P&G Contends Too Much Digital Ad Spending Is a Waste

Procter & Gamble cut digital spending by $200M last year.

Why did they do this? Multiple reasons, but concerns over quality (1.7s average views on Facebook, etc.) were a driving force.

What were the results? Total reach increased by 10%.

Alternative view. If moving $200M from digital to other areas led to a 10% increase in reach, then digital was most likely overfunded, to begin with.

Quote from Marc Pritchard — Chief Brand Officer @ Procter & Gamble
“This new level of transparency is shining the light on what’s next — marketers taking back control of our own destiny to accelerate mass disruption — transforming our industry from the wasteful mass marketing we’ve been mired in for nearly a century to mass one-to-one brand building fueled by data and digital technology,”

Quality is not just a digital issue. Data from TVision points out that viewability on TV is not 100%. In fact, there is a 60% swing in attention between shows in primetime.

Facebook pitches brand-safe video ad buys for $750,000, but lack of control irks buyers

2) Turmoil on Madison Avenue as Marketers Push for Change


Want the latest insights from around the video advertising industry?
Subscribe to our State of the Screens Newsletter.


Thank you

We have received your message and will be in touch shortly.


Contact Us