You know what we, in the industry, way too often forget to measure? The baseline… “no targeting”
Put it this way: Imagine a running shoe client wants to target a specific type of person. So you build your digital plan and come up with a few targeting segments, for instance
1. Behavioral targeting based on outdoor interest
2. Adults 18-34
3. Contextual “active sports” environments
You use a Rich Media unit and decide to measure the success of the campaign based on time engaged within the creative.
(Assume all other variables to be identical: CPM, dayparting, networks used, etc.)
You build your post report and the engagement rates with the unit, based on targeting, are:
What is the takeaway? No segment performed better… kinda boring
While you know the targeting was good, the client will say: “If no targeting works best, why did we pay big bucks & even bother targeting?”
And, you know what, you can’t prove your point, therefore, even if you are right… you are wrong.
now backtrack for a second, and get your client to agree into spending 0.2% (or whatever) of the budget into “null targeting”. Just buy ROS… then you get a no targeting benchmark of, let’s say, 4.6% engagement rate.
So now you know, and can prove, that your targeted plan was actually roughly 50% (7% vs 4.6% engagement rate) better than a generic buy.
Did any targeting stand out from one another? no… but at least the client know and you know that overall, your targeting was efficient.
Food for thoughts