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.
John Miskelly: Players can’t be the referees
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.
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,”
“media owners cannot be the referee” of viewability but GroupM can – seems legit.
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?
Who is on these days Twitter anyways? Fail.
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 ?
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.
Agencies are players, too. If group m consider themselves as referees, who will referee the referee?
“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 ?
groupm don’t want publishers doing anything dodgy………anyone else see the irony?
Not a good way to enter the Australian market.
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?
**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?
Will they publish moats viewability findings for YouTube vs active view measurement? Save me group m, you’re my only hope.