
Hitting the halfway mark in the first Question A Day series. Todayâ??s question, once again in response to Kris Hoetâ??s request. These questions, by the way, originated at Bad Idea, Indeed. Kudos to Philippe for putting these together based on experience with his clients.
How can impressions be compared to television GRPs?
Iâ??m not sure they can, because while they seem to be the same thing, they arenâ??t.
First, letâ??s define a GRP (from Wikipedia):
â??GRP (short for Gross Rating Point) is the sum of ratings achieved by a specific media vehicle or schedule. It represents the percentage of the target audience reached by an advertisement. If the advertisement appears more than once, the GRP figure represents the sum of each individual GRP. In the case of a TV advertisement that is aired 5 times reaching 50% of the target audience, it would have 250 GRP = 5 x 50% — ie, GRPs = % reach x frequency.â?
Now, letâ??s call a GRP what it really is: a crapshoot. Youâ??re not buying anything more than the potential to reach a certain audience. You canâ??t know how that audience will behave. How many people skip past the ads? How many people leave the room for a snack, to finish the laundry or hit the bathroom? The number of people watching the show isnâ??t the same as the number of people sticking around for the ads.
And we havenâ??t even spoken about the people who arenâ??t interested in what you have to say.
Now, letâ??s define what an impression is. Actually, Iâ??ll let Steven do it for me:
â??Impressions is a term used in online media, describing the number of times an ad is loaded. Loaded in a user’s webbrowser that is. Some people will describe it as showed, defining impressions as the number of times users viewed the ad, but this is false. It’s not because an ad is loaded that the users actually viewed it. He can overlook it, the ad may be invisible on his screen (below the scroll area for example) or he might not view the just loaded page at all (something happening more often as tabbed browsing becomes well spread). However, the term impressions echoes the wish that users at least notice, maybe unconscious, the ads.â?
Reading this definition, it would seem that an Impression has similar issues as the GRP. People may or may not see the ad. It may or may not load. It may or may not be a waste of money.
However, near as I can tell, thatâ??s the point. Online advertising is cheaper than traditional from a cost per thousand standpoint. So that allows you, the advertisers, to try things out. To test, tweak, adjust and try again. Online advertisers also allows you to target an audience at a more micro level. To reach into the cracks, speak to people who are truly engaged and speak to them, in a best case scenario, one on one.
And that, I believe is where television GRPs lose out to Impressions: flexibility. Because your online dollars go further than they do offline.
Other questions:
- How far should I go in the dialogue with the users? Can I accept controversy on my website?What moderation level is acceptable?
- Does online advertising make sense without a decent website?
- Are there examples of 2.0 initiatives made by traditional brands that went totally out of hand?
- How can impressions be compared to television GRPs?
- How intrusive should I be? (expandable formats, videos with sound on by default)
- What does interaction rate (only available for rich media formats) tell me about the impact of my campaign?
- Does the long tail change anything to the way I should communicate with my target group?
- Why on earth do people use sites like Second Life?
Related stuff:
â?˘ Actually, just today, Seth Godin offered up a great piece to the online advertising discussion.
â?˘ Add me to the list of people linking to this post: The Devil and Online Marketing.
â?˘ “Digesting Google’s new PPA Advertising Product“, from over at TechCrunch.



April 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hi Mark,
As usual, here’s my answer: http://badideaindeed.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/dell-hell-strikes-back/
I struggled with the question…
April 19th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
This one did require more research, that’s for sure. But I found the posts that I pointed to be incredibly valuable.