If it’s free, you’re the product

Having been in the media industry for *cough* 20 years this year, the scales fell from my eyes a long time ago. I assumed that everyone approached media and advertising with the same slightly raised eyebrow as me, so when people who don’t work in media (and hence probably do real jobs) express righteous anger at Facebook redesigns, their dwindling sense of privacy or misguidedly share one of those annoying “I hereby do not give you right to do blah blah…..” notices I am genuinely surprised that some people really haven’t figured it out.

For the avoidance of doubt, Facebook is a commercial entity, as is Google, as is ITV.

They are not publicly funded like the BBC, therefore their sole reason for creating ANYTHING is to make you use it and watch it – so that they can sell advertising around it. In addition to that, they can get more money for their advertising if they know more about their audience (yes, that’s you).

To give an example – imagine that Disney are selling their new animated kids’ movie. They may be willing to pay a certain amount for their ad to be seen in front of a thousand people. If those people can be proven to be parents, then their perceived value of those eyeballs grows. This makes the newspaper/magazine/TV station/website publisher much happier, and gives them an incentive to find out as much about you as they can, to increase your value to their advertisers.

If there is even further information available about viewers/listeners/users, such as the age of their children, whether they’ve liked other Disney animated films and if they’ve visited one of the Disney Parks in the last 12 months – that value can further grow enormously as it’s a good indicator that they’re more likely to buy the advertiser’s product.

Here’s an example of how it works on Facebook:

Facebook audience targeting

Facebook audience targeting

For the basic UK adult targeting above, Facebook recommends a CPC (cost per click) bid of between 25p to 54p, How much of this you’ll have to pay will depend on how fast you want to spend your budget, and supply and demand at the time you go live.

Now see what happens if you add some extra criteria about family status:

Facebook audience targeting with children

Facebook audience targeting with children aged 4-12.

As you can see, the number of people in the target audience has dropped (to less than 10% of the original number), and the price you’ll have to pay to show them your ads has increased, by about 30%. If these people respond more frequently to the ads and therefore the advertiser sells more DVDs, then it’s evidently still worth their while to pay a bit more, so everyone’s still happy.

But how much do they really know about me?

Well traditionally “brand” advertising has been sold around content, so you’ll see different ads around America’s Next Top Model than you do around Wheeler Dealers. The assumption is that certain types of people (gender, age bracket, purchasing habits) trend towards certain content.

Direct advertising, and especially since the growth of the internet is more likely to be sold around what we know about the person themselves.

ACORN advert for regional classification

ACORN advert for regional classification for advertisers

The 80s saw the launch of ACORN (A Classification of Regional Neighbourhoods) in the States, which segmented all US areas into demographic types – which was used to help advertisers to accurately target their direct mail and later TV, and now online across most countries.

Clearly people living in areas classified as “02 – Affluent working families with mortgages” will be worth more to the advertiser than “48 – Low incomes, high unemployment, single parents”.

It has ever been thus and means that where they can, advertisers will use the most detailed criteria available to increase the response to, and decrease the wastage of their advertising activity.

Social media, and people’s increasing willingness to share personal data has led to an explosion in the levels of targeting that an advertiser can access. To continue the Disney/Facebook example:

Facebook targeting options, Disney

Facebook targeting options, Disney films

There are so many targeting criteria that can be used to target the Facebook audience, and all these options make the audience more valuable to the advertiser (and to Facebook). Disney films, parks and characters can be added to the interest category, and these people set up as a segment so that they will see the ads that are most targeted to them.

If the advertiser wanted to target grandparents also – say in the run up to Xmas, they can add extra age criteria to make it more relevant and tweak the ads even further.There is a segment called “babyboomers” who can be lured with nostalgic references to childhood toys of their youth.

Spooky?

Those who see the level of detail advertisers can access for the first time often react with horror – OMG!! They’re going to sell me stuff!!

Well my answer to that is

a) did you really think you get anything for free, really? and

b) at least the stuff they’ll try to sell you is vaguely relevant.

I’d be very bored very quickly if all the ads I ever saw were for golf equipment and incontinence pads (neither of which I have a need for, incidentally).

If you feel worried about your privacy then there are always ways you can prevent advertisers from knowing more about you.

  • Firstly, don’t be hanging around on Facebook. It’s like carrying a sandwich board around with you telling them how to sell to you, and when. If you must do, then set your posts to automatically show to “friends” only (not public), and don’t like/share ridiculous images that *obviously* aren’t going to suddenly start moving if you write a comment
  • While you’re at it, tick the “opt out” box on every form you ever fill in 
  • Delete your cookies after every online session
  • Go and live in the desert, although you may just end up re-classified as “Self sufficient, rejecter of society, interested in green issues”.

Frankly, it’s a part of the world we live in, and whether you engage with it or not is your choice. You will see ads around every media you interact with, but you only make the advertiser’s job easier if you volunteer information to them. Choose wisely and carefully what you share with the public and commercial entities, and remember:

Never write anything online that you wouldn't put on a postcard

Never write anything online that you wouldn’t put on a postcard

Facebook and Atlas

The first thing I knew about Facebook’s purchase of the Atlas ad serving suite from Microsoft last week was a trail of disbelieving social media commentary by colleagues saying “What? Are they insane?”. By “they” here they mean Facebook, as the overwhelming view amongst past and current digital media operators is that Atlas is a “pile of s***” and that Microsoft must be glad to be shot of it, even at the rock bottom price of $100million.

Facebook has an enormous job to do to regain the trust and support of the online marketing community for Atlas or anything else that they build based on its skeleton. I have spent the best part of the last 4 years complaining about Atlas to the tech support teams, to the product leads and vainly shouting and throwing objects at my screen when another huge spreadsheet of thousands of bespoke tracking URLs is lost in the ether at midnight when the campaign needs to go live by 8am.

When all pleading made no difference I made a very vocal point of persuading clients to move their advertising to other solutions wherever possible, and I am not the only one.

It wasn’t always thus – 5 or 6 years ago Atlas was the defacto ad server for every digital agency I knew, so much so that Google seemed to have played a slightly inferior hand with its 2007 purchase of Doubleclick, and Microsoft’s decision to buy Atlas seemed to make perfect sense.  MS did make a classic 2nd mover mistake of desperately throwing money at the problem however, and the purchase raised gasps throughout the market with its $6.3billion cost (Yes, $6.3 billion) – more than double what Google had paid for its acquisition.

Granted that $6.3billion cost (Yes, $6.3 billion) was for the whole aQuantive group, which also included Razorfish (which they later sold for $530 million) and Drive PM, which was absorbed into the Microsoft Media Network (and arguably did add value to the offering). This didn’t hugely impact the end result however, which was still that Microsoft wrote down $6.2billion in 2012, mostly due to the aQuantive purchase, for which Atlas is the biggest culprit.

So how did Atlas go from the dominant ad server in a growth market, to losing the entire GDP of a small country (such as Liechstenstein) in 5 years?

Without seeing internal figures its impossible to say how much Microsoft has invested in Atlas technology since its purchase, but as a user it’s clear that the fundamentals haven’t changed since the mid 2000s. Every team I have worked on has been shouting in frustration at the Atlas team for years about usability and how they literally *hate* using it. The only tech in advertising that stimulates more frustration is DDS (cue bloodcurdling scream).

In the 5 years since Atlas was bought there have been multiple changes in the digital advertising space along with the rest of the technology world, most if not all of which expose Atlas as inferior to more nimble competitors:

The growth of paid search bid management software 

Atlas search offers a very basic click tracking function rather than any operational help to the search operator. This means that any serious campaign will need another software such as Marin on top to ease the thousands of optimisation tasks and data analysis, which just adds cost to the technology stack, and yet more cookies with more potential data discrepancies into the mix.

Cross digital measurement attribution

Atlas “Engagement mapping” garnered a bit of support for about a minute until we realised that many competitor tags couldn’t be placed in the UAT (Universal Action Tag, their container tag solution). What’s the point in running an advertising campaign where your media choices are dictated by your tag provider, not their performance? Any cross-media tracking that exists needs to at least include all paid media (and preferably direct & organic driven traffic too), so again Atlas offers only a partial solution at best

Facebook & other social network launches

Facebook has obviously been a market changer for the advertising world, and its growth has also created a market for Facebook campaign management software. Good Facebook campaigns need hundreds of targeting clusters created to maximise creative performance, and this scale of tracking and the speed with which it needs to be done is impossible with something like Atlas.

