Media Metrics Missing Ingredients

After reading @MarkRitson creative and valid response to Mumbrella360's recent debate ‘Are Digital Metrics Bullshit’, it got me stewing on reporting as a whole, cross-channel. When thinking of the media reporting recipe, to me, there are 2 key ingredients that are paramount, but unfortunately are often overlooked or missed, spoiling the big reveal:

1. Relevance

I strongly agree with Mark’s point in regards to comparing apples with apples. We, as media planners, are faced with this issue when benchmarking client’s campaigns against industry averages, across mediums. Often this data is not public nor relatable. From a micro perspective, we overcome this by benchmarking digital & traditional activity against historical campaigns from the same advertiser, however this approach is not always the best solution. Relevance is needed to be able to interpret the data, 'sizing it up' against competition. So when will this data become more easily accessible across a plurality of mediums... a macro solution is needed, now.

2. Context

Stand-alone medium metrics are ‘bullshit’, but when interpreted within context (including relevance), insights and key learning's will soon appear. The onus lies with the analyst to communicate the story in which the data tells, relying heavily on context, in both a meaningful and digestible manner.

In short, stand-alone media metrics are 'nonsense', but add a dash of context and a spoonful of relevance and tada, they 'make sense'.

If you haven’t already, have a read of Mark Ritson’s engaging disposition here, it’s well worth the read!