If I had to name the TV industry’s current conversation about measurement after a movie, I would call it “Everything Everywhere All At Once.” (Great movie, by the way.)
Now that short-form video giant YouTube is entering the TV measurement debacle, fresh debate is afoot.
Last week, a band of TV broadcasters finally agreed on a bare minimum for what currencies need to have in order to be called a currency. Days later, YouTube took its own stab at measurement standards, and traditional networks didn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval. Meanwhile, Paramount published some advice on how to use new currencies.
Sounds like a bunch of hullabaloo, but it’s in the spirit of standardization. And what better time to get serious than with the upfronts right around the corner?
Laying the groundwork
The joint industry committee’s (JIC) first go at currency standards is meant to lay down the basics for how to transact on new or old currencies.
Right off the bat, currencies should be using impression-based measurement. They also need to provide full transparency into their match rates and how they dedupe audiences.
And, according to the JIC, currencies need to do more than just use big, nationally representative data sets: They should also be limiting their use of panels. If currencies make campaign projections with panels “representing less than 10% of the universe” (cough, Nielsen), they need to disclose that fact.
You might be thinking, uh, 10% of all TV viewers in the entire world is pretty freaking ginormous. Well, much to the point – panels are out, impressions are in.
To the boob tube
But the way YouTube wants to measure impressions is certainly not impressing traditional broadcasters.
YouTube’s measurement pitch says TV impressions should be counted based on the Media Rating Council’s (MRC) viewability standards, which is, erm … two seconds.
Sure, that standard is for video ads, but the MRC is talking about video display ads on web or mobile browsers, not the screen in the living room.
This requirement also has hardly any bearing on TV ad verification. TV’s viewability problem comes from ads that play to an empty room or a turned-off TV, not from how long an on-screen ad stays in view.
Technicalities aside, broadcasters are ticked off because if YouTube’s definition wins, the platform will be able to suck up more connected TV market share by making brief and ineffective ad views on YouTube count as top-dollar impressions.
And broadcasters disagree with YouTube on more than just how to count impressions. YouTube isn’t ready to support currencies outside of Nielsen, and TV networks refuse to consider user-generated content as premium video. (I mean, they certainly don’t miss any opportunities to snark on cat videos as “premium” content.)
Let’s get started
Speaking of alt currencies, though, Paramount is at least trying to offer the industry some direction on how to use them while measurement standards are up in the air.
Paramount’s template suggests that publishers and agencies should fully evaluate currencies for audience representation in their data, and publishers should also verify whether new currencies show viewership on par with publishers’ expectations for their own channels.
Plus, at least for now, data scientists on both sides need to deal with demo-based and advanced audience data a bit differently.
Just like the JIC, Paramount considers its initial pass to be just the basics. And yet, the TV industry has been hashing out the basics of TV measurement for literal years now.
So, why is measurement standardization taking so dang long?
It’s really challenging to get new currencies working together because both sellers and buyers must invest in the right infrastructure, Amy Leifer, chief advertising sales officer at DirecTV, told me earlier this week.
And investment is picking up from both sides. But it’ll still be a while before non-Nielsen measurement becomes the norm for TV and video ad buying.
What I’m wondering is: How much will advertisers actually transact using alt currencies during the 2023 upfronts?
Let me know what you think. Hit me up at alyssa@adexchanger.com.
