As brands, clients, and agencies are being tasked to do more with less, it’s time to tackle some of the most pressing questions in the industry. While incorporating innovative cost-cutting measures and more effective brand-building budget allocations, we frequently encounter the friction between today’s reach/frequency challenges and precision targeting strategies.
More specifically, the idea that reach via broad-range targeting is somehow damaging to brands and that the solution is a push for more finite audiences and the potential ROI advanced targeting brings. We have been captivated by the perceived security offered by the concept of precision data targeting, as well as its theoretical reliability in contrast to the vast nature of broad reach campaigns. The trouble is, data and reach are not necessarily created equal. In fact, we would argue that substantive ROI isn’t realized unless we incorporate the RIGHT data, at the RIGHT time, against the RIGHT audiences, with the RIGHT investment levels. In other words, we can’t just settle for “precision data targeting” in its current form— we must accept that data flawed, targeting capabilities are still limited, and not everything that’s measurable is worth measuring.
If the pendulum has swung too far towards precision targeting, how do we ensure long-term customer growth?
The truth is that most brands have general market appeal, requiring some element of reach to secure long-term sales viability and fill the funnel for future purchases. This essential growth, already impeded by fragmentation across the digital landscape, is further stunted when advertisers adopt a narrow focus on targeting only those consumers with immediate purchase likelihood.
Focusing excessively on a specific audience not only risks false attribution of shoppers who might have purchased without additional ad messaging, but it also limits long-term growth and hampers large-scale awareness. High data costs compound the customer volume issue and can lead to a critical tipping point where the cost of precision targeting surpasses its return on investment. If data costs fail to yield unique customers, and those funds could be better allocated to impactful placements targeting larger audiences, the solution lies in striking a balance between reach and precision.
To achieve this balance, we implement contextual targeting that does not rely solely on data from first or third-party sources, ensuring “future-proof” viability. While contextual placements should not be the only strategy employed, their looser restrictions and lower prices can offset some of the complexities associated with more focused precision targets. Additionally, it is essential to identify the “tipping point” for every brand—where we can effectively track the ROI of both data targeting and broad reach. With the right approach, we can find the sweet spot that fosters both
Is broad reach actually the antidote to the frequency death spiral?
Recent concerns over excessive frequency actually point to larger industry questions: where has reach gone, and have we been relying so heavily on “precision” data targeting that we began to ignore the cracks in the system? Imperfect data, lack of cross-platform campaign continuity (frequency capping across channels and partners), and identity resolution weaknesses mean now is the time for more inclusive, rather than exclusive, audiences. Compensating for excessive frequency means further diversifying budget allocations, even in light of the frequency unknowns. It’s better to expend additional dollars on higher potential for unique views than on certain frequency excess!
To ensure frequency efficacy, it is crucial to adopt a robust approach for testing data partner sourcing and overall effectiveness. Not all target data is created equal, and capabilities can vary significantly between sources. Additionally, when building targets, focus on expansion rather than limitation. We can accept technology and data limitations if we’re accounting for them in foundational audience development. With rare exceptions for extreme specialty products, the smaller the target audience the more challenging in-market delivery will be. Effectiveness comes from understanding what current data and tech can feasibly deliver.
Furthermore, diversifying investment can help capture a broader aggregate of consumers. Alternatively, for campaigns with lower budgets, concentrating spending within specific walled gardens can help in avoiding the pitfalls of excessive frequency. While we can’t expect to pay lower CPMs in these closed ecosystems, smaller budgets can provide more control over excessive waste against limited audiences, allowing for more meaningful use of advertising dollars.
Can today’s video landscape still deliver high-reach audiences in quality environments?
While the massive TV audiences of the past have faded, their decline has been met with a celebration, as they were replaced by more measurable and agile digital viewers. However, despite the measurability of digital options, those that deliver TV-like living room viewing experiences are fewer and more expensive. In this quest for reach, maintaining quality is paramount. It is ill-advised for brands to broaden their target audiences by substituting high-touch targeting across all digital tactics with demo-targeted, low-CPM strategies focused solely on programmatic display or equivalent low cost, low engagement inventory. Upholding quality standards is essential for delivering effective results.
YouTube has long been recognized as a powerful reach vehicle in Connected TV (CTV), offering a viable alternative for brands aiming to replicate the efficient reach capabilities of traditional TV. Yet, a closer examination of recent YouTube data reveals a pressing need for tactical diversification. According to Nielsen’s November Gauge report, YouTube accounted for only 10.6% of all living room “TV” viewing in 2024, highlighting the necessity for brands to explore multiple platforms.
Though growing, the limited number of commercial breaks in CTV (they’re 50% longer in linear TV) combined with fewer ad-supported platforms, means that viewership isn’t as diversified as desired, cites AdAge. Simulmedia reported that 20% of the heaviest CTV viewers receive 61% of total ad impressions, while calculations from AdAge indicated that most CTV ads may only reach under 13% of the U.S. population, taking household viewing habits into account.
Linear TV faces similar challenges today. A recent study by Ampersand on reach through national TV impressions demonstrated diminishing returns on unique impressions for every dollar spent after six weeks. As a campaign progresses, reach diminishes, while frequency against heavy viewers increases significantly, resulting in 50% of impressions delivered at “wasteful” frequency levels to in-target audiences and the other 50% reaching out-of-target audiences. To ensure reach beyond the six-week mark, incorporating major streaming services, FAST channels, and YouTube allocations is essential.
However, this does not mean brands must sacrifice video quality or reach. Insights from The Trade Desk’s examination of unique video audiences across CTV and linear TV indicate that unique audiences are often found in CTV with minimal duplication across channels during a typical flight. KSM’s own research with TVSquared on the A35–64 audience corroborates these findings, revealing only 2% duplication across CTV and linear TV audiences. This suggests that utilizing both channels can maximize reach possibilities for clients.
To optimize video reach, we can reduce the length of flight periods and toggle between linear networks/programming and CTV platforms to guarantee unique reach. Whenever feasible, run CTV and linear campaigns simultaneously. The data strongly supports the existence of unique audiences across both channels, making it impractical to focus on just one. YouTube should be a mandatory component of any online video buy; however, despite its #1 reach status, it cannot function as a standalone solution. Diversifying streaming platforms ensures the capture of unique audiences, reflecting habitual viewing preferences across various targeting cohorts. Additionally, quality contextual concerns can be addressed by blending high- and low-end placements for enhanced efficiency and brand safety.
The Big Takeaway:
To ensure quality reach and long-term brand growth, systematic testing of various data partners and available segments will yield more effective campaigns and define clear direction for future targeting approaches.