Marketing has thrived with reach and frequency modeling for a number of years. Reach ensures coverage of a prospect audience. Frequency ensures impact for the message.

But the model has become too simple in our matrix of media options, especially related to frequency. A 728×90 banner may deliver 100,000 impressions to a target audience of 25,000 but even with a viewability of 50 percent, is that really a frequency of two? No. Did you reach all 25,000? Probably not, unless you are an avid capper like I am. And even something viewable doesn’t mean it left an impact. Viewable = 1 second, 50 percent seen. Got it

Yet many models run through the math and equate a display impression to a social post impression to an email impression. It’s not all the same. Not even close. Share of screen and length of engagement have to be a part of any real equation. For instance, on your mobile, you are more likely to see impact from a 300×250 than a 300×50. But boy oh boy do we have inventory to burn in that 300×50 arena. Impact is not 1:1 between the two sizes.

While we work on a new model, which may require a substantial percentage of cloud storage, we are going to continue with our approach and fight for impact with each impression.

Meanwhile, how does all of the media stack up in this conversation? The Rooster team talked about it in All Media Tactics are NOT Created Equal.

To see the whole issue, click here:

Sign up for the Digital Intelligent report: