Author Archives: mrviewthrough

Common Sense Digital Ad Measurement

Been too long since the last post but hopefully more to come!

Digital analytics and ad fraud expert Augustine Fou provides an overview of why and how to start upping your digital advertising. Especially handy is the approach to getting started with simple on/off tests in different markets.

Getting Started is Better than Not

Not perfect but excellent training wheels for harried digital marketers in need of a starting point for an experimental design approach.

See: Context, Correlation, Coincidence, Causation; and plan to spend time on the considerable wealth of articles on the Fou Analytics Practitioners blog.

3rd Party Tracking Weakening, Viewthough Impacted

A recent Webinar by Flashtalking, an ad serving/attribution technology company brought up the digital media analytics elephant in the room: 3rd party cookie tracking by display ad servers is unreliable and providing poor measurement to advertisers and their agencies.

The slow and steady decay of cookies is nothing new (Digilant 2012 Cookie Deletion Study), but seeing actual numbers that impact specific metrics is troubling. For digital advertising analytics the quantifiable impact on digital advertising campaigns is severely compromised for several key metrics.

Ad server metrics like reach, frequency and viewthrough conversions are way off!

Given the focus of Viewthrough.org, it is worth specifically focusing on the relevant findings of Flashtalking’s recent Cookie Rejection Index research that was shared during the Webinar.

By testing legacy and their proprietary methods together in the same campaign, Flashtalking is able to observe a strictly 3rd party cookie-based count and a machine fingerprinting (plus cookie) count, compare them and then determine and report on actual 3rd party cookie measurement efficacy. Discerning digital marketers need to check for themselves and benchmark their current tech stack’s accuracy.

The typical Viewthrough Conversion Process

For the regular research study, Flashtalking analyzes 25 of their client’s brands, Flashtalking analyzes tracking simultaneously using both cookies and their proprietary machine fingerprinting methodology called the ftrack ID, which probablistically establishes digital identity on a given device. Not perfect but a major step forward and better than legacy ad serving methods.

Machine Fingerprinting 101

Before diving into the affected metrics, a quick primer on machine fingerprinting will be helpful. This alternative method of digital identification arose because of the problems with cookies which require a Web server to place them via browser on a user’s machine and then to retrieve them. Better analytics solutions and ad networks have been using this method for years. Unlike cookies, machine fingerprinting tracking cannot be rejected, blocked or deleted. However, they are not as precise hence the term probablistic (likely).

For those unfamiliar with this passive method of tracking, visit and test a Web browser on Panopticlick from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Machine fingerprinting relies on the unique combination of browser characteristics, e.g. plug-ins and extensions that are shared with the Web server being accessed. Nothing new there.

Recent Web browser test results showing a sample of the fairly unique combination of traits that enable probalistic identification

Unreliable Ad Server and Attribution Metrics

The fact is that legacy ad servers, certain analytics and multi-touch attribution platforms that have not dealt with this problem are providing junk metrics. None of them are providing any transparency on how bad their count really is or trend data. As a result most digital marketers are blissfully unaware.

Unreliable and unstable 3rd Party Tracking Cookie impacts ad servers, analytics, attribution platforms, ad networks and more.

On the flip-side, many ad networks have solved for this problem as it immediately impacted their bottom-line. Worse campaign optimization on their side leads to worse advertiser results. That said, rarely is it mentioned or internal research about it shared with digital advertiser clients or their agencies. Most are usually only concerned with results and don’t ask questions.

For their part, Flashtalking’s research is revealing just how bad it is and found the following ad metrics seriously compromised:

  • Conversions are understated by an average of 40% (this includes viewthrough conversions and by extension viewthrough visits)
  • Reach is overstated by 97% meaning that ad server reporting are exaggerates
  • Frequency is understated by 41% meaning that ad server reporting misses more than half the repeat impressions
If digital Reach/Frequency matter…better look elsewhere for accurate metrics.

The above figures include desktop, mobile and tablet device types. Flashtalking also provided additional reporting that compares desktop to mobile showing the true story. Ad server performance for mobile platform metrics is significantly worse:

  • Conversions understatement from 11% to 79%, about 7x worse for mobile
  • Reach overstatement from 26% to 128%, about 5x worse for mobile
  • Frequency understatement from 20% to 50%, about 2.5x worse for mobile

The impact of the above should be a cause for concern for digital marketers seeking to understand display’s passive branding effects, multi-touch attribution and even ad viewability. Considering that many digital advertisers are not incrementality testing or calibrating viewthrough measurement the metrics from ad servers are almost worthless.

Learn more about Big G’s solution to this problem at Tip of the Spear Blog.

Hello world!

Dawn Over Lake Michigan

Greetings all, it has been a while since the last post and even longer since Google Analytics tracking was removed and replaced by Matomo.

