My article on iMediaConnection

GRPs are the way Television advertising has been measured since ages. The mathematics of multiplying the percentile of reach over the universe with the frequency of exposure has long swept under  blanket the  uncertainty of response measurement from Television ads.

As a matter of fact, it has worked so beautifully well in the context of Television that it is now sticking a foot in the door of digital media. After all what has worked for one should work for the other as well. We just need to find a duct tape fix- and all will be hunky dory. Or so says the media man.

And what exactly is the problem that this is going to sort? Presumably there are two.

First- Digital media has its own set of metrics and evaluation mechanisms. “A whole lot of mumbo jumbo”. the media man says. “Doesn’t work that way”.

Second- Even though media has become massively fragmented, there is a desire for evaluation metrics to be consistent across media. “After all, why spend time and resources setting different metrics for different mediums?”

Whichever is the issue, the fact is that there are television dollars waiting to take that shift into online video. And that has led everyone scrambling for their share of the pie. Also, it is easy for the planners, buyers and advertisers to put them back in the perspective of what they were buying on TV.

The debate is burning. And the fact that online video ads have gained momentum in recent times is only adding to the fire.

I, however, have some reservations to setting GRP as a metric to measure Digital Display Media. To me it is a case of “When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. And I’ll tell you in a second why I think so.

6 reasons why GRPs might not be suited for online display media

If you like to play soccer, you can’t apply the rules of cricket:

A common bane is that digital Media has a lot of mumbo jumbo that puts people off. One way to do away with this is to use familiar terminologies and methodologies.

I’m not sure it works that way. If the heading of this point does not give you a clue, let me give another example- from the personal investment perspective. If you have some money and want to invest it somewhere- you have a variety of  options. Equities, Mutual funds, Saving bank deposits, properties, currency trading (OK I can hear all those recession jokes) and so on.

Now if you had to weigh your options for investing in a mix of these instruments- would you take the time and effort to understand the nuances of each of these and familiarize yourself with the unique terminology associated with each? After all, one instrument weighs by NAV, the other by yield rates and yet another with, say, convertability indexes. What’s more, when you fix on one or the other, do you then, not spend time to understand and pick individual items and keep a close watch?

It is the same argument with Media, in my opinion. Just like one would not lobby for setting the same metric criterion for a Mutual Fund vis a vis Forex investment (though the ultimate goal is the same- give more bang for your buck), similarly, there should be an understanding that if you measure each media according to its unique virtues, you would get better marketing insights.

Estimates Vs Performance. Take your pick.

This is a fundamental difference. The basis of GRP is estimation- the software predicts expected reach and frequency. It is a representative sample of your TG, largely (though not entirely) used basis demographic segementation. Hence the final rating point is a Gross estimation of the reach and frequency. And that is where it ends.

Digital however is different. You could CONTROL and FIX the frequency using an ancient technique called “Frequency Capping”- and you can achieve your results. For example- to achieve a unique reach of 1 million, you could either buy 2 million impressions and frequency cap at 2 or you could buy 3 million impressions at frequency cap of 3. And so on. No extrapolations. You simply do it. No “expected reach of 1 million at 3+”. You reach 1 million uniques at the Frequency 3. You can.

As an alternative example- the GRPs from Digital Display media would not give any realistic play between reach and frequency. For example if you buy 1 million impressions at a frequency of 1 (hence reach of 1 million)- your GRP could be the same as reaching 100,000 people at a frequency of 10. In either case, GRPs would not provide you with insights into the relationship between Frequency and Reach.

Makes sense?

Iterate not pontificate:

Digital media allows for iterations on the fly. You could use this to tweak frequency of the campaign. The iterations are better, faster and more immediately RoI impacting than GRPs. Of course they are bit more demanding as well.

Bull’s Eye

The micro targeting capabilities of the digital medium could skew the GRP system, or at the least make it very complex. I am not even talking of geographic targeting etc (which in itself is a question mark- how would you measure a non geo targeted campaign considering the web is omnipresent). But the  question becomes pronounced in case of more sophisticated targeting. How do you account for retargeting, behavioural targeting, instream, post roll and other such capabilities offered by digital?

Flexible criterion of performance measurement

Digital media has many features that are unprecedented. And those features need different measurement metrics. Digital media is being measured and evaluated on diverse and rich set of criterion: Site visit rates, Cost per sale, engagement, cost per play, interaction rate, time spent and so on. In the study of Digital Advertising- due to its nature, you could get or at least control the outcomes by ‘cost per performance’ metrics. It might not be just calling up the publishers and buying inventory. It might fluctuate, sometimes wildly, but the attempt is to control the pulse and positively trend the RoI.

The G spot is not about Reach and Frequency

I believe the web is based on contextual relevance, communication and influence.

The digital democracy has ensured that smaller players could live in the same space as the bigger players. In a fight for GRPs however, the smaller ones stand to lose. A niche portal with a cult following of a select few- might not measure up against the bigger portals (which might have the TG visiting them for a variety of reasons and hence higher reach).

Similar argument holds for TV- but the key differences are communication platforms and search- that tilt ‘reach’ higher in the favor of bigger portals.  However the level of engagement and credibility associated with the niche portal might be more. And therefore an ad on a niche portal might have more influence or at least credibility.

GRP overwhelmingly relies on reach and frequency, whereas savvy marketers are already busy finding the G spot by looking at criterion like Trust, credibility and influence. As some of the marketing studs are realizing- the G spot is not exactly about ‘reach’ and ‘frequency’. Add some love.

Shalabh Pandey

twitter.com/shalabhpandey