Comparisons of different video channels are commonplace on social media. Whether based on \u2018Reach\u2019, \u2018Attention\u2019 or \u2018Cost-per-Thousand\u2019, they aim to satisfy a need for a ranking. They\u2019re the listicles of the media world, and about as informative. As one commenter had it: \u2019Why are we comparing shoelaces to trees?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have become so obsessed with numbers that we\u2019ve forgotten how to ask questions. We\u2019ve misplaced our critical judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Imagine yourself as a CMO. In amongst a thousand other things to do that morning you need to make a decision on whether to greenlight an ad. Will it work? Do I like it enough to defend it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some are quite comfortable making a call based on informed judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Imagine being the Sony CMO explaining this Bravia ad of 2005<\/a> to his colleagues. \u2018We\u2019re going to take 250,000 coloured balls to the top of a hill in San Francisco and drop them. We\u2019ll film what happens in one take. It will make us famous.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t know how much data the agency, Fallon, had to justify their idea, but I would be prepared to bet that this was a judgement call. A brave and ultimately successful one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgement plus data. The data says \u2026 the data shows \u2026 surveys indicate. A balance between indicative facts and judgement \u2013 ranging from 100% one way to 100% the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Data is safe; data is inanimate, unquestionable, unemotional, secure. Data can be a killer of bold ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is an irony here. We think of data as a rock; solid, reliable. In fact, despite appearances, the rock is often made of polystyrene. It would be foolish to rely on it without asking the simple questions, like: \u2018Is this actually a rock?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n To over-simplify, we make the mistake of assuming the same word used by different people in the same context means the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take the word \u2018see\u2019<\/strong>. How many see<\/strong> at least one ad within a campaign. Usually expressed as \u2018reach\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does \u2018see\u2019<\/strong> mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, BARB all define \u2018see\u2019<\/strong> differently. In some, the seeing starts from the moment the user clicks \u2018play\u2019 regardless of how much is \u2018played\u2019. So, in theory you can be said to have seen something you haven\u2019t in any sense \u2018seen\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Others apply a minimum of 3 minutes to the service within which the ad appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are different things. What you thought of as a solid, definable verb has become a debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What about the absolute number said to have an \u2018opportunity to see\u2019 something via a channel\u2019s reach?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2017 FB claimed the channel\u2019s ad tool could reach 41 million Americans aged 18-24. At the time, the US Census had the population of 18-24s at 31 million. Similar discrepancies occurred in other markets too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Facebook were claiming to reach more people than existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what? \u2018seeing\u2019<\/strong> an ad in print or on OOH was always defined differently to \u2018seeing\u2019<\/strong> an ad on TV, but the examples above are all for an ad playing out on a screen. Why are they different?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Definitions do matter \u2013 and not just to us geeks. We should be confident in the comparisons we make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe the best audience measurement experts meeting this week at the asi event in Venice<\/a> could advise? Isn\u2019t this rather fundamental? I mean, if we can\u2019t even agree what \u2018see\u2019 means\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n