Across all digital media many widely used technologies were developed to manage one type of media, but the market direction is towards bundling search, social and display management capabilities into the same technology. If that technology is already being used, such as the ad server (Doubleclick) or search bid management software (Marin and Ignition One) then the consolidation of technology saves an enormous amount of time and complexity.

The consolidation daddies of digital marketing technology are now Google and Adobe.

Google has an ad network, an exchange, an affiliate network an ad server and a free analytics suite sitting on the same technology stack as AdWords, the worlds largest global advertising platform. In the time it’s taken Atlas to lose all its customers, Google has totally rebuilt Doubleclick, and Doubleclick search, is adding new functions almost weekly.

Meanwhile Adobe’s frenzy of acquisitions in the last 2 years have added a Data Management Platform (DMP) and search management to its “Marketing Cloud” which now offers end to end creation, tracking and optimisation for video, social, search, site analytics and landing page testing.

While I understand that Facebook want to have access to technology that helps them to prove that FB advertising works, they’d have been better buying a small, nimble FB specialist plus a small ad serving company and building their own solution. Either way without site side analytics and/or search management their offering will not cover the full picture that a digital marketeer now wants to see (preferably with one login).

Add to this that unpicking someone elses’ tech to rebuild it and re-gaining the support of a busy, cynical group of people (with lots of shiny other options) is not a small task. Facebook will do well to learn from Microsoft’s mistakes that being the dominant force is not an unassailable position to be in. Watch out Facebook –

Only the paranoid survive.

Andy Grove

Is there really a need for SEO?

SEO sort of snuck up on me. With a background in paid and performance media – first display, affiliate and then paid search; it took a while for me to feel comfortable with the often unpredictable effects of SEO activities.

With display or paid search, you have an obvious cause and effect. Pay for the media, it’s shown to targeted users (or self selecting in the case of PPC) and they respond, or not – based on the offer, the competitive market and how well your site and product mix satisfies their information or purchase needs. You can then judge the efficacy of each part, and choose to do more or less of certain elements of your campaign.

SEO seems to be the discipline most shrouded in secrecy – at least for those whose background didn’t start there. It reminds me of the accepted stereotype in 90s IT publishing years, where the clever, geeky (well before geeky became cool) slightly socially inept bloke from  ‘systems’ would come down the corridor bearing a stack of green & white striped listing paper with reams of data on it, to confuse the sales, marketing and financial management with acronyms and talk in seemingly an entirely different language.

Things have moved on, not just because of ITs ubiquity and accessibility on the desktop but I still suspect that many people, wittingly or not, over complicate technology in order to maintain an air of superiority (and possibly also their high consultancy fees). SEO seems a lot like this as words like “robots” “metadescriptions” and “algorithm” get bandied around and confuse the marketing team into paying for some magic fairy dust that will convince the mighty Google to bend over and put your site where you think it ought to be.

The reality is that many marketers pay large amounts of their budget on SEO but the results are not immediately obvious. Sometimes work can take weeks or months to make an impact, and sometimes is justified in terms of the opportunity cost of not doing it “your rankings could have slipped to here if we hadn’t been doing x or y”.

In an increasingly KPI driven world, it’s hard to compare the cost of driving/maintaining traffic from a fee-based SEO service with the cost of incremental campaign traffic from your performance campaigns. Often it’s run by different teams in a client company, and definitely by different operational teams in an agency, which means that too often the integration benefits are overlooked in favour of a competitive us-and-them attitude.

There are of course core fundamentals to good SEO, at which point I humbly refer to the bible of search, Search Engine Land, who have a fantastic infographic showing the factors that influence a site’s ranking, that any SEO worth their salt will live and breathe.

The Periodic Table Of SEO Ranking Factors

The Periodic Table Of SEO Ranking Factors

TL;DR:

  • Say honestly what the site is about, don’t pretend to be something you’re not (even if that subject is more popular than you)
  • Label titles, images and links well. It helps search engine spiders find you and distinguish how each page is different
  • Have plenty of relevant, in depth, unique and fresh content
  • Try to link to and from other good relevant sites that will help people to find more useful information.

Clue: if a user would like it, Google probably will too.

This will also mean that the user will share it which will give Google the social signals that are increasingly impacting how pages are ranked (in both natural and paid search).

As all of the above things are what your website team should be doing anyway, then doesn’t that mean that there’s no need for SEO at all?

The answer sadly, is no.

