> You can't even really pretend to measure the effectiveness of campaigns there.
I disagree - for something at the scale of P&G, you can bet that they're doing a LOT of measuring for every campaign they run.
The article reads to me as if they're applying the same metrics to their online ads that they use already for traditional campaigns, and finding little impact.
Agree that they are measuring, but determining the cause and effect of each campaign is very hard. Sometimes ads have a clear impact, but those are cases that no one argues with. Mostly advertisers simply say (in effect) we got your message out, and there was an impact. If the low/high uptake was due to the ad or to the quality of the product or to the weakness of competitors - well no one can say.
Just assuming that they have a magical way to solve attribution for traditional ads because they're a bit corporation. If they did have that, they could just use the same tools on digital and report fake clicks and bots to Facebook and Google to get reimbursed. (Google at least refunds all impressions and clicks that were later detected as being fraudulent)
Correct. We're likely talking econometric/MMM modeling which likely tells them at the channel level what is or is not working, but they may not have enough data for that at the campaign level or lower.
I disagree - for something at the scale of P&G, you can bet that they're doing a LOT of measuring for every campaign they run.
The article reads to me as if they're applying the same metrics to their online ads that they use already for traditional campaigns, and finding little impact.