Thanks for your comment and I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve actually written about the frequency thing before and plan to write more about it. It’s an absurd situation: TV planners understand frequency but can do very little about it. Digital Planners can control frequency with great precision but have no idea how much they need for different tasks.

Thanks again for your comment. I hope to see you here again soon.

- Greg

Thanks for your very well thought-out article. As a media planner this very topic has been a thorn in my side for quite some time. I agree that GRP’s aren’t necessarily the holy grail for measurement across all media channels. It works for broadcast (at least we hope) because dozens upon dozens of studies have been done for several decades to determine optimal weight levels and balance between reach/frequency.

That said, although a standard metric may not be necessary for online I do echo a previous poster’s comments about the need for understanding optimal frequency. In the absence of quantitative targets (clicks, conversions, etc.) to work back from the allocation of impressions can be somewhat arbitrary without an idea of what it will take to achieve cut-through and recall against a given target group or geo-market. Bodies such as the IAB suggest a frequency of 6-7 for every 2 months, but even then I felt that was more a gut feel than a standard supported by empirical evidence. A symptom of a young medium I suppose.

Interested in your thoughts.

Jason

In this way, there really isn’t much difference between online and offline. For broadcast, GRP is specific for target group (as are CPP). It doesn’t make much sense to talk about GRP’s in the abstract. Everybody is just used to converting (and even the conversion is somewhat standard, everybody pretty much knows where affinities are at).

There isn’t much difference with impressions (which are the same as GRP’s except they aren’t normalized for population). They can be converted into whatever you want them to be.

- Greg

I’m on of those who at least wished for a standardized metric. Coming from the broadcast generation, a standardized metric feels familiar and would translate well to most companies’ marketing schemes already in place. Breaking the paradigm of $X available in a broadcast budget is easier if there is a digital equivalent by which to measure. The alternative is creating a new niche. While that’s appropriate from the perspective of measurement and method, it’s a harder sell to a company that’s set in its ways. In a time of shrinking budgets and desperate expectations, that’s a tough sell.

On the other hand, as you point out, it does create opportunity for those seeking to break out of the existing mold. And we can all hope that percentage of the business is on the rise.

John

No. It’s quite ironic. TV planners know a lot about effective frequency but can’t do much about it. Online planners know very little, but can control it absolutely (and I’m talking about major agencies here, the ones who should really know better).

The “new media” advocates would do much better to try to solve the problems that traditional media does have instead of inventing ones that they wish it did (i.e. lack of results or advertiser support).

- Greg

Interesting thoughts throughout your article on a single metric. To take a slight side road you mentioned, have you seen ANY information on the effective frequency for online audiences? I’m sure this would be different based on industry and other variables but I’d like to hear your thoughts about effective frequency.

Thanks. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that digital media won’t be able to help marketers streamline their own internal metrics, just that they will continue to do so outside of any industry standard.

- Greg

Greg, your comments that many are looking for different things from their media plans (reach, awareness, conversion, response, etc) is true. But that has always been the case (for the almost 40 yrs I have been in the business) and is why the client must integrate a response mechanism into the ad message (coupon, URL, phone #, ?). With the response as your guide, and channel by channel readings (TV vs Online vs Print) a smart planner (or computer program) can act as a gyroscope that is constantly adjusting and tweaking the plan and it’s elements to maximize ROI (by whatever measure).

The Direct Response community has been doing this very effectively for years.

The traditional ad agencies lost touch with this technique years ago when the creatives eliminated a lot of measures of success from ads because they believed they detracted from the aesthetic of the ad. Art won out over science.

Anyway, to us geeky media guys, the idea of a common metric is right up there with the quest for a unifying theory in physics!!!!!

Will enjoy re reading the article and trying to craft another response.

Great thought starters in your writing!!!!!!!

Yes, there are people who think that and they propose some crazy schemes.

Why? Mostly, they seem to think that it will help them market online media. Their time would be much better spent learning how media actually works instead of expecting everybody else to come around to their way of thinking.

- Greg

Just wanted to ask who are that people who “believe that it is important to develop a standard audience metric for the internet”? why they need that?