4 ms·
What specifically is the lie here? That they report average view time without trivial views? That seems like a more useful metric. You also can't really direct
by emcq 10y ago
What specifically is the lie here? That they report average view time without trivial views? That seems like a more useful metric.
You also can't really directly compare these simple metrics across sites as they don't get at customer lifetime value. With these simple metrics you run into problems where the average video view may be higher on site A, but the average spend for users is higher on site B, and simply following the metric will lead you to an ineffective campaign. Whose responsibility is it to effectively manage an advertising campaign?
While I agree that more oversight and transparency is welcome here, I think jumping out and calling it fraud is exactly the kind of reaction that makes me feel this is overblown.
- Bjartr 10y agoThe one thing that would make it misleading is if they reported the average time excluding views under 3 seconds, but reported impressions including them. From the article it is not clear that this is the case
- adevine 10y agoI think your comment is the key one. I actually don't see a problem at all with what they've reported IF they also separately excluded views under 3 seconds from their total count of views (i.e. the denominator). If they included them in view count, I would think a lawsuit would be warranted.
- shostack 10y agoThis is the piece I've been digging for info on. The dimensions to break out reporting columns for various view duration percentages has always existed. Any advertiser worth their salt is looking at the breakdown for stats on meaningful views because out outside of cases where your message is delivered in a couple seconds you typically only care about longer views and would just look at those numbers. So the question is how deep this polluted other metrics.
- jaxn 10y agoBrick and mortal local retailer here. I spend over $100,000 annually on advertising in my local market. That is all digital at this point. Facebook video is a significant chunk. The lie is about the effectiveness of video on Facebook. I directed a fair amount of additional ad spend to Facebook precisely because Facebook users on average seemed to be giving a lot of attention to videos on the platform, even if they were promoted. It actually seemed like there was finally something that could work to replace the kind of lift we would see from TV advertising 5-10 years ago. This calls that into question (which may be putting it mildly). It also calls into question all of the other metrics Facebook provides advertisers.
- imh 10y agoWhat did they define the metric as prior to this 3 second revelation?
- geon 10y agoIf the ads boosts sales, use them. The speciffic number seconds they are shown is irrelevant. You will have to do your own analytics anyway.
- jaxn 10y agoSee my reply to the comment above. With local retail, you can't just measure the conversion rate. It is not about the specific number of seconds. It is about the implied engagement and focus of the audience. It is about a reported difference in the behavior of Facebook users vs other online properties.
- Asooka 10y agoAs far as I understand it, what happens is that views under 3 seconds aren't counted towards the average. So if you have 999 999 views of <1 second each and 1 view of 3 seconds, the reported average is 3 seconds / 1 view = average view time of 3 seconds, while the true average is something like 500 000 seconds / 1 000 000 views.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoSo they would report that hypothetical as "999 999 views; 3s average"?