Home  › Marketing › Strategies

Interpreting the IAB Measurement Guidelines

  |  February 14, 2005   |  Comments

There's been a lot of misunderstanding regarding the measurement guidelines. Here's some clarification.

On November 15, 2004, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), Media Rating Council (MRC), Association of National Advertisers (ANA), World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), and numerous other industry organizations released new global measurement standards for online advertising. I was part of the Measurement Guidelines Task Force that established these standards, so I have a unique perspective on them.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding around the measurement guidelines. Let's start with the official name: "Interactive Audience Measurement and Advertising Campaign Reporting and Audit Guidelines." It's a mouthful, but it's important to understand what the document aims to accomplish.

The document sets standards for audience measurement in online ad campaigns and for ad campaign reporting. It also establishes auditing guidelines for how various vendors and publishers should be audited, both to ensure everyone is doing things properly and to reduce discrepancies between publishers and third parties.

This all started because of Adam Gerber, who at the time chaired the AAAA's Interactive Marketing & New Media Committee. Gerber was trying to resolve one of the industry's biggest issues: constant discrepancies between publishers and third-party ad servers. This problem leads to significant work on all sides and has a huge affect on internal accounting processes because of the procurement guidelines most major advertisers are required to follow.

One of the first things this document tackles is the oft-disputed definition of an ad impression. It's amazing it took so many years to establish the definition of our currency, but it's now accomplished. Next, the document establishes the appropriate methods of counting impressions for publishers and third-party ad servers and a few related things, such as caching and robot and spider filtering.

The measurement guidelines require third-party ad servers and publishers to be audited. It defines the audit process. The guidelines also recommend which set of numbers to use if one party isn't audited: if the third party is audited and the publisher isn't, the third-party numbers should be used for billing. If both sides are audited, the publisher numbers should be used. This second point is left to final negotiation between the publisher and the agency/advertiser. Larger advertisers will likely have more negotiating power than smaller ones.

The guidelines seek to lower systemic discrepancies below 10 percent. They try to explicitly determine whose number is used for billing, and under what circumstances an investigation is warranted. If everyone goes through the excruciating auditing process the MRC is putting together, you can trust all the numbers will be as good as we (as an industry) can get them.

Complying with these standards will be expensive. Big publishers won't have a problem as they're already audited. This is just another layer of refinement to existing audits. But for startups that aren't currently audited, this will be costly.

The good news is the auditing guidelines are comprehensive. When the publisher and third party follow the proper methodologies and are audited, discrepancies should be minimal. The exceptions, the outliers, are really at issue.

If the guidelines are followed, impression discrepancies between the publisher and third-party server should be under 10 percent. If an outlier event occurs (discrepancies higher than 10 percent), both parties should investigate. It's highly unlikely either party would refuse, as this is a standard practice.

The outcome should be for contracts between publishers and advertisers to define which set of numbers to use for billing, so discrepancies shouldn't hold up billing. But for extreme examples, say higher than 25 percent, this may require discussion. I've heard of discrepancies as high as 60 percent, which obviously should be considered extreme.

Perhaps the contractual language should require that in the case of discrepancies greater than 20 percent, the higher set of numbers will be used. Typically, true discrepancies lead to the "wrong" party having lower numbers, so this would be safe. I've seen legitimate cases as high as 20 percent, caused simply by Internet latency.

There are systemic problems and exceptions. The guidelines are designed to reduce these. You should see average discrepancies well under 10 percent once all parties comply. If there are specific problems with implementation or if someone has a network problem during a campaign (this happens across the board more often than people realize), those issues should be relatively easy for most publishers and third parties to sort out between themselves.

ClickZ Live San Francisco This Year's Premier Digital Marketing Event is #CZLSF
ClickZ Live San Francisco (Aug 11-14) brings together the industry's leading practitioners and marketing strategists to deliver 4 days of educational sessions and training workshops. From Data-Driven Marketing to Social, Mobile, Display, Search and Email, this year's comprehensive agenda will help you maximize your marketing efforts and ROI. Register today!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eric Picard Eric Picard is the director of advertising strategy and emerging media planning at Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions. In his role, he helps set corporate-level strategy for how Microsoft approaches advertising from a business and technology standpoint. His team manages long-term advertising platform and product strategy, emerging media strategy, and planning for incubation and research teams, and designs next generation advertising products. Formerly, Eric was founder and director of product management at Bluestreak, where he oversaw advertising products, such as third-party ad serving, ad analytics, and rich media and led development of many company technologies. He helped pioneer rich media advertising in the late '90s and has been active in most of the critical industry conversations related to technology, including the IAB's Measurement Committee and Rich Media Task Force. Prior to Bluestreak, Eric founded 9th Square Inc. and Waterworks Interactive Inc.

COMMENTSCommenting policy

comments powered by Disqus

Get the ClickZ Marketing newsletter delivered to you. Subscribe today!

COMMENTS

UPCOMING EVENTS

Featured White Papers

BigDoor: The Marketers Guide to Customer Loyalty

The Marketer's Guide to Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty is imperative to success, but fostering and maintaining loyalty takes a lot of work. This guide is here to help marketers build, execute, and maintain a successful loyalty initiative.

Marin Software: The Multiplier Effect of Integrating Search & Social Advertising

The Multiplier Effect of Integrating Search & Social Advertising
Latest research reveals 68% higher revenue per conversion for marketers who integrate their search & social advertising. In addition to the research results, this whitepaper also outlines 5 strategies and 15 tactics you can use to better integrate your search and social campaigns.

WEBINARS

    Information currently unavailable

Jobs

    • Internet Marketing Campaign Manager
      Internet Marketing Campaign Manager (Straight North, LLC) - Fort MillWe are looking for a talented Internet Marketing Campaign Manager to join the...
    • Online Marketing Coordinator
      Online Marketing Coordinator (NewMarket Health) - BaltimoreWant to learn marketing from the best minds in the business? NewMarket Health, a subsidiary...
    • Call Center Manager
      Call Center Manager (Common Sense Publishing) - Delray BeachWanted: Dynamic Call Center Manager with a Proven Track Record of Improving Response...