{"id":12214,"date":"2016-09-23T11:12:31","date_gmt":"2016-09-23T11:12:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=12214"},"modified":"2016-09-23T11:12:31","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T11:12:31","slug":"why-facebooks-ad-buyers-are-not-happy-right-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/technology\/internet\/why-facebooks-ad-buyers-are-not-happy-right-now.html","title":{"rendered":"Why Facebook’s Ad Buyers Are Not Happy Right Now"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why Facebook’s Ad Buyers Are Not Happy Right Now<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Why Facebook’s Ad Buyers Are Not Happy Right Now<\/strong> : About a data discrepancy that stretched on for two years, according to a report.<\/span>
\n Advertisers and media buyers are distressed after Facebook revealed that it had been overestimating the average time users spent watching videos.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facebook\u2019s FB 0.11% error in reporting the metric was a result of only counting views of three seconds or longer when it calculated its \u201caverage duration of video viewed\u201d metric, a Facebook employee explained in a post on the site\u2019s advertiser help center. Since it left out views that were shorter than three seconds, the average viewing time appeared higher than it actually was\u2014a discrepancy that stretched on for two years, sources told The Wall Street Journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facebook reported that it would be correcting the measure on its website about a month ago to factor in all video plays. It would also be renaming it from \u201caverage duration of video viewed\u201d to \u201caverage watch time,\u201d the company said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ad executives have since been asking the social media giant for more details, and expressed skepticism about the proposed solution.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEssentially, they\u2019re coming up with new names for what they were meant to measure in the first place,\u201d ad buying agency Publicis Media said in a memo informing its clients of the news.<\/span><\/p>\n

The note said that Facebook had told the company that the estimated average viewing time was likely over-exaggerated by somewhere between 60% and 80%, according to the Journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facebook released the following statement:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe recently discovered an error in the way we calculate one of our video metrics. This error has been fixed, it did not impact billing, and we have notified our partners both through our product dashboards and via sales and publisher outreach. We also renamed the metric to make it clearer what we measure. This metric is one of many our partners use to assess their video campaigns.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The announcement has raised questions about whether external companies should be brought in to measure analytics for advertisers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis once again illuminates the absolute need to have 3rd party tagging and verification on Facebook\u2019s platform,\u201d Publicis said.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSeeing the Facebook news about overestimating video views for 2 years makes me wonder about Snapchat,\u201d Shafqat Islam, co-founder of NewsCred wrote on Twitter. \u201cNeed 3rd party verification everywhere.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/object><\/span><\/p>\n

Scott Klein, ProPublica\u2019s deputy managing editor, said on Twitter that \u201cnot counting video views under three seconds seems defensible.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAverages are too sensitive to outliers,\u201d he wrote.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Micah Gelman, senior editor and head of The Washington Post\u2019s video team, called the news a \u201cdisaster\u201d for Facebook\u2019s reputation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHow can they claim any credibility?\u201d Gelman wrote on Twitter. \u201cHow many TV nets are screaming right now about all the money agencies shifted to Facebook based on faulty data?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Source<\/strong> : http:\/\/fortune.com\/2016\/09\/23\/facebook-video-view-metric\/<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t