ellipsis flag icon-blogicon-check icon-comments icon-email icon-error icon-facebook icon-follow-comment icon-googleicon-hamburger icon-imedia-blog icon-imediaicon-instagramicon-left-arrow icon-linked-in icon-linked icon-linkedin icon-multi-page-view icon-person icon-print icon-right-arrow icon-save icon-searchicon-share-arrow icon-single-page-view icon-tag icon-twitter icon-unfollow icon-upload icon-valid icon-video-play icon-views icon-website icon-youtubelogo-imedia-white logo-imedia logo-mediaWhite review-star thumbs_down thumbs_up

View-through: Why seeing an ad is never useless

View-through: Why seeing an ad is never useless Dax Hamman

Few people would disagree that online advertising has come a long way in recent years. And yet, even as the technology races ahead, a debate continues to swirl around two very basic questions: Can an online ad still be effective if no one clicks on it? And if so, is there a reliable way to measure the effect of such impressions?

These questions might be basic, but they're also critical. After all, the vast majority of ads are never clicked on. When a user sees an ad but only visits the site hours or days later, it's known as a view-through visit or post-impression visit. If a user then converts or spends money, it's referred to as a view-through conversion or view-through revenue. Brands can verify a view-through via a cookie that is dropped on the user's browser when the impression appears.

The source of the skepticism

The major complaint about view-throughs is obvious enough: You just never know. Sure, someone saw a Zappos impression and then visited Zappos.com the next day, but how can we really know if the impression led to the site visit? Maybe that same day the user ran into an old friend who was wearing a nice pair of shoes that she'd just bought on Zappos.

Online advertising was supposed to make this sort of uncertainty a thing of the past. By relying on clicks, marketers could know exactly what worked, making the entire industry infinitely more efficient. Skeptics maintain that tracking view-throughs takes online advertising in the wrong direction -- back to the days when all you could do was make a big spend and hope for the best.

View-through skepticism may well be attributed to a critical mistake that was made early in the history of the view-through. The time between the appearance of the ad and the visit to the site is known as the view-through window, and the length of this window is important. If you see a Zappos banner and visit Zappos.com a year later, not even the most stalwart view-through supporter would suggest attributing the visit to the ad impression.

Setting the right window can be a tricky process because the right length of time really depends on the nature of the campaign. Unfortunately, when view-throughs first came onto the scene, the windows were usually set to 30 days. This might be appropriate for campaigns that are asking users to consider major purchases, such as automobile campaigns, but for most ads, 30 days is a long time to wait between the impression and the visit. The shame is that, to this day, many marketers don't realize that view-through windows are adjustable and can be set for as short a period of time as 24 hours.

The fact that media owners have tried to game the system hasn't helped quell the skepticism. The scheme is simple: You buy up millions of super cheap impressions and spread your cookies far and wide so that you can take credit whenever a user ends up on a site that is running a display campaign. Still, if "cookie stuffing," as the practice is known, was once a legitimate issue, it's now quite rare, and thus no longer a strong argument against tracking view-throughs.

Why the skeptics should reconsider

In light of these reasonable concerns, why do we -- and most other marketers, for that matter -- continue to track view-through metrics for our digital campaigns? It's true that view-through impressions are not a perfect science, but, as counterintuitive as it may seem, a view-through is actually a more reliable measurement than a click.

Just because clicks can be counted doesn't mean that they should be counted. Research from comScore and Starcom MediaVest reveals that 84 percent of internet users never click on an ad. Even worse, the remaining 16 percent who do click appear to do so almost randomly. The clicks don't correlate to actual on-site conversions. Meanwhile, view-throughs can account for over 90 percent of site visitors and over 90 percent of pageviews once a view-through user arrives. Other studies show a strong correlation between online view-throughs and visits, search traffic, and revenue.

And, again, while the view-through metric may not be perfect, that doesn't mean it's entirely unscientific or that it can't be studied. To appreciate and measure the value of a view-through, you just need the right tools and techniques.

