Name: Patrick Hermie
I am definitely in the pro camp. Advertisers want consumer-centric holistic measurements and that means that common metrics to all media and communication channels are necessary. Reach and frequency (and thus GRP’s) are still the most relevant metrics to me. You can add time spent, engagement (if someone has an operational definition...?), selectivity, and other elements to that, but reach and frequency cannot be replaced. Click-through rates are important as a response metric. And that is exactly what it is, a response metric. Just like counting coupons, registering the number of calls, etc. That is relevant when response is the goal of the campaign. But, it still happens that the final goal is not response. However weird that may sound to some transaction ‘blinded’ online professionals.

Posted on: 17/07/2008

Name: geert stox
Hi Patrick, I think this is once again a non-discussion. I completely agree on your argument that not every online thing aims click-throughs, meaning that reach and frequency are important. But the point is that 'GRP' as used in classic media is often an estimation and gives you no clear figures, whereas the online business has very clear ones. I suppose GRP-opponents see it more as the symbol of the old media-thinking. Then again, the fact that your 'ad' has been 'donwloaded' on the surfer's screen, does not mean that it has been seen, bringing the online hype back to the old media problem... End of this GRP-discussion for me. None of both escapes the old thinking, and whether you call it GRP or donwloads or whatever, the issue is the same. As advertiser you want to know (and need to know) how many people saw you and how often. And as long as this is just an estimation, GRP will be useful as benchmark to compare, but not as absolute figure. We all long for this absolute measurement, but there is still a very high mountain to climb. And finally, as long as classic and new media feel the urge to see the other as an opponent, we'll never be able to create a real holistic view on media. --- Geert Stox --- www.bizbuilders.eu

Posted on: 21/07/2008

Name: Patrick Hermie
Hi Geert, Thanks for your comment. I agree that this discussion is rather inspired by old thinking and doesn’t lead to a holistic view on media. You also bring up the difference between metrics for planning (estimations and projections of reach and frequency) and metrics for post buying evaluation (GRP’s delivered, number of visits, visitors, clicks). The click measure (counting of coupons, calls,...) is indeed more precise than the counting of eyeballs, but is more a measure of response than a measure of contact. I fully agree that measuring reach has to get closer to measuring real contacts with the ads instead of loose opportunities to see... And, by the way, I am not convinced that passive measurement technology is THE solution. But maybe that is a topic for another discussion :-)

Posted on: 22/07/2008