Putting Non-Viewable Toothpaste Back In A Viewable Tube

Note: Not Going Back In

On some level, you knew this was coming -- a backlash, in actual print, against the idea tha advertisers should only pay for viewabale ads. (No, not providing a link the column that inspired this, because rewarding idiocy with traffic is not on my list of things to do.)

Well, as you learn in political science, hear the other side. And there are problems with the sea change in ad campaigns, where KPIs go out the window for the single point about the display nature of the ad. If other performance metrics are being reached, what's the good in insisting on 100% viewability, right? Leave well enough alone! Viewability is a bogeyman! (Yes, this was said in a real live column, on a real live site I respect. And no, still not linking to it.)

Well, um, no... because knowing that any part of your ad buy is, on some level, fraud is intolerable. Has always been, should always have been. And fraud is just not something that any reasonable person can, or should, ignore. Just because it was how the industry did its business for a very long time doesn't mean that it was right then, or will be right now.

Does that mean you should only run a campaign if the ad impressions are 100% viewable? Well, that should be the goal... but there should also be a correction in rates, because 100% viewable online banner ads are intrinsically more valuable than other ad formats. Some non-viewable impressions are legitimate, because search bots are how the Web works, and just part of doing business. There is also no such thing as a 100% viewable outdoor or print ad. All radio and television spots have some aspect of non-delivery, because they are subject to channel surfing, inattentive viewers, second-screen distractions, and so on.

If you are only paying for 100% viewability on a million impressions today, you are getting a dramatically better list and deal than you were before. As well as something far more impactful than other mediums.

In the long run, the market will do what the market always does: correct itself. People who argue for the old standard of widespread malfeasance will be drummed out of the business by clients who are not willing to be victims, which is to say, they'll be drummed out of the business. After a significant period of make-good and adjustment to new performance standards, prices might even rise.

What will not happen, however, is toothpaste going back into the tube, or victims of fraud signing up for the same old con. That ship has sailed, never to return.

Now, if we could only get to the magical realm where increased traffic from viewers who saw an ad, but didn't click on it (because, well, other tabs and windows exist, and so does brand awareness, and all of the other aspects that marketing used to get credit for)...

Well, we might actually have a business that more accurately reflects the reality of an ad buy. Sounds like a great new day, doesn't it?

* * * * *

A great new day begins when you like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.