Are digital metrics bullshit?: Mumbrella360 video
In this light-hearted lunchtime debate from the Mumbrella360 conference, Mark Ritson and Louise Barrett pit themselves against Ashley Ringrose and Dan Monheit to debate the legitimacy of digital metrics. Tune in to find out who was crowned the ultimate winner.
The debate about digital metrics at Mumbrella360 was so full, people had to be turned away at the door. It opened with Ritson declaring “I measured my penis this morning” and only got better from there.
Ritson centres his argument around an unlikely appendage
In the video below, which documents the whole debate, Ritson makes an entertaining case for the motion that digital metrics are over-complex, unreliable and just plain bullshit.
Joining Ritson in the case against digital metrics is Louise Barrett, GM of network sales at News Corp, who argues that digital is a space without true independent measurement, and therefore isn’t to be trusted.
Re: Digital Metrics
Are we in a better position then 10 years ago? Yes. Better then 5 years ago? Yes. A year ago, yes! So we are on the right track. Let’s focus on our homework and ignore the mosquitos.
Note: At a day and age where we are discussing gender equality, in other words ‘respect to women’, Mark Ritson’s penis analogy is sexist, tasteless, unprofessional, has got nothing to do with the debate and shows the times he is living in. Unlike the people in the crowd, i don’t find it even a bit funny. Seriously people? As an industry maybe it’s time we stop encouraging him? It’s becoming embarrassing for all of us.
YES!! 100 times yes.
Indeed!
“As an industry maybe it’s time we stop encouraging him? It’s becoming embarrassing for all of us”
Sorry, there were hundreds of people in that room, many of whom are industry’s brightest and most experienced minds – a good representation of the industry. There was no awkward silence at the jokes, the audience was packed into a room and everyone was laughing. As someone who was standing by the door, no-one left in disgust.
Perhaps it is you that is out of touch and you’re too concerned with your own self importance?
hundreds of people…who voted in favour of Ashley & Dan’s team. (Not Mark Ritson). This shows out of touch he is with the industry, penis joke or no penis joke. He is clearly out of touch.
So you’re suggesting the audience voted against Ritson because of his penis jokes? How did you draw that conclusion?
Why is a penis reference sexist?
“I measured how big my tits were”
“I measured how tight my pussy was”
Would we accept these analogies vs the cock measure?
Sorry Ricky, but I agree, how is a penis reference ‘sexist’?
How does that insult women?
Your first example seems perfectly fine as an equivalent (the second weird).
You can say the example is vulgar, but it’s not sexist.
How is a penis reference ‘sexist’?
How does that insult women? Is not having a penis now an offense. If you want say it’s vulgar, but it’s not sexist.
Not everything has to be about the gender inequality discussion.
Thanks for the opportunity Tim to deliver a good beat down 🙂
I flubbed the closing statement but I hope we made people realise that the hyperbole and ignorance of some in the marketing community about digital doesnt help anyone. (Well it helps when you have ThinkTV and CRA as clients)
Let’s all focus on the future rather than protect the status quo.
thanking for a (self-declared) beat down? saw your comments on linkedin making fun of ritson. very professional mate – says a lot about you.
enjoy your 2min in the spotlight at the cost of your reputation – who is the one on stage resembling donald trump
Excellent and a more than necessary discussion!!
I love that we are putting pressure on digital to improve the quality and validity of the data from a business perspective, and also, that we are pushing for all other advertising forms to fully integrate with digital…
Please keep organising this debates!!!!
It’s sad that the best defence of digital metrics is a smug criticism of how old media is measured. It’s also sad that some of their arguments verge on personal criticism. It’s even sadder that these panellists from the communications industry think that swearing adds impact to their argument.
Time to move on.
Digital is the future. ‘Time to to move on’… indeed!
From what I can see, Ritson is the only independent voice in this debate, he has no vested interest in rubbishing digital – yet is somehow labelled the ‘climate change denier of the marketing industry’? Really?
Having the blinkers on obviously pays well.
Ritson has built a career on the speaking circuit based on rubbishing digital, without actually ever offering up any alternative solutions. “If it bleeds, it leads” he’s no different from hypebole ridden click-bait in power point form. I feel sorry for his MBA students, they would be better off at a different university.
Dear Old School CMO,
I’m not sure why your comments are personal, both about Mark and his MBA students, but as one of his students I feel the need to respond to your aggressive comment.
Mark is unequivocally one of the BEST lecturers at MBS with a constant waiting list to each of his classes. He’s an absolute legend – incredible lectures, convinces non-marketers to see the value in marketing and actually gives a shit – whether it be our careers, our projects or just general interests (including negroni tastings).
He does provide alternative solutions specifically to digital. It’s Media Neutrality and integrated marketing communications, meaning do the right thing for your company based on your strategy whether it includes digital or not. He’s communicated this across multiple platforms – articles, seminars, and his lectures. I highly recommend having a read or watching a video.
Dan “Attack the man, when your argument is weak” Monheit.
Hi Tim,
Is that comment meant to be ironic or did you just forget to include your actual argument before anonymously attacking the man?
In case you didn’t watch the presentation before commenting, I actually spent my ten minutes rubbishing the ‘metrics’ behind traditional media.
Apologies if you’re a fan of self reported data from non representative samples, paper diary based memory tests or the like from driving your/your clients brands.
Dan
*for driving (autocorrect)
Powerpoint and personal attacks from the digital metric proponents… a classy presentation.
Can someone please tell Louise that both cowboys (Facebook and Google) are members of the very same IAB she is touting? Oh and I’m pretty certain they are part of the IAB’s independent measurement she refers to as well.
When you play the man and not the ball, you lose any moral authority to claim the debate.
Caveat: unless you’re running for the President of the USA
That’s all Ritson’s got? That Facebook and Google have made measurement mistakes that they admit to … That’s what all this Ritson fuss is about? Goodness, I thought there was more to it. It’s not even counter-intuitive or clever. What about the structural, inbuilt bullshit of analogue metrics such as newspaper readerships and TV ratings? Having said that, I must admit it’s always great to hear a bloke talk about his old fella at an industry event.
Interesting that the two people who spoke on digital have come back and commented here. It’s only made things worse. As someone who has been around the business for a while, the question I hoped the digital experts would answer would be the one about whether my money is well spent on digital. I’ve lived through years of arguments about readership surveys, Tv diaries, OzTAM and the rest. And along with my agency have worked out which measures are relevant and which aren’t. I’m not looking for advice from digital evangelists on how to manage old media nor wanting a debate about whether Mark Ritson is right or wrong.
I just want to know what return I’ll get on my “digital” investment. My board would like some proof that it works. Ideally in terms of extra sales.
You see the choice for a client like us isn’t actually about digital v traditional. It’s about whether we spend any money with you at all.
hey “A client says”: to be clear the debate was on “are digital metrics full of bullshit” NOT on whether digital is worthy of investment. We had 10 minutes and needed to stay on point. Get in touch if you want to discuss ROI via the various marketing options available.
And yes to the other comments: we played the man as he was the “draw card”. We used the same techniques / jokes back at the opposition. It was meant to be a fun debate. You also win a debate with people’s hearts not minds. Mark knows this and it’s why he’s much more showman than scholar now.
And as for the “independent voice” of Ritson. I would say that seeing Mark’s face all over sponsored events/articles from ThinkTV and CRA materials would influence his ability to stay impartial.
All said and done I’m glad we got to give a counter to the typical digital is terrible rhetoric lately. I wish we had a longer and more back and forward discussion vs a debate as it’ll foster more meaningful thoughts and hopefully outcomes on how we can all move forward.
Mr Ringrose
I put up with the fact that at Mumbrella360 neither you nor your debating partner addressed the debate topic on the day. You did not defend digital metrics, you took the piss out of me and attacked the metrics of TV, radio and print media. Neither of which were relevant. There was, as I noted on the day, not one single argument on the topic of the discussion.
You played “the man” not the ball repeatedly during the session which I accepted. Being compared to Donald Trump and having “humorous” photoshopped pictures of me all over your presentation was not pleasant but I’ve had worse and if that was your argument then so be it.
But this comment of yours here in this thread totally pisses me off. Despite what you and your debate partner might think you did not use the “same techniques” as the other side. In my talk and in all my other presentations for Mumbrella, with vigour and certainly not to everyone taste, I attack the topic not the man or woman behind the topic. I might say I disagree with someone or that I think they are wrong but I don’t let that devolve into personal attacks. So please do not tar me with your sordid comedy brush. If you think a debate consists of putting up altered pictures of me and comedy soundbites of my speeches than so be it, but don’t put me in the same dirty bucket please.
But what really pissed me off about your comment on this thread above is you deciding that “Mark knows this and its why he’s much more showman than scholar now”. I’m sorry what? Do not speak for me! I do 2 or 3 of these talks a year. I do not charge any money. Tim asked me to make this “light hearted” so I did. The penis thing probably was not the best way to debate empirical metrics but hey you get it wrong sometimes. But I am not some “showman” – for the other 300 days of the year I am either teaching very good MBA students at Australia’s top business school or I am working for large companies on marketing strategy or I am trying to write serious stuff about the state of marketing and brand equity. I accept that my last big academic publication was back in 2013 but that was a big ethnographic study, published in the JCR, by me and my PhD student who had just finished his 4 year thesis on advertising and contextual effects.
I do not want to sound up myself or that I take my self entirely seriously – people who know me, and you don’t, will tell you netiher of this things are true – but you do not get to go on a public forum and tell everyone what “I know” or that I am a “showman”.
And How dare you suggest in any way that I am not impartial and in someone’s pocket. Clearly I have a point of view but it is not swayed by anyone’s money. I am my own man. To date this year I have been paid not $1 by any media body to say or do anything. I get a small fee for my newspaper column but that’s it.
