Good Apple’s Hyun Lee-Miller will be speaking at AdExchanger’s Programmatic I/O conference September 23-24 in New York City. Click here to register.
The ad industry continues to grapple with inconsistent measurement and reporting, according to Hyun Lee-Miller, chief media officer at the independent media and measurement agency Good Apple.
This is not a new problem.
Perhaps the biggest issue, Lee-Miller said, is the data fragmentation caused by walled gardens that limit advertiser access to their own user-level data. (Cough, cough, Google and Meta.) Advertisers therefore find it very challenging to get a comprehensive view of their overall campaign effectiveness, she said, which they need in order to continue justifying their investments.
Luckily, Lee-Miller said, there are tactics buyers can use to add more consistency and predictability to their own campaign measurement.
Lee-Miller spoke with AdExchanger.
AdExchanger: What is the biggest pain point for advertisers in the absence of ad measurement standards?
HYUN LEE-MILLER: It’s difficult for advertisers to accurately compare campaign performance across channels.
The root of the problem is the fact that different digital ad platforms, including walled gardens, often use their own unique attribution and measurement models for reporting. That individualized approach creates a ton of inconsistencies that hinder a marketer’s ability to track and attribute conversions accurately.
The walled gardens especially are not generous with the amount of data they share, which is also why brands struggle to quantify the impact of their digital campaigns on in-store purchases.
Is this lack of detail behind the trend of many buyers revisiting MMM?
Yes, MMM is in vogue again. But that is also adding a bit more complexity to the state of digital attribution.
MMM works well for laying out which advertising channels have a strong long-term effect on consumer activity, which is why buyers use it to guide their channel mix. But reporting only comes back a couple of times a year, so it isn’t well-suited to real-time campaign optimization. It lags far behind the media metrics we get back from in-flight campaigns.
Buyers are using that information to optimize campaigns as best they can based on audiences, and then using MMM later on to inform any changes to the channel mix.
Buyers should have an idea of which leading metrics correspond with which lagging ones.
Can you share any examples of how brands are dealing with disparate reporting?
We advise brands to create a bespoke measurement framework based on the metrics they can expect now versus later, such as website activity or online conversions. These might be leading metrics for brands, versus offline sales and overall channel allocation, which are lagging metrics.
With this approach, brands can raise their total campaign effectiveness over time.
Where exactly does connected TV belong in the measurement conversation? Do you consider CTV as more of an upper-funnel channel or a performance marketing channel?
CTV isn’t the most efficient at driving return on investment, in part because it’s expensive. But CTV does help assist in driving conversions elsewhere because of its overall effect on brand awareness and purchase consideration.
That halo effect is why brands are still using CTV as an upper-funnel channel, for the most part, although they still benefit from the digital-style targeting that helps advertisers make sure they’re reaching the right people.
Since CTV helps assist other digital investments, we try to avoid evaluating and measuring CTV separately.
How are these measurement trends affecting the TV currency conversation?
Nielsen is still the standard currency. Most TV ads are still bought and sold on Nielsen numbers.
Newer video currencies are being tested more this year than last year because buyers are interested in more advanced audiences. But for now, newer currencies still make up a small percentage of total TV ad buys.
This interview has been lightly edited and condensed.
For more articles featuring Hyun Lee-Miller, click here.
