The document discusses the need for improved digital media measurement metrics that focus on effectiveness rather than just impressions or clicks. It argues that online surveys often provide misleading data due to sampling biases, and that viewability alone is not a sufficient metric as it does not measure outcomes like ad recall, attitudes, or sales lift. The document advocates for cross-platform measurement of unduplicated audiences and effective frequency to better plan campaigns across devices.

1. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
#InteractIAB
MEASURING
FOR THE FUTURE
How to Apply Lessons Learned in Media Measurement to
Advance the Digital Industry
Dr. Gian Fulgoni
CEO & Co-­Founder
comScore, Inc.
23 May 2017
For info about the proprietary technology used in comScore products, refer to http://comscore.com/Patents

2. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 2

3. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 3
Digital is the most measurable
medium in the world
...but it’s far from perfect

4. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 44© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
Clicks on ads are at best an incomplete –
and at worst a misleading – effectiveness metric.
Measure attitudinal and behavioral lifts instead.

5. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 5
Whither the Click?
Only 1 to 4 clicks per one thousand impressions!
Today, very few people click on ads…
Source: Google DoubleClick, November 2016 to April 2017
Click-­through rates across static image, flash and rich media formats
0.11% 0.16% 0.20% 0.22% 0.15%
5© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.

6. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 6
…and research says clicks don’t predict sales impact
6© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
A negative pattern exists between Sales Lift
per Household and Click Through Rate (i.e.,
as CTR increases, sales decrease)
R2 = -­0.039
A regression analysis shows there is no
statistically significant relationship between
CTR and Sales
$-­
$0.100
$0.200
$0.300
$0.400
$0.500
$0.600
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80%
Sales Lift/HH in $
CTR
Sales Lift/HH in $
Click-­through Rate

7. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 77© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
Self-­reported online survey data that requires
consumer recall is misleading for cross-­channel and
cross-­platform measurement.

8. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 8
Source: comScore behavioral research, via passive observation
Major source of the problem: online survey panelists are
heavier-­than-­average Internet users by a factor of 2 to 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Time spent online Pages
downloaded
Searches
conducted
Dollars spent
online
Made online credit
card application
Paid bills online
Average User Survey Panelist
AVERAGE USER
Index

9. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 9
5.0
3.7
Online Survey Behavioral
4.3
5.4
Online Survey Behavioral
35% Overstatement
Hours Per Day Online
20% Understatement
Hours Per Day Watching TV
The reality is that online surveys overstate time spent online
by 35% – and understate TV time by 20%

10. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 10
* NRF Survey
Online surveys dramatically overstate e-­commerce spend.
E-­commerce as % of
Discretionary Consumer Spending
E-­commerce as % of
Discretionary Consumer Spending
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ONLINE SURVEY*
42%
14%
** Excludes autos, gas and food / bev

11. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 1111© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
The accuracy of cookie-­based targeting leaves
a lot to be desired…

12. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 12
comScore in-­target benchmarks show low demographic
targeting accuracy
12© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
39%
France
47%
Italy
42%
Spain
44%
UK
Source: comScore vCE Benchmarks, Q1 2017.
% Digital Ad Impressions Delivered to Correct Demographic

13. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 13
In-­target accuracy: why 100% requires audience guarantees
and make-­goods
13© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
Some targeting infers
demography based on
content consumption
Nearly 50% of
computers are
shared, so cookies
don’t know who is
using the computer at
any given point in
time
Not all registration
data are accurate
Demographic data
become outdated

14. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 14
Industry benchmarks can help media
buyers and sellers set campaign delivery
expectations.
14© comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
Measurement of Viewability, Brand Safety
and Non-­Human Traffic provides much-­needed transparency in an
increasingly opaque, programmatic world.
“Keeping that digital ad in view makes a real impression”

15. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 15
About a half of ads worldwide still don’t have the
opportunity to be seen
DESKTOP DISPLAY VIEWABILITY RANGES FROM 48% -­ 55% ACROSS MARKETS
Source: comScore vCE Benchmarks, Global, Q1 2017
Australia
48%
UK
49%
Germany
50%
France
50%
Brazil
53%
Spain
54%
Italy
54%
Mexico
54%
Canada
55%
US
55%

16. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 16Source: comScore vCE Benchmarks, US, Q1 2017
Direct buys see higher viewability than programmatic
DESKTOP DISPLAY DESKTOP VIDEO
DIRECT
PROGRAMMATIC
DIRECT
PROGRAMMATIC
60%
54%
73%
51%
Q1
2017

17. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 17Source: comScore vCE Benchmarks, US, Q1 2017
High-­price video ads attract the most IVT
6% IVT
DESKTOP DISPLAY
10% IVT
DESKTOP VIDEO
Q1
2017

18. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 18Source: comScore vCE Benchmarks, US, Q1 2017
Programmatic magnifies the IVT problem
DESKTOP DISPLAY DESKTOP VIDEO
6%
4% DIRECT
PROGRAMMATIC
10%
4% DIRECT
PROGRAMMATIC
Q1
2017

19. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 19
Digital media and measurement
needs to continue to evolve

20. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 20
The industry is calling for more focus on IMPACT
“Viewability means opportunity to see [but it has] been
confused with fully viewed, was recalled, was
effective, made an impact, paid attention, delivered
ROI.”
– Marc Pritchard, Chief Brand Officer, P&G
“Not every marketer is obsessed with how much time
consumers spend with their digital ads or how many
pixels they see….They just want their ads to work.”
“Although viewability standards can increase the overall
quality of online ads, viewability by itself is not an
adequate measurement of ad quality.”
“It seems like a total no-­brainer: No one wants to pay for
ads that can’t be seen. But viewability is just one
factor in an effective campaign…viewability is a
useful metric but doesn’t add up as a be-­all end-­all
goal for marketers.”

21. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 21
As an industry, we must bring focus back to the advertising
metrics that matter – and that means accepting viewability
as a necessary but not sufficient – and increasing our
attention on Unduplicated R/F, GRPs and Lift in Attitudes and
Sales
It’s clear: Viewability alone is not enough.

22. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 22
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across
platforms at a granular level

23. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 23Source: comScore Xmedia, February 2015
Cross-­platform deduplication in action: Millennials exhibited much greater Time
Shifted Viewing (TSV) and Digital consumption for a Network TV Series Finale
All Persons P18-­34
Digital Only
Live + 7
Live + SD
Live
+21%
+3%
+24%
+35%
+8%
+43%
Incremental Audience from TSV and Digital

24. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 24
“We have to get better at cross-­platform
measurement. Better at de-­duplication. We need to
understand how much reach we obtain on a
campaign across devices.
With the availability of cross-­platform data that
allows improved media planning, I believe ad
spending will increase across all platforms, including
television.”
Irwin Gottlieb, Global Chairman, GroupM

25. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 25
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across platforms at
a granular level
• Effective frequency capping across platforms

26. 1-­2 3-­9 10-­20 21-­50 51+
0.8%
33.3%
1.4%
11.0%
19.6%
22.4%
75.4%
23.7%
2.8%
9.6%
% PEOPLE
% IMPRESSIONS
MANY PEOPLE
RECEIVE TOO
FEW
IMPRESSIONS
TOO MANY
IMPRESSIONS
WASTED ON
SMALL NUMBER
OF PEOPLE
Frequency Distributions Are Not Optimal
IMPRESSIONS PER PERSON

27. 50 EXPOSURES15-­20 EXPOSURES
POINT LIFT (BRAND)
Contribution of Incremental Exposures Declines Quickly After 20 Exposures
IMPRESSIONS PER PERSON
INCREASING
EFFECTIVENESS
MINIMAL
EFFECTIVENESS
DECLINING
EFFECTIVENESS

28. Implications for Excessive Frequency
v Frequency caps from 20 to 50 are appropriate for most brands
v Exposures above those thresholds are, at best, wasted
v The marginal contribution of an incremental exposure declines quickly
and loses over 90% of its effectiveness even earlier
v The thresholds for wasteful or harmful effects are likely to be lower for
interruptive advertising such as online video ads or pop-­up ads

29. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 29
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across platforms
• Effective frequency capping across platforms
• Aligned metrics between TV and Digital Video
• -­ Average minute TV audience vs. number of digital video views

30. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 30
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across platforms
• Effective frequency capping across platforms
• Aligned metrics between TV and Digital Video
-­ Average Minute TV Audience vs. Number of Digital Video Views
• Correct measurement of reach on social media
-­ De-­duplicating across followers
§

31. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 31
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across platforms
• Effective frequency capping across platforms
• Aligned metrics between TV and Digital Video
-­ Average Minute TV Audience vs. Number of Digital Video Views
• Un-­duplicated measurement of reach on social media
-­ De-­duplicating across followers
• Measurement of cross-­platform campaign effectiveness

32. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 32Source: comScore/dunnhumby for Digital, IRI/BehaviorScan for TV
3.8%
6.8%
8.0%
???
Non-­Targeted Digital Targeted Digital TV Targeted TV
The value of viewable and addressable puts digital on par with TV
Average In-­Store Brand Sales Lift: TV vs. Digital
3 Mo. For Digital vs. 1 Yr. for TV
Includes 100%
viewable ads
Addressable Digital

33. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 33
$1.00
$1.19 $1.20
$1.60
TV TV + Print TV + Radio TV + Digital
Source: ARF
A cross platform plan that includes TV & digital can be
expected to generate a higher ROI than TV alone
Investing in TV + Digital = +60% ROI

34. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 34
Measuring for the future in a cross-­platform world
• Measurement of unduplicated audiences across platforms
• Effective frequency capping across platforms
• Aligned metrics between TV and Digital Video
-­ Average Minute TV Audience vs. Number of Digital Video Views
• Un-­duplicated measurement of reach on social media
-­ De-­duplicating across followers
• Measurement of campaign effectiveness
• Cooperation of the industry

35. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary.
#InteractIAB
THANK YOU
Gian Fulgoni
gfulgoni@comscore.com
@gfulgoni
For info about the proprietary technology used in comScore products, refer to http://comscore.com/Patents