The Battle for Measurement is About Finding “the Right Bone”
current measurement systems and the metrics used to assess attention, effectiveness, and quality—a provocation and an idea to elevate the value of advertising
The measurement war and the illusion of prominence
In recent weeks, I’ve read several articles discussing the legitimate effort to give Italy a shared and unified audience measurement system—one that keeps pace with a media industry undergoing an intense technological evolution, inevitably shifting habits and consumption modes.
Streaming has entered daily life with force, and with it, Connected TV—a sort of amplified desktop, a “magic box” that has added a T1 layer to audiovisual consumption: search, navigation, and choice among destinations (apps) and content. The operating systems of connected TVs are evolving, with multiple and still fragmented offerings in a market that remains somewhat wild. Yet amid all this movement, the industry often focuses on the small bone—prominence, or “how visible I am.”
Even in Italy, the debate around measurement has exploded. Streamers and traditional broadcasters are fighting for their share of the advertising “slice.” No one is backing down—and while other countries have reached practical compromises, here we’re stuck in a media Wild West.
(Image 1: A typical CTV interface)
In the UK and France, a pragmatic solution emerged: national currencies that combine panel data (to capture demographics) with digital signals, more or less census-based. Netflix has been part of BARB since October 12, 2022—the first time a major SVOD platform joined an “industry-owned” currency with public, comparable reports, including against broadcasters (barb.co.uk).
In Germany (AGF), the integration of Prime Video goes even further: server-to-server logs provided via Nielsen are merged with AGF’s panel to make figures comparable within the national system—a clear step forward (Heise Online).
In Italy, Auditel has a clear technical threshold: it counts a legitimate stream only beyond 300 ms, cutting out the “noise” below that mark—a useful reminder whenever someone confuses a “serve” with an actual “view” (Auditel).
Meanwhile, AGCOM, through its 2025 investigation, has refocused on independence, transparency, and the absence of conflicts of interest in measurement systems—the very pillars of market credibility (agcom.it).
Vanity Metrics vs. Value Metrics
The debate on CTV “prominence” and “visibility share” recalls an old proverb:
“When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.”
Prominence isn’t the cause of visibility—it’s a consequence of relevance, of the audience relationship you’ve built. It’s about consumption habits. Sure, being visible matters, but it’s like getting invited to a party and spending the night standing by the buffet.
Where relevance exists, business outcomes follow—and so do attention and effectiveness. The latest studies show that attention predicts outcomes better than viewability and lowers the cost per action when optimized (Lumen Research).
On CTV, several studies report about 9.7 seconds of active attention per ad, far above mobile or desktop in comparable tests—proof that the big screen yields more qualified exposure (Next TV).
Meta-analyses further indicate that high-attention media deliver 58% more attentive seconds per euro invested (UK), while the majority of “feed-based” digital impressions fail to meet minimum attention thresholds. That’s the hidden cost of vanity metrics (The Media Leader).
A provocation for the Italian market
How much of today’s paid GRPs/streams actually produce useful attention?
(We should include an attention audit in post-buy reports by 2026.)
Why do we still run volume-based competitions when evidence shows that attention quality explains sales and brand lift better than reach?
Because simplicity and standardization keep revenue flowing to publishers—who understandably need to sustain their business. But the current fight for the advertising bone feels like a cyborg and a Neanderthal arguing in a cave. Advertising has become a commodity, and the proliferation of proprietary effectiveness tools adds fragmentation and cost for advertisers.
A recent report showed Wall Street pulling back from major media groups, no longer seeing the value behind their investments. When advertising becomes a value-less proxy, this is the result.
We hold the keys to the future in our hands—but in Italy, systemic thinking remains rare.
“Linear TV vs. Connected TV”: Stop Mixing Apples and Oranges
The old excuse of “it can’t be done” no longer holds: linear TV is already evolving (addressable, CTV, HbbTV). So let’s do a small thought experiment.
Imagine a 100% transition from broadcast to IP-based (fiber) systems. The first thing we’d achieve is homogenized transmission.
Fiber: Where We Really Stand
Across Europe, FTTH/B covers ~75% of households (EU39, 2025), but adoption remains at ~33%. Italy is below the EU average in ultrabroadband, now racing to meet PNRR deadlines. Reuters (June 2025) noted delays and potential reassignments among network operators (Open Fiber / FiberCop).
Translation: IP-only is a direction, not a switch.
A coexistence period is necessary, with measurable goals: fewer vanity metrics, more value—measured in attentive seconds, affinity, outcomes.
