Origin is not a currency and won’t replace Barb

Opinion

Any suggestion that an advertiser might use Origin as a currency is an insult, writes Direct Line Group’s head of performance marketing and CRM.

Having attended the recent Thinkbox Vision event and as a founding stakeholder of Origin, I felt it was important to add a perspective from the advertiser community to The Media Leader‘s recent article on the event.

Television is a powerful medium

Let’s be clear, no one is disputing the power of AV in building brand awareness, consideration or short-term sales. And anyone who knows me would be surprised if I said anything else. However, the definition of AV has morphed over time and, indeed, the categorisation of all media types, channels, platforms and formats continues to blur, making comparisons and ultimately decisions around investment increasingly difficult.

Based on some think tank and ad tech provocations, you’d understand why there was emerging uncertainty amongst some advertisers around the role that traditional or linear TV plays in media plans. However, for many advertisers (including Isba members like me), it is widely accepted that TV has been, is and always will be, a powerful medium. It was of course great to see the Profit Ability 2 ThinkBox research validate that again — just like every other piece of research before it.

But that doesn’t mean as advertisers, we shouldn’t seek to make comparisons — in fact, this increasing complexity makes it even more of an imperative as advertising teams receive ever-increasing pressure over spend and return on investment as they tackle lower margins and increased competition.

Against this backdrop, improvements in measurement will continue to enable a better understanding, which in turn will help inform their choice of media with the single aim of improving the effectiveness of their advertising investment.

And I think if we took a step back from the AV debate and compared, for example, cinema with out-of-home, I don’t think anyone would dispute that as an aim.

That is why we need to measure the reach and frequency across the totality of AV and not just a subset. And why, in time, we need to do the same across all media (and across as big a proportion of our total advertising investment as possible).

Advertisers are fully behind Origin

Origin has had advertiser backing since its conception because it will enable advertisers to evaluate their choices in media against criteria that is important for them to grow their businesses.

Even I have been overwhelmed by the continued enthusiasm and physical investment from all 35 advertiser stakeholders. But, of course to the advertising community, it simply makes sense.

The proof of course is in the pudding, and it was great to see peers of mine at EE, L’Oréal, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Unilever all take part in the Alpha trials last year. And all 35 stakeholders, who collectively invest about £3bn in media, are about to embark on a full-scale Beta testing of the Origin platform which will surface the reach and frequency data that they need to inform their media planning.

Origin is not a currency

I understand the reticence of the UK commercial broadcasters that the Media Rating Council’s definition of two-second duration (or lower) might become the ‘standard’ for counting video impressions.

Let me address that directly as an advertiser.

Advertisers want the ability to report, plan and most importantly, optimise against the parameters which are important in reaching their campaign objectives.

This is the Origin use case — it is not a currency.

Origin would not ascribe the same value to a two-second view and a 30-second completed view of a television ad and nor will the media agency and advertisers that use it.

Advertisers know the difference.

And it is because they know the difference that there has been so much demand and support for Origin in the first place.

In fact, any suggestion that an advertiser might use Origin as a currency to apply the same value to these very different AV formats is somewhat of an insult.

Much like the channel optimisation tools that are used in media agencies today with inputs from a variety of media channels and their respective data sets, Origin is designed to be a reporting, planning, and optimisation tool, not a trading currency.

Any other use would be irresponsible and short-sighted.

In my opinion, Origin does not seek to replace the excellent job that Barb does as a trading currency for £5bn+ of annual TV spend.

The subject of the usage of Barb data was referenced on the panel reported by this publication. Of course, Origin could ingest existing datasets like Barb — and that was what advertisers wanted — but as I understand it, there is a challenge in the use of Barb data that would restrict Origin fulfilling its full remit to its stakeholders.

Origin is, therefore, having to use its own panel-sourced linear TV audience data to fulfil its planning and reporting needs.

Whilst it is frustrating that we don’t currently have access to Barb data, I don’t think that this diminishes in any way the value of the Origin outputs.

I am encouraged, however, by the news that discussions continue to take place with the aim of surfacing Barb data alongside the Origin linear TV data. That would, of course, be a good outcome overall.

Commercial broadcasting can play to its strengths

The phrase ‘apples-with-apples’ is often included in any discourse concerning Origin. It’s not lost on me that it is something the broadcasters feel strongly about in any debate on measurement.

But, as an advertiser, I think the point is missed that the comparison point should really be the business outcome.

Therefore, it is the very mandate of Origin to facilitate a healthy comparison between ‘apples-with-pears’ with the aim to understand which is most likely to be effective at driving that business outcome.

That is the point of cross-media measurement, is it not?

And anything less would mean that Origin has failed. What it does do, is help simplify the comparison process and critically does this from a never-before available, single-source and independently audited data set.

And this is the beauty of Origin – it will allow for the measurement of many different parameters. Parameters that I would expect to be set by advertisers themselves. I have no doubt it will validate all the extensive independent research conducted on cross-media performance – quickly and accessibly, allowing advertisers to make campaign planning decisions, both at the planning stage and in-flight, to boost performance.

In all the recent excitement about ad attention, (notwithstanding the investment DLG have made ourselves to compare broadcast and digital media channels for attentive reach), television performs well against the metrics that lead to higher attention, such as viewability, percentage of screen real estate, high completion rates and sound-on. These are flattering comparisons that Origin will be able to surface.

And, from peer group conversations within the ISBA AV Steering group I chair, I can say with confidence that most advertisers (and certainly the larger ones) do not look at the cost of a raw impression in isolation. Rather, they would overlay these attention metrics in their decisioning. That will continue as more and more advertisers focus on outcomes over efficiencies.

I must admit, I am still surprised that the commercial broadcasters haven’t been more forthcoming in getting involved in Origin. I have always said (and I would, wouldn’t I, given my love of TV) that whilst Origin is the rising tide that will lift all boats, the broadcaster boats are likely to sail the furthest.

So, my plea is simple — let’s stop all this friendly fire before we sink some of these boats.

Sam Taylor is head of Performance Marketing and CRM, Direct Line Group