Monday, September 29, 2014

Why CTR may not be the digital future

This weeks interesting article that caught my eye was an interested piece in Ad Age around changing how digital marketeers currently measure digital.

The article noted that in March 2013, Jon Slade, commercial director of digital advertising and insight at the Financial Times,  presented the idea that the London-based paper will roll out ad rates based on time rather than impressions, charging some advertisers by the number of hours their ads appear in front of targeted groups of readers. The measurement "cost per hour", or CPH, would shatter decades-old media pricing model that values volume aka "Clicks" above all else.

"We're definitely challenging the status quo," Mr. Slade said. "No one has come up with a new currency in digital advertising in -- a while."

Other companies are following suit measuring things such as view-ability and time rather than standard clicks.. The Economist, which is part-owned by Pearson, is guaranteeing time for its in-app ads. While it doesn't currently charge advertisers based on attention, Upworthy measures "attention minutes." Gawker is holding internal discussions about ways to make ad viewability and attention a new standard, according to one person involved in those meetings. The Wall Street Journal is using attention metrics to analyze and adjust ad campaigns. And a slew of other publishers are working to ensure their ads meet a viewability standard established earlier this year.

I think this is interesting food for thought for modern advertising as they are thinking about their digital media buy and measurement metrics. With digital being so easy to measure compared to traditional advertising, I believe advertisers should work, more than ever, to ensure their ads are being engaged with in the optimal fashion. 

No comments: