...
Review transit systems for approval from staging into production. Review the TRPs and impressions for individual transit systems, approve measures (Task Force)
Test Market Plan and post any feedback. Suggestions included multiple places within a system and showing additional demographics. (Task Force & Geopath)
Use Market Plan to create sample packages
Add additional examples for the Own and Manage representation types, provide feedback (Geopath & Task Force)
Draft communication on guidance using preliminary impressions for operator proposals – board approval required (Geopath)
Provide this task force with documentation on the proposed Market Plan implementation being drafted by the R/F task force (Geopath)
Build a visualization to a default workflow (Geopath)
Notes
The System Status and Approvals page has been updated to reflect account names with base impressions and present in staging.
Market Plan
The Market Plan was used to create sample packages. Two allocation methods were used to create packages, equal quantity and equal TRP. The Equal TRP allocation method applied 50 TRPs across 7 garages for slightly more than 7 TRPs per garage. A resulting Required Spots number generates for each garage. We had previously reviewed a methodology to create sample packages using the Explore data export, though the Market Plan approach looks to handle most of the strain of calculations.
The Equal Quantity Allocation sets a certain number of required spots per garage. In this case, 25 kings are designated at each of the 7 garages for a total of 175 kings. In terms of TRPs, the sum of the TRPs adds up to 43. In comparison to the Equal TRP approach, we would be able to create a package of 50 TRPs in these two different ways.
Would we be able to add a way to enter in a quantity as a campaign goal? We generally have delivery goals based on Either the Target In-Market Impressions Plan or the Reach % Plan. It’s then easy to adjust to the required spots per garage as necessary. We will float the idea of being able to apply a quantity to all as an option. The use case would be a large number of stations and being able to apply a set number to each.
Own and Manage Representation Types
Examples of Own and Manage Representation Types were posted. The Parent Account Name and the Account Name are concatenated to create the Own and Manage listings. For Transit the Manage Rep Type Name is critical because it provides the name of the vendor. Examples for Roadside are also posted, with just the Own rep type required.
If Pittsburgh Regional Transit and Intersection both have rights to sell inventory, how would this be reflected? There would be a Manage account for Intersection – Pittsburgh RT and an Own account for Pittsburgh RT – Pittsburgh RT. Secondly, in the scenario that Pittsburgh RT became a Geopath member, the Own account for Pittsburgh RT – Pittsburgh RT covers them for also selling advertising.
Do we keep the Manage and Own account attributes by inventory type? Each spot ID has it’s own parent account name - account name. The Spot ID is more granular than inventory type because it takes into account the garage or different sizes of the ad.
In the case of Valley Metro, where some inventory is sold by OUTFRONT and other inventory is sold by Clear Channel, how would that be differentiated? There would be three “buckets” to account for the options. The Own rep type would be Valley Metro – Valley Metro where all Valley Metro inventory would show up, both OUTFRONT as well as Clear Channel. There is a Manage account of Clear Channel – Valley Metro were you could find just Clear Channel’s inventory and similarly a Manage account for OUTFRONT where only OUTFRONT’s Valley Metro would appear.
In the Insights Suite, education and training would be necessary to understand what the options represent. In the case where an operator sells advertising for two transit systems within the same market, the Market Plan will include all of that inventory when searching by the operator. In the scenario where the vendor only has the single system, the Market plan results would show inventory for the vendor being the same as the results for the system. The contextual understanding for this would be to see that they are the same inventory and both sets would not need to be added. Also mentioned was the relationship between garages being nested into a larger subset, an item we’ll review with Motionworks.
Guidance Using Preliminary Impressions
A draft communication is posted for feedback. Both Geopath and the Task Force will be able to add specs on using preliminary impression data.
R/F
The Reach and Frequency Task Force will be requested to put together an update with respect to the transit and the Market Plan.
Action Items
Review transit systems for approval from staging into production. Review the TRPs and impressions for individual transit systems, approve measures (Task Force)
Test Market Plan and post any feedback or useful examples of output
Sample Packages can also be created and shared using Market Plan (Task Force & Geopath)
Write examples of Own and Manage representation types. Phoenix Valley Metro is a requested example.
Provide feedback on Guidance for Using Preliminary Impressions
Find updates for transit and Market Plan R/F (Task Force & Geopath)