That television’s measurement system is broken does not seem to garner much debate.
There is no single source of measurement for streaming, let alone universally accepted definitions of things like how long a “view” actually lasts or what constitutes a “completed view.”
Worse still, linear TV still lives in a 1950s-era world of GRPs while streaming is measured in the banner ad metric of CPMs.
Which is a big reason why, as our new report on CTV advertising concluded, dollars have not yet followed eyeballs to CTV.
Meanwhile, V CEO Guy Edri has spent the past year preaching to anyone within earshot that “TV is TV” and that calling CTV “CTV” is soon going to sound as outdated as referring to a TV as a “color TV.” (IYKYK)
It’s a great observation, one with which I fully concur, but this week Edri took it all one step further, rolling out a proposal for a new measurement system that would allow advertisers to buy and sell across streaming and linear easily and with greater confidence, while also acknowledging the fact that most TV viewing is currently happening via a streaming connection and all that entails in terms of measurement.
It’s a bold proposition, but if enough people buy into it, it just might work.
Why It Matters
The new system, called VIP (Verified Inch Price) relies on an astute observation: size matters.
As in the size of the TV screen.
Meaning that the 85-inch TV in the living room creates a markedly different experience than the 32-inch TV in the bedroom.
Not just in terms of the impact of seeing an ad on a screen that size, but also in terms of which room the TV is likely to be in (few people have 85-inch TVs in their bedrooms) and thus, who (plural) is likely to be viewing it and their frame of mind when viewing.
That’s one piece of VIP.
The other is to look at the demographics of the city where the TV set is being watched. Because a family in an upscale urban setting watching an 85-inch TV is going to have a very different set of relevant products they’d want to see ads for than a family watching that same set in a more downscale rural area.
And that is the beauty of VIP: advertisers will buy ads based on the size of the TV set and the demographics of the TV sets’ location. So no worrying about privacy laws, about out-of-date data sets or whether something’s being watched on streaming or linear.
The plan is to sell ads based on those data points, which will also serve to increase relevance, thus allowing for the age-old Holy Grail of streaming: fewer, better-targeted ads that viewers won’t mind seeing and advertisers won’t mind paying more money for.
What I like about it is the simplicity.
TV is never going to have the granularity of digital, no matter how many algorithms we try and force on it.
Similarly, we are never going to know who exactly is in front of the TV at any given time. So a broad assumption based on screen size seems reasonable.
It’s also first and foremost a branding vehicle. Meaning that if an ad hits a pretty wide target that’s okay. People will forgive the occasional misfire. It’s when most of the ads are irrelevant (or pharma) that people freak out.
But most of all, the beauty of VIP is that it’s simple and easy to understand.
Compare that to so many recent measurement solutions that seem to rely on complex algorithms and projections of the “just trust us” variety, which do nothing to assuage advertiser skittishness about television, measurement in particular.
Whereas VIP does not need an explanation. That goes a long way towards gaining advertisers’ trust.
Simplicity for the win.
The other thing I like about it is that it allows TV to remain a branding vehicle and a way to reach bigger audiences.
One of my problems with the push towards performance is that it unnecessarily narrowed down the size of the potential audience, treating CTV like targeted digital.
The problem with that is that it’s hard to assemble a large enough audience on TV as there are so many different places the ad might run.
Versus, say, Instagram or YouTube, where there really is no competition. So if you are aiming at a specific Feudal Media bubble, then finding those people across multiple streaming services and broadcast networks can be a challenge and is still unlikely to net you a sizable audience. Versus targeting audiences based on the size of the TV, the room they are likely in and the affluence of their location will get you that great big audience.
Which is not a bad thing. I have long preached that eliminating “waste” in TV is overrated. That just getting a brand message to people around your target is not necessarily a bad thing.
For example, you are a car maker with a sports car aimed at young men. If a 70-year old woman sees the ad but then sees her young male neighbor has bought one and comments approvingly, is that necessarily money ill spent?
I don’t think so.
(Local performance ads are another beast entirely. I’m talking about national and large regional advertisers. But here too, buying the relevant audience and experience can make local advertisers feel better about buying TV.)
What You Need To Do About It
If you are an ad agency or brand marketer, keep an open mind.
You have gotten spoiled by the accuracy of digital measurement solutions that can track a consumer’s every move, every click and every like.
That’s a great system for digital but not for TV.
Why? Because TV is not a single user device.
It’s a shared device with a big screen that does not need the same level of granularity as digital, especially for branding campaigns.
So if you can buy TV advertising based on something as simple as screen size and geolocation, it may be worth a shot.
Worst case is you do a few test pilots and it doesn’t work.
Best case is you can save millions by not paying all those many ad tech vendors to help you with targeting anymore.
If you are a TV operating system, this will really fall on you. Take a look at the pros and cons of VIP. Try and get past “Not Invented Here” syndrome. A few test cases here too may help with that decision. If this goes well you can own the ad interface and the whole ecosystem while making yourself a lot more money.
Something to think about.
Finally, if you are a publisher, this may be the solution to the massive problem you are facing, which is that no matter what you do, which proprietary measurement system you want to rely on, fill rates remain well below where they should be.
A lack of cooperation is how you got into this mess.
Remember Nielsen TAM, the system that was supposed to take care of streaming measurement about 10-15 years ago?
Remember how it failed because all the networks and streaming services would not get on board over what, in reality, were minor concerns?
The death of TAM led to the rise of the current measurement mess.
So think about that when you’re considering adoption.
And that thing Einstein allegedly said about doing the same thing over and over.
