I was on an OMMA panel recently debating the relative merits of using an online GRP (gross rating point) for digital video. I think they let me on these things because they know I’ll usually end up articulating the minority dissent, (For the record, I’m not a fan of the digital GRP notion).
If I’m reading the press correctly — Nielsen and TubeMogul have introduced a GRP model that normalizes TV and online video GRPs such that they could theoretically be treated as additive, enabling “apples-to-apples comparisons with television.”
Mistaken identity.
Not so fast. To do this, one would have to establish that Audience A (TV/broadcast) and Audience B (online/digital) are the same. The simplest thing to do would be to combine the available online audience with the available TV audience within a fixed period of time and calculate reach and frequency off that.
I’m assuming that Nielsen wouldn’t tamper with the definition of the broadcast GRP, so that means in order to do this normalization, online-only audiences would have to be discarded. This means that the combined video GRP is most likely a measure of people who are exposed only to TV or to both TV and online video in a fixed timeframe. This implies two things:
• That some portion (possibly a very large one) of the digital audience is not represented in this delivery metric.
• That the measured digital audience is only adding frequency to the calculation, not reach.
Smells like disenfranchisement.
Suddenly, I’m really concerned that I’m in the minority opinion on this issue, because this is starting to smell like a conspiracy to disenfranchise digital media agencies.
For years, digital video providers have been pushing to standardize online video metrics against the broadcast standard to appeal to broadcast planners and buyers. The rationale is that the more digital video looks and smells like regular broadcast, the more likely it is that digital video will capture a portion of the billions of broadcast dollars in play.
If things play out this way, then pure digital media budgets are likely to shrink as the funds earmarked for video in a given digital plan are siphoned back into the broadcast budgets. The digital shops will lose the responsibility for planning with properties like Hulu, YuMe, perhaps even YouTube. This also sets the stage for Pandora, Spotify and other digital audio channels to fall back into the broadcast planning fold as well.
It’s time for someone to call BS on this.
Priority one: Tear down the GRP myth.
Since no one has really stepped up, I’ll go first: I say that priority one is to tear down the myth of the GRP.
GRPs are not units of efficacy; that is to say, they are not unto themselves advertising success metrics. The goal of an advertising campaign is usually to change a behavior or perception: to get an audience to buy or think or feel. A GRP doesn’t ladder directly to any of those things and isn’t even a reasonable proxy for them.
A GRP is a unit of weight, an average percentage of available eyeballs that a property within a given channel has or can deliver. It’s the same thing as saying “ounce”. Only in media terms, it’s “ounces of eyeballs.”
Here’s the problem: Are 10 ounces of eyeballs seeing your commercial on 50” flat screens in the comfort of their living rooms the same as 10 ounces of eyeballs seeing it on their mobile phones on a crowded train? The answer is that there isn’t enough information to say one way or the other and the only conclusion is that it’s 20 ounces of eyeballs. If I’m an advertiser, my reaction is, “Well, that doesn’t tell me anything.” Exactly. We need to be talking about outcomes and objectives. Anything else is an endorsement of a lazy and indolent status quo, where volume remains a woefully under-disguised stand-in for efficacy.
Go ahead, laugh. It’s not as ridiculous as it sounds. It’s certainly no more ridiculous than people calling themselves social media gurus.
No one can claim that title yet. Social is still too new of a proving ground to have any discernable best practices. What’s more, it almost evolves too rapidly to establish any.
So what does this have to do with a 900-year-old, two-foot-something Jedi master with a debatable grasp of English? Everything. Yoda’s mantras share the same common truths as the success brands are looking for from social media.
“Size matters not”
Every time I hear a client set Facebook “Like” goals, I die a little inside. Simply put, if you want a million friends, give away a million dollars. You’ll hit that number in a week. And your engagement needle won’t move.
We’re programmed to think bigger is better. But you have to ask yourself, what’s more powerful, an army of people who could care less about your brand or a crack squad of brand evangelists who will preach your good word to the masses?
“You must unlearn everything that you’ve learned”
As marketers, we’re taught to “craft and control” the brand image. We’re also taught that media is something purchased, like a hunting license on a private preserve stocked with our preferred prey. With social media, you can toss all that out the window.
First off, the second you enter the social realm, you are not in control of your brand. Swallow your pride and move on. In fact — in true democratic fashion — the more you turn control of your brand over to the people, the more successful you will be.
Secondly, you must remember your guest status in the conversation. You have to earn your right to be there. And uninvited guests are only welcomed when they are incredibly charming.
“Impossible to see the future is”
For years, marketers have talked about the “conversation” we’re having with consumers. Before social media, that was largely a lie.
