

Not a bad idea.

Perhaps we should do the same with Return on Involvement, calling it ROI30, or ROI60 if it’s a sixty-second spot. 

That would separate it from a marketer’s overall ROI (return on investment).

And although I’m not a gambling man, I would have to bet that the higher each individual commercial's ROI30, the higher the overall marketing budget’s return on investment.

No comments:

Post a Comment