GroupM begins trial with verification firm Moat in move to analyse viewability of online ads
GroupM has declared that media owners “cannot be the referee” in tracking the viewability of digital ads as it announced the roll out of Twitter campaigns using verification firm Moat.
The beta program will be trialled in campaigns for Paramount Pictures and Kathmandu with the viewability of ads tracked across Twitter, including video.
GroupM said partnering with Moat will enable it to analyse viewability and measure the performance of ads on Twitter against expectations and other channels.
Head of digital John Miskelly said: “The importance here for GroupM is the fact that this is third party accreditation and it has to be. Players can’t be the referees.
“This deep and independent insight into the data strengthens GroupM’s position in regards to viewability and will give our clients yet another unfair advantage to further boost the performance of all their campaigns.”
The trial follows a move by GroupM earlier this year to adopt a new definition of a viewable ad. After signing deals with nine publishers, GroupM said 100% of a digital ad must appear on screen, and be in view for at least one second, for it to be defined as viewable.
If it is not, the advertiser will not pay.
The definition is well above the IAB’s current global standard for viewability, which is 50% in view for one second for display ads and 50% in view for two seconds for video.
Miskelly told Mumbrella at the time that it “didn’t feel the IAB standard went far enough”.
“We created our own standards and went to publishers directly, rather than hanging around (for the IAB),” he said.
Didn’t Sorrell say exactly the same thing last week ?
from Marketing week Aug 24:
“we can’t have the players being the referees. There has to be independence in terms of measurement, that is a critical issue,”
User ID not verified.
“media owners cannot be the referee” of viewability but GroupM can – seems legit.
User ID not verified.
GroupM are not a “player”?
Didn’t Sir Martin say almost exactly the same thing in marketing a week ago? Is it news because an employee repeated it outside the UK?
User ID not verified.
Who is on these days Twitter anyways? Fail.
User ID not verified.
Whilst I agree with Mr MisKelly that 3rd party measurement is vital to underpin media transparency, the example he provides isn’t measured that way.
Twitter port their numbers to MOAT. All Moat does does is inputs the data to their UI…..There’s no 3rd party measurement at all. Same story for Facebook and Youtube.
I don’t blame Mr MisKelly for the error. Moat have been misrepresenting this for quite a while now, maybe he’s just swallowing the PR.
Perhaps Simon could clarify with Twitter …or FB …or Google ?
User ID not verified.
meant to say at the end…
perhaps Steve can clarify.
might be worthwhile…as the title very wrong…Moat do not analyse anything and John’s point of third party is wrong….major gist of the article is based on false information.
User ID not verified.
Agencies are players, too. If group m consider themselves as referees, who will referee the referee?
User ID not verified.
“i know everything I need to know cos GroupM tells me so”
really mumbrella ??
this is a massive fail. there is nothing in this that is remotely true.
will you dig a bit deeper ? just a tad ?
User ID not verified.
groupm don’t want publishers doing anything dodgy………anyone else see the irony?
User ID not verified.
Not a good way to enter the Australian market.
User ID not verified.
So this is a piece extolling the importance of 3rd party measurement using an example of a publisher who doesn’t allow 3rd party measurement.
I attended a viewability summit in Tokyo where Moat made the claim they measure viewability on Twitter. Unfortunately for them, the commercial director of Twitter Japan was also on the panel who corrected that assertion “we do the viewability measurement and pass our data to Moat“
Was an awkward moment as Japan is not big on confrontation… Particularly in a public forum.
Question is… Why is GroupM pushing this false information?
User ID not verified.
**Disgraced Media Agency Asks for Directions on the Moral High Road**
If I take the sporting analogy rightly, then GroupM is the referee here? and that makes Moat the “instant replay” provider? To extend the analogy perhaps to absurdity, these referees are paid by the fans (clients) and the instant replay are paid by the referees (and therefore the fans) and handed the replay footage by the competing teams (publishers).
So, that makes no sense and flies in the face of neutrality.
Also, does this supposed level of scrutiny apply to non-digital media? Isn’t Oztam reporting TV ratings a worse case of player as referee?
Which media channels make the most money for GroupM?
User ID not verified.
Will they publish moats viewability findings for YouTube vs active view measurement? Save me group m, you’re my only hope.
User ID not verified.