Sir Martin Sorrell: Facebook cannot claim a three-second view is the same as a TV ad
The boss of WPP believes more needs to be done to improve ad measurement and validation on social media sites.
By Sarah Vizard
Sir Martin Sorrell, the boss of WPP, believes there is still a lot of work to be done before social catches up to the power of search.
Speaking at the Festival of Marketing today (5 October), he admitted that five years ago analysts saw Facebook and Google as “enemies” of WPP, yet fast-forward to now and Sorrell described them more as frenemies. This year, Google was WPP’s biggest media investment and he said by 2018 he expects Google and Facebook to be its biggest two. However he doesn’t expect Facebook to overtake Google any time soon.
“Search is more powerful than social. It is no accident that Google outperforms Facebook four to one.”
Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO, WPP
One of the issues is that Facebook is still being both player and referee and that the industry needs to improve measurement.
“Facebook can’t really claim that a three-second view when 50% of the time the sound is off is the same as a 15-second, a 30-second, a 60-second TV ad or someone reading a The Times for 40 minutes,” he said.
“And we have to address this by having better measurement.”
He said Facebook’s recent error in viewability stats is actually a “good” because it focuses clients’, media buyers’ and the media’s attention on the issue.
READ MORE: Mark Ritson – Facebook’s erroneous video metrics show no one has a clue about digital
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said. “This is opening up areas that need opening up.”
The rise of short-termism
Sorrell believes brands are becoming increasingly cautious and that a focus on costs is driving short-termism. He explained how the the declining length of tenure of CEOs, CFOs and CMOs is a result of short-term thinking brought about by factors including tech disruption, zero-based budgeters and activist investors.
“The world is growing at 3.5%. There is low growth, no inflation, no pricing power and a focus on cost. That is not good for the industry. I’m not saying it is wrong or I can’t understand the reasons why but it is not healthy,” he said.
He cited the example of the top 10 brands in the annual Millward Brown BrandZ survey. These he said are the best brands focused on innovation and investing. And if investors had put their money into them rather than the S&P stock market they would have got returns of 120%, instead of 50%.
“The way you win is through innovation and branding.”
Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO, WPP
“That sounds trite but it is fundamental. There is too much focus on cost, the [brands] that break out will be the ones with the confidence to take risks,” he explained.
The future of advertising
Sorrell admitted he expects 100% of WPP’s media spend to be ‘digital’, saying this is because brands need to stop differentiating between digital and analogue, calling it an “artificial distinction”. At the moment it is around 37%.
Read More: Nissan marketing boss: ‘I would be happy if the word digital disappears’
He also thinks virtual reality is one of the most exciting areas, but not because of the technology because of the content.
He expects consolidation in the business to continue apace. While the Publicis/Omnicom deal may not have gone through, he does not expect there to be six holding companies in three or four years’ time.
“It is inevitable you will see further consolidation among clients, media owners and agencies. The industry is oversupplied. There will be more consolidation,” he said. “And the marketplace becoming more fragmented puts more pressure on agencies to consolidate.”
“Facebook can’t really claim that a three-second view when 50% of the time the sound is off is the same as a 15-second, a 30-second, a 60-second TV ad or someone reading a The Times for 40 minutes,” he said.
The problem is not when the sound is off, but when it’s on. So annoying and makes the user push the advert immediately off-screen because this is the fastest way to mute the damn thing. At best this has no benefit for the brand because you don’t even notice who is advertizing – at worse it leaves a very bad impression.
Comparing Search (Google) with Social (FB) and saying Search is ‘more powerful’ (in what? I assume here Sir Martin Sorrell is referring to sales) is comparing a striker with a defender on the pitch by looking at the number of goals one scored. The Striker will always outperform the Defender. The comparison is incorrect. You need to apply the right metrics on both channel’s performance. Social is supposed to generate awareness / conversation and should be assessed on how well it attributes to introducing a consumer to a brand or service (First Touch attribution model), where Search is often used at the end of the ‘Path to Conversion’ or ‘Customer Journey’; targeting consumers who are already actively looking for a product or service, and should be reviewed on its delivery on sales (Last click attribution). A common misconception in Digital Marketing is that, because we can track sales and clicks, EVERYTHING is assessed on the Last Click (often in Google Analytics). Time to update our metrics and understanding here! 🙂