Mike rich
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
507
On Slideshare
507
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • As you’ve seen, the online advertising landscape is complex and continuously evolving. In order to navigate this increasingly complex landscape, you need a delivery validation solution that delivers:Campaign optimization to eliminate waste and improve ROIA complete view of ad delivery in a single tool, with a single tag and single database, allowing for the reporting of unduplicated dataOverall greater transparency for transacting in the online ad marketplacevalidated Campaign Essentials 2.0 is designed to provide the highest-quality solutions for these needs. Let me tell you how it works.

Transcript

  • 1. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. New Ways to Value Premium Display OMMA Premium Display 2013 Mike Rich Vice President
  • 2. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 2 New Ways to Value Premium Display The New Digital Ad Currency & Kellogg’s Case Study Where are we on the road to guarantees? Facebook Case Study Measuring success on hard-to-measure products
  • 3. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 3 “Key to enabling our decisions is understanding who each impression reaches, how visible our ads are, and where the greatest efficiencies exist.” Aaron Fetters Associate Director Global Digital Strategy and Analytics Kellogg Company
  • 4. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 4 What Buyers and Sellers Want Campaign optimization to eliminate waste and improve ROI Complete view of ad delivery in a single tool, with a single tag – single database Overall greater transparency for transacting in the online ad marketplace
  • 5. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 5 Guarantees are moving us towards a common currency Key Questions Remain - What should I guarantee? - What performance should I expect? - How do I measure success?
  • 6. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 6 Validation of Delivery Quality Impressions to the Target Audience Two Themes
  • 7. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 7 110 Average Targeting Efficiency Index Audience Across thousands of campaigns….. 43% Average Percent In Target
  • 8. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 8 • Over 60% of home computers are shared Shared Computers • Person ages out of demo target • New household situations, such as pregnancy Old Data • Inferring demo based on content consumption • Offline data assumes bad household info Bad Assumptions Why 100% In-Target Isn’t Possible
  • 9. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 9 Questions to Ask on Audience Guarantees • What is the audience target? • Will payment be based on a specific percentage of hitting the target? • How will impressions where the target cannot be determined (such as mobile, OTT, etc.) be evaluated/billed?
  • 10. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 10 13% Average In-View for Unknown/Blind Domains Viewability Across thousands of campaigns….. 46% Average In-View All Campaigns
  • 11. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 11 • User leaves page before 1 secondToo Fast • A User’s browser isn’t on full screen settingToo Small • Bots/Spiders • Pre-fetchNot Human Why 100% Viewable Isn’t Possible
  • 12. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 12 Questions to Ask on Viewable Impressions • Will payment be on viewed impressions or gross impressions? • Is the measurement MRC accredited? • Is there a minimum % viewable expected? • How will impressions where viewability cannot be determined (i.e. when JavaScript measurement code cannot be placed) be evaluated/billed?
  • 13. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary.© comScore, Inc. Proprietary. Putting it together Case Study
  • 14. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 14 In-flight Optimization Seller Avg Freq. % in Target % in View Brand Lift CPM 1 3.5 24.5% 83% 5.74 $2.44 2 3.0 16.9% 91% 0.55 $9.08 3 8.4 23.5% 71% 0 $8.62
  • 15. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 15 In-flight Optimization Seller Avg Freq. % in Target % in View Brand Lift CPM 1 3.5 24.5% 83% 5.74 $2.44 2 3.0 16.9% 91% 0.55 $9.08 3 8.4 23.5% 71% 0 $8.62
  • 16. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 16 In-flight Optimization Seller Avg Freq. % in Target % in View Brand Lift CPM 1 3.5 24.5% 83% 5.74 $2.44 2 3.0 16.9% 91% 0.55 $9.08 3 8.4 23.5% 71% 0 $8.62
  • 17. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 17 75% improvement in sales lift Viewability = LIFT 40% Increase in viewability led to
  • 18. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 18 Implemented new digital strategy in first half of year 3 Results ROI 3X 6x Year 1 Year 2 1H Year 3 ROI 2X 5X Year 1 Year 2 1H Year 3 Brand 1 ROI Brand 2 ROI
  • 19. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 19 1. Get involved in the process 2. Know the technology and its limits 3. Use industry accredited companies and follow industry guidelines 4. Don’t expect 100% in-target or 100% viewable 5. Agree on what’s reasonable for a given rate 6. Use overall, industry and site benchmarks to help guide you Best Practices for Guarantees
  • 20. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary.© comScore, Inc. Proprietary. Measuring what’s hard to measure Facebook Case Study
  • 21. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 21 Major Gaming Campaigns Research ObjectiveNumerous purchase pathways • Direct from Manufacturer • Online retailer • In Store • On Console/In App Viral impacts • Paid vs Organic Audience • Young Males can make surveys difficult Major Title Gaming Campaigns Challenges
  • 22. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 22 Major Gaming Campaigns Research ObjectiveDid the campaigns drive lift in: 1. Visitation and engagement on game review pages? 2. Visitation and engagement on game product pages? 3. Visitation and engagement on game trailer sites? 4. Search activity on game-related terms? Major Title Gaming Campaigns Research Objectives
  • 23. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 23 Action Lift Inputs Titles included 10 Action/Adventure AAA Titles Timing Exposure period: August 2012 through November 2012 PC-only, US-only Latency Period 4 week post period, based off of first exposure 100% Viewable
  • 24. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 24 Identifying Exposure Organic [Total Social Network]  Fans  Friends of fans Paid  Standard Marketplace  Sponsored Stories For each exposed person, the control match finds a digital twin who was not exposed to the advertising
  • 25. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 25Visitation definitions are based off of game-specific pages Identifying Actions 1. Review Sites GameSpot.com IGN.com Metacritic.com Game studio homepage Brand homepage 2. Product Pages Amazon.com Walmart.com BestBuy.com GameStop.com EBGames.com 3. Streaming Sites IGN.com G4TV.com GameSpot.com GameTrailers.com Metacritic.com Youtube.com Game studio homepage Brand homepage 4. Brand Search Activity Top 5 engines
  • 26. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 26 Review Sites Visitor Reach 96% Visits per 000 98% Pages per 000 96% Reach for review sites saw a 2x increase between test and control groups
  • 27. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 27 Product Pages Visitor Reach 71% Visits per 000 81% Pages per 000 101% Page engagement doubled after exposure to ad on Facebook
  • 28. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 28 Game Trailer Sites Visitor Reach 105% Visits per 000 114% Pages per 000 214% There was a 2x increase in game trailer views after ad exposure
  • 29. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 29 Search Reach and Engagement Searcher Reach 128% Searches per 000 131% Gaming sites saw a 2x increase in brand search term usage The exposed group searched more than 130%more than the control group
  • 30. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 30 New Ways to Value Premium Display Work Towards Guarantees Use Best Practices Keep Thinking Differently Measure what’s hard by looking around
  • 31. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. www.comscore.com www.facebook.com/comscoreinc @comScore Q&A Thank you!