There Really is NO Comparison

Advertising Engagement vs.
Advertising Reach/Impressions

by Denise Larson, President, LEAP Media Investments

A new product is developed and no one buys it.

A football player throws the Hail Mary pass and no one catches it.

A young man asks his girlfriend to marry him and she (gently) declines.

You get the picture — there is a very high cost associated with non-engagement. The same is true when it comes to the millions — no, billions — of dollars spent on advertising that attempts to reach people, but may not engage them. It’s an age old debate about reach and impressions vs. engagement. I suspect the debate won’t be totally resolved by the end of this article — but, hopefully we will get a little closer to clarifying the problem.

Reach/Impressions are rooted in calculating the cost of an ad exposure/placement. Foundationally, it has very little to do with what the consumer/viewer internalizes. It has everything to do with connecting the ad exposure/placement to a currency for monetization. Reach/Impressions is a cost-based concept and fundamentally is about “pushing” advertising into the marketplace for consumption.

Engagement is a value-based concept. It has everything to do with how much consumers/viewers internalize as a result of their interaction with that ad exposure/placement. Engagement is a relationship-based concept based on consumer insight and understanding. It’s all about the value the consumer/viewer gets from the ad impression — it’s all about consumer/viewer “pull.”

Comparing the two is equivalent to comparing two different theoretical constructs grounded in different agendas with different goals and objectives. Even if they “sound” like the same thing, comparison of theories designed with different criteria for “success” is unfair, and ultimately leads to incomparable comparisons and faulty conclusions. It’s a little like putting the key in the car’s ignition but then the motor doesn’t start — right target, right placement, and a chance to be successful, but no engagement.

It’s not surprising that industry conversations about the two get a little convoluted. After all, a viewer can’t “value” something unless they’ve been exposed to it and it’s very difficult to “put a price” on the value someone receives from ad exposure/placement. Is the objective to make the final sale of the brand, to be talked about in social media, to be reminded how good a brand is? Value is a relative concept. Additionally, the value of something can be unique to a category, a brand, or even an individual. The real issue is there is currently no cross-platform engagement currency and if you can’t monetize something, well, let’s face it — there is no business in non-monetization.

There is so much emphasis being placed on how to best “measure impressions.” Especially in this cross-platform world — the amount of time, energy and money being spent on how to evaluate “reach/impressions” is staggering. Yet, this may not even be the issue. Did you ever “see a problem” and try and solve it with all you had…only to find out that that was not the problem in the first place.

It’s very difficult to “put a price” on the value someone receives from ad exposure/placement.

So why aren’t we, as marketers and advertisers, putting our efforts and energy into developing a cross-platform engagement currency? Is the goal too elusive? Too hard? Does it fight the status quo? Talk about different agendas! It seems that every marketer has their own definition of success depending on how their business generates revenue and profit.

However, a few things are constant — the true value of a brand is the ongoing purchase of that brand by the consumer who “believes” it provides value for him/her — bottom line, their ENGAGEMENT with it. Another constant is ROI — it will always equal gain from investment minus cost of investment divided by cost of that investment. In other words, value puts money in the bank…and that is where monetization fits in. It’s not the monetization of the “push” that matters as much as the monetization of the “pull.”. The “push” perspective, or cost associated with reach/impression, would be irrelevant if the “pull” model wasn’t in play. But again, we cannot consistently monetize “pull,”, so we monetize “push”. This is the crux of the issue.

I, for one, will always err on the side of engagement. My organization (LEAP Media Investments) has over 13 years of data and analytics revealing that if someone is “engaged” (we call it Emotionally Attached), they are 2 ½ times more likely to pay attention to an ad for a brand, they contribute 47.2% more sales and they are 43% more likely to socialize about the brand. In fact, if the “reach/impression” of a piece of content is engaging, viewers are 57% more likely to DVR/view it on demand, 51% more likely to watch it OTT (such as on Hulu or Netflix) and 41% more likely to socialize about the content.

With stats like this, I’d rather have viewers/consumers engaged with my brand (or content) so I have an opportunity to tell my brand’s story/value proposition to people who are willing to buy or watch.

So what are some solutions? Getting the entire industry to agree on one cross-platform engagement currency is probably NOT going to happen in the near future. Yet, engagement needs to be the goal of every ad message placed and every impression delivered because it represents the value proposition and the potential relationship a brand has with its consumer/viewer. Engagement is the ONLY thing that really matters for a brand to be not only successful, but also significant.

We need to stop believing that we are addressing a CONSUMER value equation when we are talking about reach/impressions. We are not. We are addressing a media monetization model — one that provides a marketplace for messages.

Engagement needs to be the goal of every ad message placed and every impression delivered

Lastly, although the goal feels elusive and somewhat difficult, we need influential C-Suite leaders (CMO’s, CEO’s, CFO’s) to form a cross-industry consortium (packaged goods/autos/finance/retail, etc.) and start discussing and developing what a cross-platform engagement currency (or set of currencies) could potentially be. The conversation has to come from the marketer’s perspective because the ROI’s need to be tied to marketer’s business models where engagement is foundational to business growth. The conversation cannot come from the perspective of reach/impressions because, again, the concept fundamentally relies on a different criteria of success.

In conclusion, the industry is at a critical juncture. New technologies in devices and digital influence provide new opportunities for all brands (and new brands) to potentially thrive. However, some things remain the same, such as getting a consumer/viewer to want what you have to offer. Because of this truth, there really is no comparison between reach/impressions and engagement. The former must drive the latter yet, for the past 40 years, the opposite model has been in operation. It’s time for the industry to engage in the real issue, so that we don’t only reach out on behalf of our brand, but rather make a lasting impression for our brands.

Denise Larson is the President and Co-Founder of LEAP Media, an organization that specializes in quantifying brand/media ROI based on the patented approach of Emotional Attachment (EA) between brands, media and consumers. She can be reached at denise@leapmediainvestments.com.