Internet accountability or just scrutiny?

Having been in many cross-media meetings, campaign after campaign, the Internet component to the campaign somehow culminates in raising the most eyebrows. But the reason for this is not for its capability to perform but due to the wealth of measurement metrics, meaning Online's accountability sometimes proves to be its own downfall. After all, with so many indicators available, it's not difficult to find areas of weakness in any campaign.

As a result of this, we may find ourselves in the awkward position of hesitating to provide certain metrics ranging from branding/awareness and direct response to traditional marketers for performance scrutiny, particularly when traditional media can not even match online for such measurability. This of course is not the ideal way forward and withholding information could result in opportunities missed and insights lost.

Obdurately, many argue that through our heightened measurability we have shot ourselves in the foot by providing marketers with too much information which is often misinterpreted and may lead to the wrong action points. Furthermore, information overload slows down the decision making process, extends required lead times, and unless expertly analysed, may lead to the wrong conclusions. So instead of making best use of these blessed fixtures of the medium, we meander our focus, point our fingers and lose sight of the key objectives behind the campaign, focusing instead on irrelevant numbers. This I would bet, any marketer has been guilty of at least once in the past.

Just at a glance, glean at a snapshot of the kind of information available for an online campaign (from a measurement standpoint):


• Real time testing

• Instant response/feedback

• Ongoing optimization for maximum Return on Investment (ROI)

• Full measurability in terms of ad exposure, response, gross/net reach

• Ease of trackability with full attribution of sales to media owners

• Ability to measure consumer behavior and to deliver messages accordingly

• Monitoring final acquisitions including aborted ones

• Actionable learnings to secure far exceeding results for future

Internet responds quickly and provides real time insights faster than any other medium and coupled with its cost effectiveness (as low as $1 for reaching a thousand demographically targeted eyeballs), in this sense it gives us a distinct edge moving to a more accountable future.

Naturally, we should be buoyant by the potential of such data that can powerfully influence the outcome of any campaign, yet despite this situation we often find ourselves in a predicament by having to go back to explain the implications of online initiatives beyond the click throughs. And why not, as according to several studies by Double Click (Digital Advertising Solutions provider), online advertising campaigns have effects that are beyond simpler direct response measurement.

Coming back to the initial point, if digital media is much more measurable and accountable compared to traditional media, simple theory would dictate that the percentage of budget given to digital media should thus increase. Of course this is a simplified theory and many other factors must be accounted for, but the simple reality is, that marketers continue to give small percentage of the budget to digital, scrutinize its metrics whilst turning around and spending (often) needlessly in ATL media without any recognition of results or little indications of response. How many people actually physically saw the double-page spread ad we inserted in the monthly magazine? How many people who viewed the TV spot on channel X, actually called the toll free number to request an intro pack? Of course very few marketers can answer that, and who can blame them? The technology doesn't easily allow for such measurability.

So what is needed here? The first step is that we must still maintain our responsibility in educating traditional marketers on how to positively utilize digital campaign metrics. Continuously steer them clear of just a few core metrics like the click through rate for instance. Often, online advertising is cornered for falling click through rates, a highly misleading metric.

We have a fantastic example of a client, who we can easily term as a fairly matured online advertiser, yet often we find them focusing too much on the click through rates.

The problem with this is that we miss the point of advertising. Several studies by Atlas DMT (provider for accountable marketing tools and expertise for online industry) have shown there is little correlation between clicks and sales conversion rates. Those studies also provide definitive evidence that online advertising works be it as a standalone or support medium and that conversions not necessarily following clicks represent notable value to the marketers. The Internet works like any other medium, it increases awareness and purchase intent afterall.

Finally, we must find more common platforms for cross-media comparison so that we compare apples-to-apples, so to speak. How do the CPMs for Internet compare with the CPMs for newspapers? How impacting is internet advertising compared to Television advertising? This will no doubt aid both digital and ATL media to reflect and improve on more common ground. But of course having said all that, how can I forget, we are still in the teething stages. No market in the world has adopted digital media overnight and although we have a long way to go, we can take comfort in the fact that even the US market (the most mature digital market) still grew digital advertising by a whopping 28% from last year.