P&G Contends Too Much Digital Ad Spending Is a Waste

Procter & Gamble cut digital spending by $200M last year.

Why did they do this? Multiple reasons, but concerns over quality (1.7s average views on Facebook, etc.) were a driving force.

What were the results? Total reach increased by 10%.

Alternative view. If moving $200M from digital to other areas led to a 10% increase in reach, then digital was most likely overfunded, to begin with.

Quote from Marc Pritchard — Chief Brand Officer @ Procter & Gamble
“This new level of transparency is shining the light on what’s next — marketers taking back control of our own destiny to accelerate mass disruption — transforming our industry from the wasteful mass marketing we’ve been mired in for nearly a century to mass one-to-one brand building fueled by data and digital technology,”

Quality is not just a digital issue. Data from TVision points out that viewability on TV is not 100%. In fact, there is a 60% swing in attention between shows in primetime.

More:
1)
Facebook pitches brand-safe video ad buys for $750,000, but lack of control irks buyers

2) Turmoil on Madison Avenue as Marketers Push for Change