Website design and development is a long, iterative process, and it’s rarely possible or even advisable to throw an entire site away and start from scratch in an SEO friendly way. Apart from anything else, even if your site isn’t the best one, the length of time it’s been there will give it some authority so there is always a risk with changes even on a long standing domain.

The way that the Google algorithm ranks pages is also constantly updated, so what works well at one time may be less relevant in a few months time, or you may find there’s something new that is being taken into account. For years using a flash site was seen as SEO hell, and in some cases it’s still not a good idea, but there are now ways to ensure that the text content can be read and Hey Presto, users like it, and so does Google.

Some months ago I was lucky enough to attend a presentation at the shiny Google London office from Amit Singhal (@theamitsinghal), one of the original architects of the Google algorithm. I was impressed by his passion that users should be able to find the most relevant content, quickly and efficiently (with seemingly no care for whether Google could monetise it). True to this belief, the updates that happen to the Google algorithm are always meant to improve the quality of the overall search results. You may for instance have heard of Panda, which started in 2011 and is a rolling update meant to remove “thin” content from the results pages (hence preferring sites with substantial deep content).

Quick wins in SEO

The best way to maximise your chances of appearing in the search results page is to apply best practise SEO principles for the site structure, linking architecture and labelling conventions in the first place. If you haven’t done this already then any good SEO can tell you which are the key things to edit that will make a difference.

One the structural issues are dealt with, the best way to build and maintain rankings is to continually improve your site, and make the content deeper and richer – thereby more valuable to users who will visit it, share it and link to it more, which will all help you too.

And a final reminder to avoid any of the “get high quick” schemes. Any SEO that guarantees rankings or makes an unexpected big jump in a short space of time is probably doing something that Google will find out about and penalise. Global brands like BMW and Interflora have been de-listed entirely from Google before for violating their policies, so it is just NOT worth thinking you can swerve the big G.

Top 5 tips for selling media to agencies (digital and otherwise)

It is a universal belief in media negotiation that the other participant is, frankly, a bit stupid. The  adversarial nature of so many negotiations leads to sales people assuming that agencies are blind to the true (brilliant) nature of the media they’re buying; and agencies’ assuming that sales people are all money grabbing liars who would sell their own mother for a few quid and a free jolly.

Having sat on both sides of the fence I now believe that most misunderstandings are due to context; exacerbated by the poor agency sod never having the time to truly get to know the media marketplace and enjoy the negotiation process. I’ve seen many buyers make bad choices and salespeople lose out because one or other of them doesn’t understand where the other, or the client is coming from, so I’ve attempted to dispel a few myths.

All this of course may be academic in a few years when all media is digitised and bought through Real Time Bidding, but in the meantime let’s all enjoy the process a bit more.

1) Don’t pile on the pressure.

I have heard media sales training sessions where the trainer has said, without irony, “If the client/agency is still saying no, they obviously still don’t have enough information.”. Quite apart from the potential damage that could result from harassing the media buyer until they are backed into a corner, the arrogance of this view appals me. There are definitely varying levels of knowledge amongst sales, agency and client staff; but there is always the possibility that these people have access to more/different information than you have, which may not be shareable and may in fact make their decision a stroke of genius. Either way, pressure sales techniques almost always backfire in business relationships where you hope or expect to speak to them again. I have seen media buyers refuse to pick up the phone to certain sales people as they’re actually quite scared of them, or advise their colleagues not to do business with them either due to their approach. Be gentle, and if necessary sacrifice the one sale for the longer term view.

2) Be generous with information

Having said all of the above, there will definitely be pieces of information to which you have access, that the media planner/buyer may not have seen or had the time to hunt out. Sharing things that make them understand your market/product better regularly – not just when you’re in the midst of a negotiation, is a great way to both be appreciated and to be seen as an expert. This applies even more to competitor information that their client may love to see. Any interesting snippets about other clients in the same sector where they’ve tried something and had a great success is always worth sharing (with as much proof of results as you can legally share), as this will almost always be shared directly with the client and get you further to the top of mind.

3) Answer the brief

I cannot name the number of times when I have shared a detailed brief with a short-list of media owners, with quite specific needs, only to be disappointed. In my experience the vast majority do not answer the actual brief, instead either sending a re-purposed sales PowerPoint with the client’s logo pasted in (and sometimes not editing the text to ensure that the rest of it doesn’t mention the previous client it was sent to); or maybe sending over a proposal which clearly misses the cost or performance criteria with a weak “Well if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.” pitch, with no clear evidence of why the agency should risk their reputation on recommending this buy.

