<rss version="2.0"
					xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
					xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
					xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/"
					xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
				  >
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><title><![CDATA[Comments on: The Trouble With 'Viewability' as a Metric for Digital Ads]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<ttl>120</ttl>
<description><![CDATA[Viewability is a step in the right direction, but it's not the silver-bullet metric for digital that some hope it to be.]]></description>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Richard Mooney]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments-105862</link>
<description><![CDATA[This article has stoked some great debate, but as an industry we need to ensure we don&#039;t get carried away. In the quest to find a form of parity with traditional media measurement it&#039;s important that brands and agencies don&#039;t lose sight of the end goal. Sure, viewability is a good diagnostic metric that has a part to play in optimization, but those metrics alone cannot measure the performance of your digital marketing dollars. Ultimately performance should be directly measured using controlled brand surveys and life time value, among other things. After all, if the message, creative or audience targeting is bad, viewability isn&#039;t always a good thing!]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:06 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Richard Mooney</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Laurent Nicolas]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments-105861</link>
<description><![CDATA[1. after the fact. 
Robust viewability is obtained with just 30 impressions measured, compared to 30 000 impressions to get a robust click rate (hypothesis: CTR 0.1% and 30 recorded events). The double good news is that not only you get the viewability earlier, but it also almost does not depend on the creative. So it can be used immediately for your next buy. In RTB, this is very efficient.
2. Useless
If viewability is limited to being seen more than 50% the banner&#039;s area during 1 second, you are right.
1 second is good to get rid of unviewable impressions, only for that, but it is already not negligeable.
But everyone knows this is not enough. 
What you are talking about is ad-efficiency. Post-tests linked with ad-viewability show that ads need to be seen completely (more than the duration of the message). Alenty has developed the concept of &quot;efficient impressions&quot;, which are seen more than 12 seconds for instance. Recall is 140% on &quot;efficient impressions&quot; than on &quot;viewable impressions&quot;.
3. Gaming
You don&#039;t get 12 seconds of ad-exposure with an empty page. You need interesting content and a smart page layout. Even if content distracts user&#039;s attention, the probability of remembering a product that is only shown after 10 seconds in the ad is higher when you see the product than when you don&#039;t it at all.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:22 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Laurent Nicolas</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Sloan Ginn]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments-105831</link>
<description><![CDATA[Mr. Pieper is a very smart man, but on this topic we respectfully disagree. There are many attributes that should factor into the valuation of an ad impression. The relative importance of those factors may vary by advertiser and campaign objectives. Fundamental to all campaigns is the ability of the consumer to actually view the ad. Only then can the creative department entice the consumer to pay attention to the ad creative. The ability to measure viewable digital ad impressions will shift media costs towards more valuable inventory, with aggregate media costs increasing nominally from the resulting efficiency gains.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:30 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Sloan Ginn</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: mike Palmer]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments-105802</link>
<description><![CDATA[Why not adopt a technology that can actually ensure ads are only served when the ad is in view. Viziads from Adstream does that so you know all your ads served are viewable otherwise they are blocked by the adserver. 

Benefits
&bull; Enhances ad effectiveness
&bull; Improves media buying opportunities 
and decisions therefore increasing ROI
&bull; Provides accuracy and accountability
&bull; Reduces ad-serving costs
&bull; Offers comprehensive real-time data and reporting 

Easy
&bull; Only serves visible ads to the publisher
&bull; Order and deploy immediately with no complicated implementations Works with all existing Advertiser and Publisher vendors
&bull; No technology or supplier changes are required
&bull; Use on an entire network or at individual campaign creative level]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:58 EDT</pubDate>
<author>mike Palmer</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Nick D]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/#comments-105799</link>
<description><![CDATA[This is pretty poor writing, to be honest. 
&gt;Traditional print media has its problems, but buying page 6 of the September issue of Vogue pretty much guarantees eyeballs. It&#039;s not the same in digital. 
Untrue. There are placements that are pretty much guaranteed to be viewable - probably more so than p6 of Vogue.
&gt;the metric will not help, in part because sellers will increase prices
er... yes, because they have to cover their costs. Not sure what that has to do with viewability - the issue isn&#039;t affordability, it&#039;s accountability.
&gt;After-the-fact measurement. 
Well sure, it&#039;s not a utopian solution, but this being the real world, it&#039;s what we have. It&#039;s as good as TV, better than print, leagues ahead of outdoor. Why not focus on the actual variables used in the measurement?
I could go on...]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:33 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Nick D</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>