Just because you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. Something like this can be said for "engaged views" and "impressions". Their difference is very real in theory, not so much in practice. Because in practice engagement is invisible, that is, unmeasurable. Which seems to be one of the reasons that ad agencies are cutting on emerging media formats (online video, mobile, games, etc). The rationale goes along these lines: "media like this reach a relatively small number of people, and so audience measurement is difficult to pin down". It is very true that Comscore would never register it. But some other scores might. Like Net Promoter
score, which is actually made for this purpose. It measures how many times a person
recommends a brand to others, and if she returns to the site. In short,
it's good for monitoring long term relationship
with the brand (yup, brand loyalty). And what can be more valuable
than loyalty in tough times? As any measurement instrument tho, this
one needs to be heavily pushed for and advertised in order to become more widely
accepted in the industry. We currently measure impressions just because we have tools to measure them. Not because they really work. In fact, impressions are the traditional media thing and a far cry from the ways in which the web is used - interactivity & attraction. Not interruption, under any circumstances. At this note, let's take a moment to hear the word of wisdom from McKinsey&Co: "web is the most measurable medium in the history of marketing. Now all that's left is figuring out how to measure it". Consultants never fail to point the obvious, and to point it in the wrong direction. It is not HOW (metrics), people, it is WHAT (impressions or engagement). Sadly enough, how currently defines what. So truth is, before marketing people RE-define what it is they are measuring, there's really no way to know what works on the web and what doesn't. Economic crisis or not.