Getting started is relatively easy. To determine the incremental value of exposure to unclicked ads, marketers can easily compare samples of users who previously encountered a display ad to users who arrived at a site without exposure to an ad. Marketers can also look to search data. There's a small mountain of evidence showing that even if you don't click on a brand's ad, exposure to the ad makes you more likely to search for the brand and click on its search ads.

But the best case of all for view-through is perhaps that it dates back to the origins of advertising itself. Or, in other words, view-through is not so different from offline advertising in many respects. Agencies running off-line campaigns can point to powerful correlations between campaigns and increased sales, but, in most cases, can't definitively prove that any given customer is responding to campaigns. And yet no one would suggest that offline campaigns have zero value or that attempting to measure their success is pointless.

And view-through is superior to most offline campaigns in an important respect. If someone arrives at a Walmart store, Walmart can't be certain that they saw the Walmart billboard on the highway or the full-page ad in the local paper. With a view-through, a brand at least knows that the user was exposed to the ad, even if only briefly.

Moving ahead

After reading the above, we hope you agree that it's time to move beyond the debate about view-through. Or, at least, it's time to move beyond the debate about whether a view-through is a valid and measurable metric. This doesn't mean the discussion should end here. There's still plenty of room to disagree about the best techniques for measuring view-throughs, the ideal view-through windows, and plenty of other small details. But with respect to the big picture, sometimes it's as simple as trusting your gut. After all, if seeing an ad is worthless, than the advertising industry has much bigger problems than the view-through.

Dax Hamman is chief revenue officer at Chango.

On Twitter? Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet.

"Multimedia screen and graphic" image via Shutterstock.


to leave comments.

Commenter: Jakob Nilsson

2012, September 29

Hey Dax,
and thanks for an interesting article.

I completely agree with what you write, but I also understand the customers who say that many ads are unseen (comScore research - 31% of Display Ads Go Unseen). They often refers to unseen ads below the fold, that still can be attributed to a "view-through conversion".
Whats your thoughts about this and what´s the best solution? Guarantee in-screen ads?

Cheers // Jakob

Commenter: Matthew Anthony

2012, September 26

Apologies - this was meant for another line of questioning!

Commenter: Matthew Anthony

2012, September 26

While the topic of attribution is certainly getting a lot of attention, I am concerned that it's being talked about in a far more simplistic fashion than it really deserves (both here and in other arenas). Attribution is something that should be driven by data scientists, statisticians, etc ... attempting to oversimplify it beyond its due is dangerous when organizations are intending to action upon those models by allocating real dollars of ad-spend based on the output. A well-constructed attribution analysis is a complex statistical undertaking - and the specification of the model to be used is a critical element of ensuring useable, accurate output. Additionally, interpreting the output of such models into actionable insights, as well as being able to modify or optimize those models, also requires knowledgeable & appropriately qualified eyes. Consequently, while the SaaS siren call for an ad-tech point solution is certainly enticing, it's clearly not the full measure of the solution that is truly called for. At least, a qualified data scientist should be operating that solution … at best, your data scientists and statisticians are actively researching and creating specific models for your business based on best-practices from industry and academia.

To that end, I'd also clarify Mediaplex's market position. While true that our lineage is in the adserving business, we are truly doing more ... we are a fully functional marketing analytics company. We provide full-service marketing analytics, custom analytics project support, data strategy auditing, and attribution analysis.

Commenter: Dax Hamman

2012, September 26

Salomon - good question. There are ways to analyze the data to measure the drop-off curve, but in reality, the best data often comes from the client. By looking across all marketing channels an advertiser will likely have a feel for how long the consideration period is for their product or service.

Commenter: salomon dayan

2012, September 26

Ok, but what techniques do you use to identify the best view-through window? normally the longer the window the better your results will show (i.e Zappos 1 year example)