|
|
|
|
|
|
by kwntm
4144 days ago
|
|
|
You bring up great points! >1. Using YT as a proxy for overall attention 'Overall' attention is never a claim. This is simply building upon the views data with what is measured around how far people watch in a video. >2. Advertising isn't a straight line number of attention to sales There is no mention of sales in the post. It is comparing the price of the superbowl spot with the number of attention minutes. There are many factors which can serve as a measure of success, in this case it is looking at how people are watching the video after the ad spot. >most CMO's wouldn't take this type of napkin math very seriously Attention minutes is a fairly powerful measure. Ex. Upworthy uses it to determine which videos are most likely to be shared. The goal here is to show one way it can be used. In practice, it would be used among other measures an agency or company has- as you describe above. |
|
|
If this is the case, then why is the conclusion that their super bowl ad dollars are a waste?
> We’re going to use this to see who got the most bang for their buck, and more importantly — who messed up and what lessons there may be to learn.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic about your misleading title and lede....
PS - I assume you're the author. This is very good inbound marketing for your company...I do applaud you for that.