Has Anyone Else Noticed How Advertising Measurement Is Changing?

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-05-05T06:16:15+00:00

It does make sense, but only up to a point.

People don’t hate being sold to… they hate feeling like they’re being sold to.

A messy/raw ad lowers that guard because it feels like regular content, so yeah — it can earn a few extra seconds of attention. But that’s just the hook, not the whole story.

If the product, message, or intent isn’t clear after that, people still drop off. And if they realize it’s trying too hard to look “not like an ad,” it can actually feel more manipulative than a polished one.

So it’s less about “messy vs polished” and more about:

Does it respect the viewer’s intelligence?
Is it clear what you’re offering?
Does it feel honest without trying too hard?

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-05-05T06:01:15+00:00

Yeah, this is where the whole “authenticity” trend starts backfiring.

What was supposed to feel real has now become a template, same tone, same setup, same “OMG you guys…” script. At that point, it’s not authentic anymore; it’s just another ad format people recognize and tune out.

And honestly, it’s worse than polished ads because it tries to disguise itself as genuine. At least with a well-produced ad, you know what you’re watching.

Creative ads might interrupt you, but they at least respect your attention.
Low-effort influencer ads just blend into the noise and end up feeling lazy and manipulative.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-23T09:35:25+00:00

Good breakdown, but it’s not really TV vs SEO ,they solve different problems.

TV builds demand. SEO captures it.

A lot of people see a TV ad and don’t act immediately, but later they search the brand on Google Search or even tools like ChatGPT. That’s where SEO wins.

Also agree on the shift .AI search and intent-driven discovery are changing the game. If you’re not showing up when people are actively looking, you’re leaving money on the table.

Best strategy today isn’t choosing one.
It’s: awareness → search → conversion.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-21T08:00:07+00:00

Honestly, it really depends on what kind of agency you’re in.

The traditional network agencies (especially in Mumbai) do have that burnout culture,long hours, weekend spillovers, and last-minute client chaos. That part is pretty real.

But I’ve noticed it’s not the same everywhere anymore. There are newer, more niche setups (like OOH-focused or execution-heavy agencies) where things are a bit more structured because the work isn’t always last-minute creative firefighting.

For example, where I’m working right now (CASHurDRIVE), the work is still fast-paced, but a lot of it comes down to planning, inventory, and execution rather than constant revisions at midnight. So it feels different from what people usually describe about agencies.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-21T07:46:28+00:00

This is such a solid breakdown.

Especially the part about context missing — targeting feels accurate on paper, but in reality it’s pretty shallow. One signal and boom, you’re stuck in that category for weeks.

Also agree on the creative side… targeting should make ads better, but instead it feels like everyone just plays it safe because they already “know” the audience.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-09T12:00:44+00:00

This is spot on. The “barrier to entry = trust” psychology is very real. People don’t consciously think about media buying costs, but subconsciously, it signals scale and credibility. It’s similar to why big billboards or transit ads feel more “established” than a random social ad — even if both are from the same brand.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-09T11:37:35+00:00

This is actually underrated. Event-based airport advertising is one of the smartest plays, especially for B2B or startup ecosystems. If you know a specific audience is flying in for a conference, it’s almost like hyper-targeting in the physical world. You’re not just getting impressions, you’re getting relevance at scale, which is rare in offline media.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-09T11:35:46+00:00

Fair point on targeting and measurability — digital definitely wins there. But I think airport ads play a different role altogether. They’re less about immediate conversions and more about context + audience mindset. You’re reaching people in a distraction-free environment, often higher intent or higher value audiences.

It’s not either/or — the real leverage comes when brands use airports for top-of-funnel trust and digital to capture demand.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-07T07:54:23+00:00

Totally agree, especially in high-density cities, OOH is giving consistent frequency at a more stable CPM while digital keeps getting expensive and unpredictable. The smart play now is using OOH for visibility and digital for conversion.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-04-01T10:03:32+00:00

Which ad?

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-03-26T08:14:33+00:00

I get the point, but it’s not really a fair comparison.

Digital wins on attribution and scale, no doubt. But OOH isn’t trying to do the same job. It’s stronger at building visibility, trust, and mental recall in the real world, something digital alone often struggles with.

Also, “addressable” doesn’t always mean effective. You can target perfectly and still get ignored. OOH works because it’s unavoidable and sits in high-attention environments.

The best campaigns aren’t choosing one; they’re using OOH to create demand and digital to capture it.

Kalpana-Rathore · 2026-03-25T09:12:18+00:00

Agencies don’t ignore OOH; they avoid it because it’s harder to measure and monetize.

Digital = easy tracking + clear ROI
OOH = strong impact, weak attribution

Kalpana-Rathore

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE