The hope and promise of digital marketing has always been, “you can measure it better than traditional media.” I got into digital marketing in 1997. Back then, decision makers were skeptical that the internet could be a business driver. The advertising options were basically limited to banners and paid search ads. Candidly, when you consider what digital marketing was up against, with those options, it’s easy to understand why marketers weren’t bullish.
However, the one thing that kep marketers coming back was the data. Digital was to be, the holy grail, of marketing measurement. Instead of wondering if something works, you’d know. Instead of debating if you were truly wasting 50% of your ad spend, you’d know. Were we making money from our efforts? Now, you’d have an answer.
Digital has always been held to a higher standard than traditional marketing, because of that promise. Few question the “viewability” of ads on TV, but everyone wants to question the merits of did real people see an ad, on the internet. Data and measurement, in so many ways are why:
- Google remains one of the most trusted sources in advertising
- Facebook has a marketing and advertising offering, that you simply can’t ignore
- Uber, AirBnB and the rest of on-demand companies are skyrocketing
It’s almost 2017, we should be at a point where we don’t have to demand data. Data drives accountability and should be non-negotiable.
I was struck by this article from DigiDay, about Snapchat and their lack of data, accountability and transparency. This passage, is equal parts poetic and frightening.
Multiple brand execs have told Digiday that the hardest thing to swallow about Snapchat currently is that in a marketing landscape obsessed, ostensibly, with measurement and transparency, Snapchat worries them because it doesn’t provide the kind of metrics platforms like Facebook and Google do.
Why, on Earth, then, would you invest a $1? How could Snapchat be worth $25B, if it can’t tell companies, that their investment is driving business results? The answer lies in this passage, from the same DigiDay article:
Ultimately, the reason marketers don’t want to acknowledge that Snapchat may not work for them is because nobody wants to be “that” marketer who pooh-poohed it — only to find that it completely blows up later, said one marketer.
There were marketers, 1000s of them who pooh-poohed social media, in general. Invest a dollar into Facebook, that’s crazy, they said? Missing the boat on something like Facebook, meant you paid a significant amount to play catch-up. You also had to answer the question of why we/they/that company, missed such an “obvious” boat.
It’s been said that “data is the new oil.” For those of you think oil is an energy source of declining value, I’m willing to concede oil for the next best energy source (solar, electricity, etc.) and say, “data is the new solar.” But, the point is, you wouldn’t invest in an energy source that’s completely theoretical and in essence, vapor. To me, that’s what’s happening with Snapchat.
We can not, as marketers, demand viewability, attribution, etc. and then prop up Snapchat or any ad-tech offering, lacking end-to-end data transparency, as the future. It’s hypocritical.
We’re getting better as an industry. The detailed reporting from the ANA and the subsequent response from the marketing, regarding transparency, was long overdue and proportional to the warts that were uncovered. But, if we want to deliver on the promise of digital marketing, we need to evolve from accepting accountability…sorta to full accountability. We must be vigilant or risk a reset back to 1997.