Comments on: We need to rethink how we measure success online

By: ian

ian — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:14:44 +0000

You’re correct. However, there is no desire amongst the digital fraternity to simplify the matter for fear of exposing how ineffective the spend might be of advertisers. In addition the more complicated you make a subject to understand the more you can charge/fool brand owners

By: Martin Galvin

Martin Galvin — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:04:36 +0000

The simplicity bit is a subjective term I guess. My definition is one that leads to the path of least resistance to growing the Market. With this in mind there’s much to be said for the classic Reach / Frequency / Coverage / Cost Per Cover Point angle, given it gives comparable context – especially if worked off a comparable Universe, and if you’ve worked out how to link up devices and execute / measure campaigns accordingly. Clearly the richness of reporting available Online beyond the traditional metrics are no less relevant, and I agree with Tess entirely that this is a means to an endgame of selling more stuff now and in the future.

By: Gustav

Gustav — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:40:40 +0000

Agree 100% with your post Martin. What do you consider to be “the simplicity of measurement inherent of traditional media”? And how do you see that practically translate to or being made relevant to digital as well?

By: Tess Alps

Tess Alps — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:35:35 +0000

You are quite right Martin. If we don’t talk in a common effectiveness language we are lost. And this goes beyond media consumption metrics. Who cares how long you read a mag, how often you pass a poster or whether you clck on a banner. All that matters are two things: immediate effect on profit (volume and price) and effect on future profit (brand equity). Those are the only things boardrooms care about.

And because advertising has a complicated non-linear effect we will always need econometrics rather than tracking.