IAB Recognizes Viewthrough

 

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.

In Support of IAB

While we don't always agree with IAB when it comes to viewthrough, a recent post on AdExchanger deserved support: IAB Vs Mozilla: Randall Rothenberg Takes The Gloves Off

The Viewthrough Measurement Consortium supports the IAB's position. The idea of a centralized cookie clearinghouse run by people with anti-business agenda is suspect. When Mozilla forces users out by default, that smacks of paternalism if not Bolshevism. The natural quid pro quo between a publisher and their online audience is being hi-jacked as a result of these maneuvers. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to privacy is likely the Feds who have effectively unlimited resources and can use force to compel behavior. Free people have a choice.

The question for the consumer (as always) is what's in it for me? Today the choice is free content or free content (no ads/tracking). Some will choose the latter. Right now, consumers of ad-supported content really don't know what it costs to provide it and there is no penalty for blocking ads or cookies. VMC's position is to let the consumer decide: their choice should be to either pay for the content or accept ads/tracking...everybody else should get blocked by the publishers - meaning no or very limited content/functionality. Users can always opt-back in.

While it is great that browser companies want to provide consumers with more control, the consumers themselves ought to make their decision in a way that is also truly informed. Publishers have really got to wake-up to actively owning this - that day is coming, albeit slowly. For the Bolsheviks, there really is no free lunch.

Related post from the Tip of the Spear Blog: Solutions to the Privacy Debate: Lemons, Carrots and Potatoes.