Oh, actually, I lie. I was paid for 2 days work by LinkedIn this year to speak for them. So there you go. I will be doing a day of paid work for ThinkTV in September – the first talk I have ever given for them. I also did a session for Google last year too. So what is your point?
I said what I said at Mumbrella because I think it. Not because someone pays me to say it. You are not obliged to agree with my POV, but how dare you state that I am “not impartial”. You’re the one selling digital marketing services and talking about the power of digital. I am the one paying for my own flight and hotel to share my point of view.
Given the very public way you have done this mate I really think you should send me, via this forum, a public apology. I do not expect or even want you to agree with me. But I draw the line at you writing shit like this here for colleagues and friends of mine to see.
Tribal instincts certainly ring true in this thread. I am trying to assess if it is camps v camps or progressives v conservatives? Either way marketing is about a mix people. Let’s face it, we have never really been able to understand ‘readership’, when so many cowboys add their BS to the stats. Real time data, is priceless and money men use Google Trends to predict where they place their cash.
Believe the science not the spin and remember that a mix usually produces the goods, even if part of that, quite simply, cannot be tracked 100% to the cent.
Where to start?
If you’re going to bag other metrics you really should know a bit more about them than gossip and hearsay.
For example, “sticker” diaries for radio. The ‘sticker’ is actually from a list of smaller stations that would normally be under “Other”. Oh, and by the way, trials of personal meters and phone based apps have shown that while they track switching patterns and the like very well, they miss a hell of a lot of listening which would falsely reduce the ratings.
And regarding OOH and its Likelihood-To-See you’re not in the same postcode and not even in the same state! It is the OOH equivalent to the internet’s ‘viewability’. People pass a sign (Opportunity-To-See) but not everyone sees it (Likelihood-To-See) so the ‘rating’ is reduced. It’s a bit like an ad being served and (I) not being on a page in focus or (ii) not being seen – something that internet measurement is starting to address after a couple of decades (because they had to admit it was happening).
And at least TV requires 1 minute of viewing to be counted as a viewer of a program and not 50% of the screen for 2-seconds as per MRC’s viewability standards. Imagine what the numbers would be if it was 1 minute! And for a publisher’s site you are credited as a ‘viewer’ to the site if you clock up 2 seconds in a month!
I also don’t recall any of these long-time august digital devotees raising any concerns when back in the PEE (pre-iPhone era), the Monthly Unique Browsers for Australia was over 25 million every month of 2006 despite the population being just over 20 million and with only 80% having an internet connection.
The good news is that internet measurement is improving with the focus now on audience and an upcoming shift to day-by-day data.
For the public record: I’d like to unreservedly apologise to Mark Ritson for my previous ill informed and rude comments. It’s too easy to get swept up in the snarky chatter that is online comments. Not cool at all and unacceptable for someone in my position in the industry.
I also want to specifically call out the following wrong comments I made;
1: On Mark being more than a showman than a scholar. This was a low blow and mainly because I have little knowledge of Mark’s work. He’s a consultant and scholar first and foremost. The public speaking element is a small part of who he is.
I was more praising his entertaining speaking skills. The likes of which tried to emulate to disarm him in the debate.
2: On Mark’s “independent voice”: Mark has shown me that the recent payments from Commercial Radio Australia (CRA) and other “traditional”
media are of such a tiny % to his earnings that it would be stupid to suggest this influences Marks impartiality. I would also say Mark’s experience and integrity wouldn’t be influenced by money. He’s also the kind of guy that would say what he likes no matter who is listening.
Sorry Mark. We’ve all got better things to do than throw shade at each side. The debate is out there I’ll let everyone have their own opinions and leave mine to myself.
Last Point: This debate was meant to be a fun not an attack on individuals. I hope we can all focus on meeting in the middle instead of bunkering down on each side.
A brave apology.
Would be great if Mark too checked himself and realized that he doesn’t need to swear any more in order to overcompensate for being a “academic” (it’s nd
Well done with this apology. Maybe now Mark will also apologise for his use of swearing in order to overcompensate for a perceived lack of real world exper
A brave apology, especially as Mark continually plays the man by name-calling on Twitter as well, but attacking his career and background isn’t on.
Hopefully Mark will also apologise for his overuse of swearing which comes from overcompensating for his need to be seen as an industry insider (it’s ok Mark, you can drop it now, it’s a bit 101), and also actually apologise for his completely inappropriate penis analogy – doing the whole hey I get it wrong sometimes doesn’t cut the mustard. Mark, what was it inside you that made you think the best analogy involved your dick? Seriously, in these times that was the best you could do? You are way better than that.
Mark, if you can’t see what the problem is on this one, then you may need to do a bit more study. Comments like these of course rarely tend to get a reasonable response and in fact get responded to with defensiveness, insults and ridicule.
there is some irony: accusing one side of being like donald trump, while choosing personal rants over arguments … so whos acting like the don?
BTW: not sure if making fun of CMOs and MBAs (=senior executives) is a smart move – small reminder: who is paying your bills as an ad agent?