A Unified Measure: The Case for Standardizing 'Outcomes' in TV Advertising

Amongst all advertising media, television has long stood out as the gold standard for measurement uniformity. The industry's insistence on a universal metric – the "currency" of viewer metrics – is unwavering, despite Nielsen's monolithic presence waning. Even the new measurement companies (e.g. iSpot, VideoAmp, SAMBA) are quick to call themselves “alternative currencies.”

However, Nielsen and its nascent rivals continue to chase the same quarry: audience measurement. The success of a campaign, in their view, is synonymous with the extent of audience penetration. Yet there's an alternative metric gaining traction: outcome measurement. It suggests that a TV campaign's triumph is better measured not by eyes that see but by hands that act – by actual sales driven. This notion of performance marketing is gaining ground, blurring the lines with brand marketing. As Vineet Mehra from Chime eloquently observes, "All marketing spend should be driving performance…however, performance marketing alone will not grow your brand over the mid to long term." 

But the journey towards a standardized definition of "outcome" is fraught with ambiguity. The term is bandied about with reckless abandon, often by measurement providers eager to ensnare modern advertisers. They proffer metrics like search traffic spikes as evidence of a campaign's impact. While such data might hint at success, it falls short of providing a verifiable link to sales – the quintessential "outcome."

Our ecosystem also grapples with a lack of rigor applied in outcome measurement. Take, for instance, the concept of "filtered or verified traffic" in TV measurement. In that approach, all non-attributed (digital) traffic is blindly credited to TV impressions. It is a gross exaggeration of the likely reality (e.g. sales driven by word of mouth). As an industry, we need to push for better.  The efforts of NBCU, which conducted a rigorous business outcomes RFP last year, represent a seminal push toward standardization. Of the 100+ business outcome measurement providers scrutinized, a mere dozen met the stringent criteria to receive official certification. Yet, for the burgeoning cohort of digitally-native, direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisers, many of whom are novices in TV marketing, even this curated selection can seem overwhelming.

The pursuit of a more robust definition of outcomes is not merely academic; it has practical implications. It paves the way for outcomes to become a currency in their own right, a medium of exchange for ad inventory. This could be a boon not only for brands but also for networks and publishers, for whom a standardized metric would simplify the task of demonstrating inventory value. We might even witness the emergence of "Performance Deficiency Units" – analogous to Audience Deficiency Units – with publishers offering guarantees to compensate brands if the campaign fails to drive the agreed-upon outcomes.

Moreover, a stringent outcomes-based approach could act as a bulwark against fraud. When a campaign fails to yield tangible results, it's a telling sign that advertising dollars may have been squandered on fraudulent, non-human traffic.

The winds of change are blowing through the corridors of TV advertising. The quest for a new standard – one rooted in the real-world impact of advertising – is gathering momentum. As the industry continues to evolve, the demarcation between brand and performance marketing grows ever more nebulous. What's becoming crystal clear, however, is the need for a currency that measures not just the reach, but the real reactions it engenders. After all, in the ultimate reckoning, and to paraphrase Mehra, every brand impression is there to eventually drive sales performance.