changing how the world sees digital advertising

8/10/2019 Changing How the World Sees Digital Advertising

1/24

vCE Webinar | 10 May 2012

Mike Shaw Director, Marketing Solutions

@comScoreEMEA

Changing How the WorldSees Digital Advertising


2/24

1 Brandings Digital Challenge

2 Quantifying the Problem

3 Kelloggs Solution


3/24

In 2007, comScores First Post-Buy Analysis Across 8 DigitalUS Campaigns Showed Execution Left a Lot to be Desired

Percent of Ad Impressions for 8 Campaigns

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

In US But NotTarget

Hit TargetFrequency >=5

Hit TargetFrequency


4/24

X

Branding advertisers on TV are accustomed to audienceguarantees and expect the same in digital

Cookies Are Not People

Cookie Proliferation

Accuracy of cookie-based digital plan delivery is problematic:

Cookie Deletion


5/24

Cookies Cant Accurately Identify Who is Using a Computer at

any Given Point in Time due to Multiple Users

Over 64% of home users share a computer with other users

1 user

36%

2 users

32%

3+ users

32%


6/24

Cookie Deletion is a Global Realityand a Global Challenge

Ad Server Cookies

Country

Percent of

computersdeleting

Average # of cookies

per computer forsame campaign

Australia 37% 5.7

Brazil 40% 6.6

U.K. 35% 5.9

U.S. 35% 5.4

Accurately counting reach with cookies is not possible,

yet is currently the method used in most ad servers and analytics systems


7/24

Arguably the Most Important Digital Advertising Initiative ToDate: Making Measurement Make Sense (3MS) Mission

Reduce costs of doing business due to

complexity of digital advertising ecosystem

Single Tag solution to reduce complexity

Improve reporting of ad exposure

Bolster confidence that ads delivered are

actually visible


8/24

to better understand sources of waste and

ident i fy opportuni t ies to extract more value

f rom digi tal advert is ing budgets

comScore has now quantified incidence of sub-optimal addelivery across key ad delivery dimensions


9/24

vCE US Charter Study:12 Major Branded Advertisers Came Together to Lead & Learn

Allstate

18campaigns2 billion impressions400,000sites


10/24

15campaigns640 million impressions213,000sites

Charter Study replicated in Europe with similar results


11/24

vCE Charter Study:In-view Rates Need to Be Improved

Campaign In-view ad rates ranged from:US55% to 93% EU64% to 72%

US69%

AVERAGE

67%AVERAGE

EU


12/24

7%

69%98%

MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM

0.2%

63%

100%

MINIMIUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM

In-View ad ratesacross Top 500

US sites

In-View ad ratesacross top 100

EU sites

vCE Charter Study:Opportunity for improvement at the largest sites


13/24

13 7seconds

average by site category8.0

seconds

26.3

seconds

In-view duration

vCE Charter Study:In-View Duration Rates Not Consistent


14/24

Large sites scored better than long-tail sites

Percentage of Ads Served In-View

77% 74% 70%61%

66% 63% 61%55%

US EU


15/24

Digital Ad Economics:The Good Guys Arent Necessarily Winning

Low correlation of In-View Rates & CPM

An equally as weak correlation was also observed between CPMand ability to hit a primary demographic target

R=0.0373


16/24

vCE Charter Study:Ads Often Fall Outside of Desired Geography

About half of geographic waste was notonly out of target but also out of language

US4% of ads were served

outside geography.Up to 15% of ads on agiven campaign

7% of ads were served

outside geography.Up to 27% of ads on agiven campaign

EU


17/24

vCE Charter Study:Ads Often Served in inappropriate brand content

72% and 67% of US and EU campaigns hadimpressions served in inappropriatebrand content

US92,000 people

In the US

21,000 people

In the EU

EU

Limited number of people,

but big potential negative impact


18/24

vGRP can provide more accurate analysis of campaigneffectiveness in Marketing Mix Models

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Month 1 Month 2

GRP:NegativeCorrelation

GRP

Sales

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Month 1 Month 2

vGRP:Positive

Correlation

vGRP

Sales


19/24

There is good news for advertisers, agencies and publishers

Analogous to TV audience guarantees

Eliminating unseen online inventory supplyresults in: More effective / efficient campaigns and less

waste for advertisers More accurate metrics for market mix models

Better proof of digital ad effectiveness

Increased transparency/accountabilitymeans increased confidence in digital .

leading to more branding ad spendingmoving online


20/24

Using Data to Solve

Digitals Problem


21/24

Visibility measures are enriching our KPI analysis

Kelloggs is participating in the first ever Validated Campaign Essentials

study outside the U.S. with two U.K. based campaigns

Impressions ImpressionsAvg.

Frequency% In View

Targeting Index % on Target Total Campaign Total Campaign

Campaign Total 116 30.3% 3.1 72%

Publisher 1 76 19.9% 3.9 67%

Publisher 2 94 24.7% 1.9 64%

Publisher 3 93 24.5% 2 74%

Publisher 4 147 38.6% 7.8 70%

Publisher 5 191 50.0% 2.4 87%


22/24

Where We Are Going: In-Market Optimization at aCampaign Level Based on Cost and Effectiveness

Opportunity to optimize - Budgets follow performance

Multiple publishers, each with high reach potential Wide variance in performance observed real-time

Brand X - Q3/Q4Media

Partner

Avg

Frequency

Impressions

in Target

Impressions

in ViewCPM

1 3.5 24.5% 83% $2.44

2 3.0 16.9% 91% $9.08

3 8.4 23.5% 71% $8.62


23/24

holistic single tag people-basedmeasurement

cross-mediacomparability

complete in-viewmeasurement

The Future in Focus


24/24

For more information:Visit www.comscore.com/vCE

Email [email protected]

Q&A
mailto:[email protected]://www.comscore.com/vCE

changing how the world sees digital advertising

Documents