This document discusses new ways to value premium digital display advertising. It provides case studies on guarantees, viewability, and measuring success on hard-to-measure products like gaming campaigns on Facebook. For guarantees, it suggests questions to ask about audience targets and performance expectations. On viewability, it notes technical limitations and suggests minimum thresholds. The Facebook case study used a control group methodology to measure lift across key metrics from gaming ads on areas like review sites, product pages, and search.

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!