The good news is that Viewthrough.org has now joined its sister site, The Tip of the Spear Blog, and is now published on WordPress…sayonara, adios and ciao Big G and Blogger.com.

More to follow including a new post about Viewthrough and Safari ITP!

Ban the Banner?

Interesting article on AdExchanger, “The Rise Of Addressable Video And Banner-Ad Bans.” Seems to be the latest in an attempt to kill off banner advertising. Generally, a bad idea and kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

http://adexchanger.com/tv-and-video/rise-addressable-video-banner-ad-bans

Display ad media (banners) are notoriously hard to measure especially if your strategy is an upper funnel one where clicks do not make sense as a KPI. Most banner ads seem to be about awareness or engagement in spite of that. Digital marketers should stick with proven ad research methods, e.g. brand lift studies or dig deeper into analytics using passive brand impact measurement like viewthrough. And of course there is always algorithmic attribution that can help.

A bigger threat to display media’s viability is ad blocking, which prevents display ads and any associated tracking tags from being served up. Yes, that means no potential for viewthrough (or clickthrough) if there are no ads presented to the user.

In addition to the reduced page clutter (what most people seem to want), ad blockers are also a good way to speed up your Web browsing experience. Unfortunately, too many publishers do not use advanced tag management to reduce the strain put on browsers when 25-50-100 3rd party cookies and tags fire in the browser.

http://www.iab.com/insights/ad-blocking/

According to eMarketer this is going to be a 25% de facto tax on publisher audiences. Some are however, asking users to shut off their ad blockers when visiting their site. Here is the official word from the IAB on ad blocking.

What’s the difference between viewthrough and viewability?



In case you haven’t noticed, digital marketing performance is more important than ever. With advertiser’s increasing need for accountability and measurement tools evolving to meet that need, there is major and growing interest in associated ad analytics or adverlytics. More specifically, display viewability measurement and attribution are hot topics. Yet, before the explosion in ad viewability technologies and an enthusiastic trade group response to standardize (IAB, MRC), viewthrough remains complicated and mysterious.

Even among experienced digital marketers, agencies and analytics professionals, there is often confusion around these terms with many people using the terms wrong or inter-changeably. They each describe important steps in the digital advertising funnel with viewability an important first step towards measuring exposure and viewthrough gauging post-exposure latent response. It makes a lot of sense to use these tracking methods together.
Viewthrough Defined
Display viewthrough measurement has been around since the late 90s and the advent of agency or
3rd party ad serving (3PAS). That means an advertiser’s digital media agency centrally manages the serving of their display ad campaign across multiple Web sites and/or ad networks. Typical tools used for this purpose include Sizmek, Pointroll, Google DoubleClick and Atlas. The beauty of this approach is having one report that consolidates one or multiple campaign performance metrics across multiple media vendors. The advertiser-centric approach and even allows for performance analysis by placement, ad size or creative treatment across media vendors. Prior to this, agencies had to collect the reports from each media vendor and doing cross-dimension analysis required advanced Excel manipulation. Included in the consolidated report was usually impressions, clicks, media cost a calculated click rate and effective CPM (cost per thousand). Potentially average frequency of ad delivery could also be reported.

How Viewthrough Works
As a more advanced option, the ad server could generate a special beacon tag which could be coded on an important digital event on the client’s Web site, e.g. a visit to the home page, playing a game, initiating a particular download and most obviously the rendering of an order thank you page. The latter being a revenue-generating conversion. The way it works is simple enough: the ad server site code that is placed is page-specific and named in a certain way with a certain ID. When that beacon tag fires, the ad server increments the count for that specific ad. The ad server uses clicker cookies to distinguish between clickthrough conversions and viewthrough conversions by the presence of a click cookie that is served to the browser if they click an ad. Generally, a viewthrough can be simply a visit to the target site or it can be an actual ecommerce conversion.
Fig 1. Viewthrough Process
In practice this meant that digital advertisers were no longer limited to the more direct-response oriented clickthrough rate for measuring display campaign performance. With viewthrough they could also analyze the passive impact of display which is more difficult to measure since it is not immediate and is harder to measure than clickthroughs which use appended query string parameters in the landing page clickthrough URL. That said, viewthrough measurement from the ad server is not enough as unscrupulous ad networks learned to do what is called cookie-stuffing to take advantage of affiliate advertising systems.
Site Analytics Technology Matters
Going beyond simplistic, ad server viewthrough measurement is not easy for digital marketers and technology choices matter. The complexities of generating and managing ad server site tags has also made ubiquitous measurement operationally difficult. What’s more ad server counting of viewthrough was an afterthought. The solution to better viewthrough measurement is ingesting ad server data into the site analytics system where site taxonomy, visitor uniqueness, multiple marketing channels and event level tracking infrastructure already exists. Another option are the better algorithmic attribution systems; a couple even integrate display viewability into their solution (ideal).
The reality is that there is are a few site analytics platforms that integrate with the ad servers in the market today. All are not created equal, not independent of media and there are significant differences in the methodologies. The integrations can be complex but well worth it for advertisers spending more than $10MM per year in display media. However, the learnings are significant when it comes to understanding customer’s digital path to the target Web sites and the latent effects of display ads (banner/video/mobile). 
Last, a word of caution: the best way to really understand display media from a viewthrough standpoint is through periodic incrementality analysis, i.e. test and control.
Viewability Defined
Display viewability is a newer capability for digital marketers that has really caught on over the last five years. Essentially, display viewability leverages Web technology that can determine how much of an ad is “in view” of the user’s browser window and for how long. While there is some additional complexity involved, simply put this offers a way for digital advertisers to really understand the quality of the ad inventory that they are buying from Web publishers and ad networks.
Fig 2. Viewability Process
Industry Reaction to Measuring Ad Viewability
Not surprisingly, ad viewability has met with resistance from publishers and even media agencies though it is of obvious interest to advertisers. By better managing viewability, advertisers can ensure they maximize the value of their display spend in terms of both raising awareness and driving a measureable response (clickthrough, viewthrough, engagement, conversions). Unlike viewthrough which languished for years as somewhat of a stepchild metric, The Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the Media Ratings Council (MRC) stepped in early on viewability to create some early standards: 50% or more of an ad for at least 1 second. Advertisers can certainly raise the bar here but there is at least a baseline.
Ad viewability is fairly easy to implement on a display campaign but can often be challenging to operationally integrate into media performance reporting. As a best practice, having an independent analytics team pilot test and benchmark current performance will help gauge how much upside potential there might be.
Rising Tide Lifts All Ships
It stands to reason that you cannot have a clickthrough without an ad first being viewable. If an advertiser were to increase their ad viewability rate from 50% to 75% that would likely mean the number of clicks and therefore clickthrough rate should increase. Similarly, you cannot have legitimate viewthrough without an ad first being viewable. Increasing ad viewability rates should also benefit viewthrough rates as well.

  • Viewthrough – It’s all about response measurement. Advertisers ultimately should be very keen on measuring viewthrough from display media if they are interested in Web site engagement and even more so if an online conversion is possible (offline measurement is also possible).
  • Viewability– Think front-end of the advertising process, i.e. the inputs. The focus is on doing what branding has always sought to do through media campaigns: create an impression, influence behavior or change preferences.

As you can see, while they are certainly related viewthrough and viewability are very different. Measuring and optimizing viewability should be a self-evident way to improve those front-end metrics that will likely also boosts downstream ones. Viewability and viewthrough can and should work together.

IAB Recognizes Viewthrough

Interactive Advertising Bureau -- Dedicated to the growth of interactive advertising 

From their annual meeting in Pam Springs, CA, the Internet Advertising Bureau published its Defining Cross-Platform Engagement White Paper. While there are plenty of interesting metrics to be found, we’re excited to see a short and sweet definition of viewthrough. Positioned as one of the three categories, Display Viewthrough is included among behavioral metrics.

Definition: Number of Brand site visits that could have been influenced by display media within a particular look-back window.
Measureable Today: Yes, Web Analytics

While this is a small victory for the cause of viewthrough measurement, there is plenty more to do to get the word out about VT. We’d like to advise the IAB that the prior metric included in this section of their study, “Video Completion Viewthrough Rate” ought to get a different name – perhaps “Play-through?” It is bad enough that Viewthrough and Viewability,  are routinely confused but this could actually obfuscate the different kinds of post-impression behavior, e.g. VT Visits, VT Conversions, etc…Also, the following metric listed, “Searched for More Information” could also use a better name – Viewthrough Site Search?

Other considerations:

  • VT does not have to be at a branded site although this is most likely, e.g. related microsites
  • Any high-value task that can be measured in a Web analytics platform could have a VT source
  • Look-back windows are usually set by the ad server not Web analytics systems
  • Like the “could have been influenced” but no mention of how to understand incrementality

Scroll down to Page 10 of the Defining Cross-Platform Engagement White Paper, to read it for yourself.

DAA Chicago Symposium 2013

Connecting the Dots: Optimizing the Customer Experience in an Omnichannel World

Tuesday, September 17, 2013
10:30 – 12:00pm Student & Entry Level Primer
12:00 – 1:00pm Registration, Networking & Exhibit Browsing
1:00 – 5:30pm Symposium
5:30 – 7:00pm Cocktails & Reception

The Mid-America Club
200 E Randolph Drive, 80th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601

http://www.digitalanalyticsassociation.org/symposium2013-chicago