Mediasmith VP Weighs in on comScore/Quantcast

The hubbub over comScore’s payment requirement for its direct-measurement service, and its subsequent squabble with Quancast brought to the fore issues that have long been on the minds of site publishers and measurement firms. For background, check out my story, published yesterday.

But what do media buyers think about this stuff? I asked Derek Leedy,VP, account director at Mediasmith, who responded via e-mail. To Leedy, comScore and Quantcast or other audience measurement firms are complementary data sources – all of value when it comes to planning and buying online ads.

“There can’t be too many data sources for media buyers – to choose one over the other for all cases is a cop out,” he told me.

Leedy on Why comScore/Quantcast is Apples/Oranges:
I believe that the scuffle stems from a misunderstanding about the distinction between the services. Quancast has a great hybrid methodology that captures traffic levels, demographics, frequency and profiles which we can then use to target ‘look alikes’ in other sites.

ComScore has a long track record of passive data and panel data that enables us to create plans and strategies for long term campaigns.

…ComScore is suffering a backlash for charging significant dollars for what appears to be free information for quite some time. That isn’t the real case. They offer much deeper analytics and triangulation of the audience and sites.

On Real-Time Data:
Everything is about “real time” right now, and buyers want actionable and effective data quick and cheap. Quantcast is better positioned to serve this need to capture individual profiles and bring the message to the target audience.

ComScore, however, will continue to offer solid data from which we can create sound campaigns.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Related reading