In a previous post<\/a> I\u2019ve noted the obsession around big numbers. This is a huge problem; and one that is not talked about anything like enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe issue is threefold. First, we are very comfortable with the notion that biggest is by definition best. It\u2019s finite, it\u2019s clean. Two million is better than one million. No judgement required. Case closed. Move on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondly, we are nervous about being backed into making a creative judgement. The most obvious use-case is an over-reliance on advertising research. It\u2019s there to guide not to decide. We\u2019re quick to abdicate responsibility to someone else \u2013 and if a decision on creative turns out to be wrong, well that\u2019s obviously the research company\u2019s fault, not mine for being indecisive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thirdly, there\u2019s a combination of the first two. We have an innate fear of numbers. They\u2019re boring; the detail is tedious. Far easier to take those nice salespeople at their word than to question how they arrived at their numbers, or to query any creative application of the data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s no room for \u2018soft\u2019 data, for understanding why or how people are exposed to advertising. All we need to know is how many were exposed. The rest is irrelevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How people use YouTube is simply different from how they use TV. Not better, not worse, just different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
TV is regulated; the content is professionally produced; the number of minutes given over to ads is limited; ads are showcased within their own pod. The audience is measured using a system approved by all interested parties. The data is available for full analysis. The audience data \u2018building blocks\u2019 are robust, solid, verifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can argue that you think the system used, be it BARB, Nielsen or whatever is arcane, old-fashioned, due for upgrade, not fit for purpose in today\u2019s world. You may be right, but the point is a different one \u2013 the methodology and the data produced are agreed collaboratively, all is available for analysis, everything is transparent. Any upgrade should stick to these basics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ads on YouTube, and on other platforms are placed, to be polite, at random. We\u2019ve all seen online ads that appear literally cutting in to (for example) an interviewer\u2019s sentence. They are interruptive in the worst possible way. They are placed by machine; no human would suggest anything so perfectly designed to be ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regardless, is the data verifiable; analysable? Nope. You can get data but only on the sellers\u2019 terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Does anyone recall in-platform video ads? Or do we all just want them over as soon as possible?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Surely how we consume media channels is an important consideration alongside how many consume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And that\u2019s the point. YouTube is great, so is TV. But they\u2019re different; we use them differently, our mood-states are (probably, I don\u2019t have data\u2026) different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I really don\u2019t care if YouTube adds a reach point or two \u2013 not least because the data are not comparable (although the likes of Origin will help).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Research is there to guide. It should always be questioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It may be inconvenient, even hard \u2013 but you, the trained professional, get to decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The right decision is to treat YouTube as YouTube, not as something it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I suppose this moment had to come eventually. This blog has steered away from the \u2018Is YouTube TV or not\u2019 debate on the basis that to me it makes as much sense as arguing whether or not a direct mail piece for my local pizza place is a newspaper, given that both are printed on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1920"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1920"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1920\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1922,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1920\/revisions\/1922"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}