I cannot state too clearly – read the brief and answer the question, with just one sentence if necessary. If it is impossible to make the metrics/target work – say so, and say so early. This will save you both time and mean you get another crack at another campaign that may have different criteria, and a reputation for being honest, which is always a good thing in an incestuous industry.

4) Put your best foot forward – immediately.

Many times I have spoken to media buyers to tell them that they have not been chosen for a particular campaign, only for them to say “Oh, well if you’d told me, we could have matched those rates.” This is negotiation suicide. Basically the days of agencies having plenty of time to ring you back, negotiate rates gradually down and then eventually settle on something are well past. If you don’t put your “walk away” rates down at the very beginning (which other people will) you risk immediately being excluded, and by the time you speak to the buyer again the decision will already have been made and it’ll be too late for you to pull something out of the bag. Clearly going back with a very low rate every time isn’t healthy for your business, so the important part is packaging your rates correctly. By all means respond with a menu of options – one of which is rock bottom, but in offering these rates you are clear that the sacrifice will be in terms of the quality/data/visibility, and always have other options for the buyer to choose from. If they don’t see it, they can’t sell it to their client either. Tell them which is your favoured option, and why it is so much better for the client. Give it wings so that it’s hard for them to refuse. Even if the first client doesn’t like it or simply doesn’t have the budget, it may just get re-sent to their next client as an option.

5) Save the expenses for people you’re already doing business with

If you’re busy and stressed, the thought of having to make small talk with a random 23 year old who’ll try to sell to you for an hour and a half is not appealing. Even if it is at the poshest restaurant in town. Building business relationships absolutely makes sense, but save the jollies for after you’ve built a working relationship. The only time you should invite someone you don’t yet know is to something that’s useful to them and will make them better at their job – normally an educational seminar or large networking event with multiple people. One to one jollies are for the people who you are thanking or building something with, not a way in.

tape measureOne of the first stories you hear when entering the advertising industry is John Wanamaker‘s famous quote – which has been bent over time but is a variation of

“I know that half my advertising spend is wasted

I just don’t know which half.”

Clearly this wasn’t good enough for John, and certainly isn’t the ideal scenario when the amount wasted can represent millions of pounds so an entire sub-industry has grown in advertising which is that of measuring ad effectiveness.

At a basic level ad effectiveness can me measured in 3 ways:

Direct measurement of sales:

In Direct Response marketing there are various methods of attributing sales to the media that triggered it. In online the bluntest way is the “last click wins” scenario, but there are also tried and tested methods for other media – dedicated phone numbers that will differ by medium or by copy iteration; coupons with codes to be quoted during a phone or store visit. Each has its values but as a general rule quoting coupon codes or source when visiting a store, buying on the phone or online is afflicted with a “tick the first one” mentality. List orders are changed but still there will be errors.

Measuring actions implying purchase intent:

This could be online enquiry forms filled out, store locator searches; phone calls, brochures sent out, appointments booked, actual store footfall – all of which are fairly taken as an indicator that the customer is getting closer to opening their wallet. Again there can be issues as it may be an indicator, but not a true reflection of what happens later.

Branding metrics:

This involves researching potential and actual customers, and asking them what they think. Often there will be a “brand recall” metric – how many people remember the name (prompted or unprompted); a “purchase intent” question and other factors that have been proven over time to reflect consumers’ eventual actions and indicate that a campaign has had a positive impact – recognition of ad straplines/ association with intended characteristics such as “trustworthy” or “good value”. When used with a large enough sample size to ensure statistical validity.

One of the many reasons that digital advertising has grown is its very measurability. Being able to see how many times an ad has been seen (impressions), its response rate (clicks) and the resulting actions (sales, enquiries, online brand research) means that in near-real time an advertiser can tweak the campaign to ensure that creative or ad copy that performs the best is the one that is seen most, and that they get the most out of their ad spend.

But do they?

The problems start with the default model for online ad measurement, which is last-click-wins. There are various factors that undermine the validity of this model, and these are best understood by remembering that the digital world is just one part of any consumer’s methods of interacting with a brand, and even that digital, trackable world is fractured.