The Future Scenario: From GRP to QGRP
I fed this reasoning into AI to simulate three scenarios:
full transition to IP in 5 years
full transition in 10 years
no transition at all
Assuming constant audience and using available market data (TV ad market €4.3B), the model projects that a fully IP-based ecosystem—where all publishers adopt homogeneous connected data—would finally deliver granular, comparable metrics.
We could then focus on the real value for advertisers: effective attention—the kind that doesn’t waste money but multiplies it.
This shift would elevate the overall system’s quality. I discussed it earlier when introducing QGRP vs GRP: higher-qualified attention and measurable conversion generate more value—and thus a higher price.
Today, most media audits start from the assumption that ad prices are a commodity and that price negotiations are a formality. But a new measurement model could change that.
(Image 3: Scenario projection)
In the long run, it pays off. After the initial migration costs, the full-IP system becomes more efficient: prices tied to attention (QGRP) and reduced waste mean ad revenues surpass industrial costs. At first, you pay for the pipes—but eventually, water reaches those who actually drink.
Sleeping Points and Points That Really Matter
For years, advertising counted sleeping points.
They were called GRPs—or CPMs—and all it took was for a screen to turn on for them to be counted.
Whether the viewer was actually watching, checking their phone, or in the kitchen didn’t matter. It was a convention—simple, accepted, but unfair to the ones paying the bill.
Now, with the shift to IP ecosystems (CTV and measurable streaming), points are waking up.
QGRP — Qualified Gross Rating Points — measure not just presence, but active presence: how long someone watches, if the video is visible, completed, interacted with, and appears in a quality context.
In other words, advertisers are no longer paying for potential viewers, but for real viewers.
That’s a massive conceptual shift—from counting screens to valuing attention.
The truth in the data may sting, but in the medium to long term, it regenerates the entire system—like a bitter medicine that heals.
What Changes in Practice
In this (somewhat sci-fi but plausible) model, revenues don’t grow because audiences do.
They grow because each point is worth more.
A “qualified” GRP—truly viewed and measurable—can be worth 1.2 to 2.5× a traditional GRP, as confirmed by multiple studies (WFA / Lumen / Ebiquity Meta-Study 2023, IAS, DoubleVerify).
The share of ad inventory traded with attention metrics could rise from 10% to 60% in five years.
Meanwhile, IP distribution allows for better selling: fewer duplications, frequency capping, and +12% sell-through efficiency in the model.
Result: with the same audience, total ad value increases by 25–35%—not by selling more, but by selling better.
The Metrics That Truly Matter
Behind the QGRP price multiplier are five already measurable variables:
VariableMeaningPractical ExampleA (Attention Time)Average actual viewing timeHow many seconds people really watch the adV (Viewability)% of impressions visible ≥2sHow often the ad is actually seenC (Completion Rate)% of videos completedHow many finish the adE (Engagement)Active interaction or audio onHow many engage with the adQ (Context Quality)Editorial quality / brand safetyWhere the ad appears: safe, relevant environment
When these improve, the GRP “wakes up”—becoming a dynamic signal weighted by the quality of attention it generates.
From Volume to Value
The old broadcast system was like a fountain running 24/7: lots of water wasted, no idea how much was actually drunk.
The IP system is a network of smart taps: every drop measured, every sip counted.
Building those taps costs money—CAPEX, dual-run, training, communication—but once in place, the flow is cleaner and more efficient.
That’s why, in the projection, the cost/revenue ratio decreases: not because we spend less, but because every euro spent on advertising starts to yield more.
Conclusion
This exercise is, of course, a simulation—but it highlights a crucial point: the real effort should go into raising the value of advertising inventory, making it genuinely relevant to audiences rather than a self-referential exercise.
Protecting linear TV’s economics is understandable—it still sustains much of the ecosystem—but the creator economy is advancing relentlessly. It’s no longer audiences seeking TV; it’s TV chasing audiences.
A transition is both necessary and urgent if traditional television, with its vast content heritage, wants to survive against Google, Meta, and TikTok—yes, even they are entering the Connected TV arena. Just look at YouTube’s prominence on our big screens.
The real progress will come not from tugging at an ever-shorter rope, but from changing the rope altogether.
Today, everyone is fighting over the same bone—mixing apples and oranges (different technologies, different metrics)—causing a stalemate between broadcasters and streamers.
But if we shift focus from who gets the biggest slice of the pie to how to bake a richer, multi-layered cake, maybe everyone wins.
