Posts tagged ‘digital media’

  |  
June 25, 2010

A bastards guide to: skepticism

Hi, my name is Joel and I’m a bastard.

I’m that guy that sits in your presentation and then at the end asks you for the sources of the various stats as well as what the exact question asked was and the who/when/where’s of the sample group. I know this annoys you, I can see it in your eyes. That mixture of anger, irritation and ever-so-slight fear that you will be caught flogging off your biased and untrustworthy data.

The thing that bothers me is that a lot of people in digital media (in particular social) seem to immediately forget the most basic elements of statistical analysis, the kind of basic stuff that should be common sense for anyone who sits and actually thinks about what they’re looking at, things like the difference between correlation and causality. Recently I have been having a bit of a rant about the sheer volume of misleading ‘research’ that has been published about Facebook in an attempt to give clear monetary value to “fans,” an effort that will never make sense anyway because each ‘fan’ is unique, it is not the same as a conversion/sale. I was going to write about why their study was deeply flawed in every way, but The Adcontrarian did it for me.

It wouldn’t be such an issue if they admitted fault when people call bullshit on their stupid buzz-videos (side note: reading the comments below this video will actually cause hemorrhaging of the brain, the stupidity is that dense) but instead they try to argue that the figures have value by referring to “research” that backs up the numbers, however this “research” is usually highly biased and funded by interested parties, not only this but the figures they quote are taken dramatically out of context.

If digital media as an industry really wants to start seeing significant investment from brands we need to step up to the table and be honest with advertisers, we need to tell them realistic information, not a bunch of pseudo-scientific stats that immediately set off the bullshit detector of everyone in the room. This current approach is akin to a kid telling you he caught a fish thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big, no one believes them, but its cute that they try to trick you.

Posted in advertising, Business, Social Media | 3 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
August 6, 2009

Working towards true accountability

Measurement
Online media is often touted as being a completely accountable medium, however I would disagree, online is certainly more accountable than above the line, and the availability of metrics allows marketers and their agencies access to a bevy of data that they previously only dreamed of. However a major issue for me personally (and I would hope others also) is that a lot of these metrics designed to bring about clarity only really serve to cloud the waters further.

Let’s look at some common metrics and the associated issue that I personally see.

Impressions - Impressions are deceptive because if your ad serves below the fold then your ad may in fact never have met eyeballs, yet it counts the same as an ad that is front and centre. (This extend through to some of the rich media engagement metrics which I will look at a bit later)

Clicks – Clicks are deceptive in that when a client pays for a click they assume they are paying for traffic to their sites, however I have seen drop offs of in excess of 50% of clicks not landing on the assigned landing page. This means that although a user clicked on a banner they closed the browser that opened before it had time to load the landing page.

Unique Browsers/Users – Here is a term that is much hated by many in the industry. It is entirely inaccurate, but with that said no more so than any of the metrics applied to above the line media. The primary arguments here are around cookie deletion and users who browse on multiple computers. These combined factors mean that the unique reach metric is actually a rather soft one.

And moving on to some of the engagement metrics that rich media is reporting we see similar issues to those listed above.

Rich media time on screen – This is that same as an impression, however the name is deceptive because it is counting the time on page, not on screen. You could spend 20 minutes on the top half of a screen while an ad you can’t see is counting this as “on screen” time.

Finding a solution to these issues isn’t going to be easy and it isn’t going to come anytime soon. For one thing I think if we found a way to only cookie users to whom the ad actually displayed on screen it would face serious opposition from publishers as it would drastically reduce their available inventory.

I know Ben Shepherd talks about the issues surrounding the streamlining of online measurement and it’s relationship with above the line measurement frequently over at Talking Digital but what are your thoughts on this? Has anyone heard of a technology that allows for a cookie to drop only when an ad is visible to a user?

Posted in advertising, Business, Tech | 5 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , ,
March 9, 2009

Popping away your value

Recently one of Australia’s largest publishers has had pop-unders running across one of their ‘premium’ sites. This kind of activity not only cheapens the site and makes the publisher appear desperate for cash; it de-values their inventory from a media buyer’s perspective.

Publishers have fought for years to establish themselves as premium sites, selling quality traffic and a smart audience. By having pop-ups, pop-unders or indeed any of the dodgy practises that are common place on sites relating to pornography, piracy and gambling (not that I would ever go onto an unsavoury sight) these publishers place themselves in the same basket with regards to advertising. This desperation to make a buck now will seriously erode the value of the site in the long run and in a climate where people are flight to quality inventory. Never before has there been an online climate that requires such a balance between quality and quantity.

What makes no sense to me is the use of this type of inventory by advertisers. Its not only bad practise and makes you immediately fall into the annoying category usually preserved for pornographers, snake oil salesmen and human traffickers, it is also expensive. These sites are selling these pop-ups as ‘premium’ placements across ‘premium’ sites, however whatever supposed quality the contextual environment supplies the pre-existing negative connotations of these popup windows surely erodes. This effect flows onto those who have not made the mistake of using pop-ups. If, as an advertiser, I have paid a premium to be on a popular news site because I feel protected from clutter and want to be associated with a valued site and safe content I personally would not want ANY type of popup activity happening on the site and, should I decide to go with the site again I most certainly would not be paying the premium again.

In the long run the main damage a publisher does by running this type of placement is to its own integrity. It’s a shame to see an industry that has fought so hard to remove the connotations of spam and pop-ups that were seen as a major deterrent in the dot-com era take this giant leap backwards in the interest of a quick dollar. If publishers continue to make this backslide they will only see the value of their inventory drop dramatically over the coming months as advertisers and media buyers continue to look not only for quality inventory but for lower rates amid a diminishing market.

Posted in General | 6 Comments »

Tags: , ,
  |  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.