The first is the basic assumption that the last thing someone did before a purchase is the most important. In the image below you can see a simple example of how someone researching and buying online interacted with different ad events:

click path

In this instance the brand search would get all the credit for the conversion, but we can see that they interacted with the advertisers messaging in 3 other ways before then – all of which may or may not have had an influence on their later behaviour. A similar metaphor is the football team – although a striker may have scored the actual goal, the rest of the team are crucial in setting it up, defending their own goal etc.

If you planned your advertising spend based on the last click model the risk is that your ads wouldn’t be showing in the places that do help the process along, and therefore would sell less. In recognition of this the industry has spent the last few years discussing methods of sharing out the credit to “attribute” influence more fairly and have a more effective media strategy.

Some of these models are laid out below, showing from the top

  • “first and last” – where an advertiser believes (or the data shows) that the first and the last interaction carry the highest weight, the sale value is shared amongst them
  • “all but last click” could apply when the last click is proven to be a navigational brand search, and the credit for influencing the sale is shared amongst the interactions that had a harder job of persuasion
  • “shared” is where all the events get equal weighting as it’s proven that the sale relies just as much on each element
  • “last click” is the traditional model that is blunt but still the fastest data to access

attribution modelsEach model has its pros and cons, but they are infinitely better than last-click-wins, right?

Well, yes and no.

Firstly to work out the one that works best it requires an enormous amount of data crunching – the first days of Exposure to Conversion (or E2C – Doubleclick’s version of attribution modelling) required a data dump that broke excel. Just the discussions of which model to use can take days of discussion and each time you’d settle on a model there’d always be a “It just doesn’t feel right” comment from one stakeholder or another, and you’d have to re-assess the whole thing with a different cookie window. Try doing that every day and making hundreds of creative and channel optimisation decisions on the fly.

Secondly, it’s still only a partial view of the data. Remember that one person in this instance actually means “one device with a cookie on it”, and the last two years in particular have broken the desktop stranglehold for good; add to this the fact that most sales are still conducted in retail stores or on the phone, and you have a multi device and cross channel world:

multichannel path

Even if you can match a user across multiple digital devices (which you often can’t), tracking that same person as they watch telly, pick up the phone or walk into a shop adds complexity that reduces your chance of getting robust enough data in enough time to be actionable during the advertising campaign.

So what to do?

Firstly, realise that you’re not going to get a perfect answer. The beauty of digital is often seen as  its trackability although this has lulled us all into a false sense of security about its accuracy; in the real world people always have been influenced by more things than you realise, so you have to cast the net as widely as possible. To see the bigger picture and treat the consumer as just that, as opposed to a cookied device, you really need to jump into the realm of econometrics, which research companies and large agencies have used for decades to apply some kind of cause/effect on their advertising activities and assess the true impact of each part of their marketing activity.

Put simply econometrics takes a vast amount of data and tries to find correlations. For the marketeer it can show the impact their media has on their sales (or any other known metric); how store location impacts success; and how weather/external market factors influence the overall base line of sales that you could expect without any other stimulus. The results from econometrics for a marketeer are often a) a sand diagram showing the influencing factors over time, and b) a Cost Per Acquisition hierarchy showing the difference between the linear (last click) tracked CPA, and the one inferred from the econometric models.

sand diagram

Example sand diagram as you may see from econometrics showing impacts of different media types over time, the left axis could be volumes of sales, leads, or currency values. 

What often happens is that media that occurs in the earlier stages of a research/buy process proves to have been more influential than could be seen from the usual attribution model, which gives them credit for more sales. The difference between the linear sales and the modelled sales becomes a “multiplier” which is then applied to the linear results to show the true value of each media, and to aid in effective budget allocation.

The solution, ish.

My approach is always to use all the data I get get my hands on, in the most appropriate way.

Planning annual/quarterly media budgets needs the input of econometric multipliers to ensure that the stimulus media that kick off the consideration process get enough juice to start the pipeline off. Handily this kind of data is also a great help to show the FD that there is in fact a value in the media that otherwise struggles to prove its worth.

All this is well and good, but I have never met a marketeer or planner, brand or direct who doesn’t have to justify their weekly or monthly plans based on last click data, or at best a “last click plus “assists” model, so we have to face facts that the measurability of online is also a stick with which it can be beaten. For great context, look no further than this quote (often erroneously attributed to Einstein, but actually the work of sociologist William Bruce Cameron.)

Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted.

In other words, we’re human.