The Measurement Caddies

16 February 2026

An old golf joke. A wealthy tourist is playing one of the iconic Scottish courses, accompanied by an ancient caddy. The golfer hits a truly awful shot. Silence from the caddy. ‘Funny old game, golf’ says the player. ‘Aye, but it’s not meant to be’ comes the caddy’s reply.

I started my career in audience measurement. The top audience researchers were, still are (to coin a phrase) serious people. Professional, thorough, happier in the background.

It was (is) a community of experts, the media industry’s caddies. They knew and understood the game. The sales guys played the shots and took the glory; the measurement guys kept their council, maybe lifting the odd eyebrow.

They believed that the industry should come together, agree on the highest measurement standards and apply them. Set up processes to keep the whole thing under technical review and make improvements as required.

These principles were the foundation pillars of the JIC system. Questioning them was out of the question.

All of which is background to a number of the dilemmas we face today.

First, today’s biggest players don’t care about the rules. Question the principles, change the language, keep the data hidden. Do what’s best for them regardless of any higher good. Move fast and break things, as Facebook had it.

Second, without the largest players the JICs can no longer set industry-wide rules. The new players not only aren’t a part of the game; they aren’t interested in being on the pitch.

Third, analytic techniques have advanced to great effect assessing what works. Audience measurement is a means to an end, not the end itself. The time for inward looking micro-debates and discussions is past.

But: there is merit in agreeing on the fundamentals.

Take definitions. If we can’t agree what the words ‘viewer’, ‘impression’, and ‘reach’ mean, and we can’t, any debate involving more than one media form becomes by definition fallacious. It’s not so much comparing apples and oranges, as failing to agree that both are fruits.

The what-things-mean debate of a few years back has been towed off-road where it remains parked in a layby. Eventually it will be towed away and scrapped.

The ‘definitions’ game moves on – to the square marked ‘outcomes’.

Why does it matter what Facebook (insert your favourite platform here) decrees as ‘an outcome’? Facebook carries ads; Facebook considers all ads on Facebook as successful.

That’s the word from above – now, off you go to prove it.

If only it were that simple. Advertisers of all shapes and sizes spend money to achieve something. What exactly is rooted in their individual businesses. It may be sales, improvements to margin, reputational gains, or influence over Government policy. Or any combination of these and other things

Whatever the goal, it’s a laudable aim to assess which elements of spend have contributed what.

Media life is complicated, whatever the platforms (or Sir Martin Sorrell) tell us. To pretend, post launch, that comms life starts from the moment you place an ad on any channel is silly.

There will be years-worth of advertising (and other commercial activities) on multiple channels to consider.

There are largely non-measured, non-advertising channels like shopfronts, promotions, call-centres, online reviews, influencers.

Done well everything works together. Each element adds something; done badly, with no synergies wastes money.

To make sense of everything you need a way to tease apart the inputs and the outputs. You need models, advanced analytics, skilled interpretation. You need a way to quantify the unquantified.

Models are only as good as what goes into them; including a measure of who has been exposed to the message, and in what numbers.

If audience measures are compromised the model is less reliable.

Houses are more likely to survive the storm if they’re built with the best bricks. Compromise on the bricks and you’ll pay a lot more when you come to rebuild the house.

All of which is a long-winded way of coming to five conclusions and one ambition.

• Validated audience numbers are important not just as a trading currency but also as an accurate input to the assessment of effect.
• Including unvalidated numbers in models can lead to misleading conclusions. Always question the composition of the bricks.
• Measuring ‘outcomes’ is desirable as long as the measurement is comprehensive, inclusive and independent.
• Believing unexplained cod data presented by the vendor as an extensive analysis of effect is for the birds.
• Stirring the mud using one word, ‘outcomes’, to mean two different things only helps the person wielding the biggest stick.

We need a centre for learning; to which all expertise contributes. Lessons learned can be aggregated and the aggregation made available for the good of all. Individual advertisers can contribute elements from their own bespoke work to add to the sum of knowledge.

This is one part of the ambition for the next stage of Advertising: Who Cares? Join us to help.