With social media, you’re having a real-time, two-way conversation with consumers. And just like a regular conversation you’d have with a friend, it’s impossible to plan out what you’re going to be saying five minutes from now because it’s impossible to know where the conversation will go.
So as much as you want to plan out every post six months in advance so you can be positioned for a dynamic Q4, don’t bother. If you still want to be talking to people in Q4, follow the conversation closely and always have something interesting to say.
“A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and events, not for attack”
All marketers salivate over the engagement numbers in social media. Converting even a fraction it to sales translates into big-time money with an insane ROI. But here’s the bad news: social media is a listening device, not a direct sales tool.
In fact, social may be the best listening device ever created. If you’re willing to listen, you’ll never again wonder what your customer is thinking. Even better, your brand has the chance to respond to those thoughts with a human voice. That’s how brands become timeless.
“Do or do not, there is no try”
Obvious as it may seem, Yoda’s most memorable line seems to be the one brands most often forget. They seem to think that throwing up a profile is social media’s silver bullet. I blame that on the fact that social media appears free and sometimes effortless. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The most successful brands in social media either invest lots of time or pay lots of money for their success. Either way, they go all in.
More importantly, they realize that what drives any conversation is an idea. From Old Spice to Small Business Saturday, a big idea beautifully executed across many platforms was what got people talking, sharing and bonding with the brand. Find yourself an idea true to your brand and bigger than even the grandest post or profile, and “Master social you will.”
I have password fatigue. I’m not alone.
I’m tired of creating passwords, then having to go through mental gymnastics to remember what password I created 6 months ago when I signed up for a new photo-sharing site I haven’t used since.
Writing them down doesn’t make sense. In fact, keeping them anywhere but in my head seems like a pretty bonehead move. I’ve yet to find a foolproof system. If you have one, lunch is on me.
New technologies, new ideas
New technologies and ideas have surfaced to help alleviate the password control problem. Facebook and Twitter have certainly made it easier for people to sign into multiple sites using their social credentials, albeit not without some risk. Microsoft Live, LastPass, 1Password, Open ID and others have all tried to deal with the passwords issue, with varying degrees of success.
Computer scientists in Brooklyn are training iPads to recognize owners by the touch of their fingers, and banks are using software that recognizes your voice, according to this New York Times story. The man leading the iPad project, Nasir Memon, a computer science professor at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University in Brooklyn, says passwords are indeed a digital scourge. “If you ask me what is the biggest nuisance today, I would say it’s the 40 different passwords I have to create and change.”
The government’s plan
The password security and privacy challenge has prompted the U.S. government to get in the mix. They’ve introduced a plan, the National Strategy on Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, that calls for a private sector-led Internet national ID of sorts that would get the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s seal of approval. No telling how much support this will get, but pilot programs are planned for 2012.
I appreciate the efforts at standardizing and simplifying credentials, but short of having a unique username/password combination I can use until the end of time — kind of a digital version of a social security number — I don’t really see the problem getting better until we turn to biometric measures like eye scanners, fingerprint/handprint readers or multi-level methods of access, which seem to be gaining favor. Count me in.
Strategies and pain points
I asked people at work about their password strategies and pain points. Their thoughts:
• I make unique passwords for every site using a formula based loosely on the purpose of the site.
• I use the same username/password with subtle variations and it drives me crazy because I can never remember them and can’t find where I wrote them down so I constantly have to reset them.
• If I forget a password, I simply use the “Forgot password?” link and set up a new one.
• I use made up words and pass phrases in my combinations. I also never write down my passwords digitally.
• I use the same root combo of letters and numbers over time, but sometimes switch the letters and numbers around across different accounts.
• Been using the same username/password since middle school. Not really worried about security. If someone wants it, karma will take care of them.
• I use the same root for all passwords and change up the last character. That way I can always figure out my password within 3–4 attempts.
• Sites that I only use once or twice a year that require me to create an account become more trouble than they’re worth. I wind up just creating a new account every time I go back.
• I don’t like sites and apps that ask me to sign up before I get a chance to interact with their platform. It’s a big deal to give someone my e-mail address. That’s why I have one designated for promotional material.
• I often will back out of registering for a site if it won’t let me use the username/password combination I want to use, like if it won’t allow a special character.
• I use a password collection app to store username/password combinations in case I forget them.
Why it matters
Why is the password issue important to marketers? Because forgotten passwords mean abandoned accounts and unrealized customers. Because lax login approaches can lead to security issues and fraud. Because consumers often avoid the commitment of a login/password relationship with your brand. Because the more digital we become in everything we do, the more privacy matters.
