by David Price, Managing Director, The Grove Media
When YouTube withdrew from UK audience reporting it reignited an industry debate: why is it still so difficult to compare audiences consistently across linear TV, BVOD and digital video?
It’s a debate that is fundamentally about the inconsistencies that have persisted as digital media has evolved. The Government recently sought to address regulatory inconsistencies when it announced that streaming platforms and public service broadcaster (PBS) video-on-demand (VOD) services are to come under Ofcom, bringing them in line with the likes of the BBC and ITV. However, YouTube was not included in this announcement as Ofcom considers it to be a ‘video-sharing platform (VSP) rather than a broadcaster.
YouTube’s withdrawal from BARB was more than a contractual disagreement. It points to the fragility of cross-platform measurement alignment in a marketplace where commercial incentives are not always shared.
Clearly, YouTube hasn’t stopped being measured in the UK altogether. But it has blocked a specific BARB/Kantar initiative that reported viewing of YouTube content on TV sets, including channel-level comparisons alongside broadcasters and streamers. YouTube’s withdrawal was reportedly over methodology and data access concerns. Platform-level viewing estimates still exist, but the pause removed one of the few independent, TV-style cross-platform comparison tools available to advertisers.
So, if global platforms want access to TV budgets but resist being measured in the same way as broadcasters, what does that mean for advertisers trying to allocate investment with confidence?
IAB Europe has repeatedly identified inconsistent CTV measurement as a structural barrier to growth. And marketers have cited inconsistent metrics, lack of transparency as primary concerns. But CTV investment continues to accelerate. IAB UK forecast CTV spend to surpass £1.2B in 2024. Statista estimates nearly 18% YoY growth 2024 vs 2025. Paradoxically, spend is rising faster than standardisation.
We all know that advertisers allocate budgets based on confidence. So, when measurement frameworks are not aligned it makes life harder, but not impossible. And we have to face up to the fact that streamers and global platforms naturally design measurement systems that support their commercial positioning. Expecting every player in a competitive ecosystem to embrace a perfectly level playing field is tall order.
For years, the industry has rightly pursued uniform cross-platform measurement — a single currency that would finally allow apples-to-apples planning across linear, BVOD, CTV and digital platforms. But recurring tensions around transparency suggest that complete alignment may be unrealistic.
If we look at when the UK might possibly achieve unified cross‑media measurement, I believe the reality is not until at least the next decade. Origin – the cross-media measurement initiative led by ISBA, AOP and Kantar – is still in partial rollout. And BARB’s measurement expansion is still evolving. Origin plans to integrate Meta, TikTok, Amazon, and BARB is progressing towards including advertising tiers of Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+ in planning tools and expanding CFlight coverage. So, frankly we are a long way off unified cross-media measurement, if it is ever actually achievable.
So maybe the more pragmatic question becomes: what kind of accountability is achievable today? As an industry we arguably need to place as much emphasis – if not more – on pragmatic approaches as we do on ideals. This is all about usable accountability: frameworks that acknowledge commercial complexity rather than pretending it can be engineered away. Here are six practical measures that advertisers can use right now to ensure accountability:
Use independent, cross‑media measurement providers
Where platform‑reported data is inconsistent, third‑party measurement can fill critical gaps. Independent cross‑media reach and frequency measurement, via providers like AudienceProject, use direct integrations, probabilistic modelling and large UK panels to overcome fragmentation across CTV environments. These tools give advertisers a trusted external source of cross‑platform exposure data where no unified industry metric exists.
Adopt verification & quality frameworks across all video channels
CTV measurement gaps often involve verification and transparency problems. To overcome these, advertisers can use third‑party verification for viewability, fraud, brand safety, and attention. This mirrors IAB Europe’s recommendation to improve transparency, inventory visibility and verification in CTV environments. Importantly, verification mitigates the risk of platforms self‑marking their own homework.
Demand greater transparency through contractual clauses
Advertisers can increase accountability even without industry‑wide agreement by imposing transparency obligations individually. Data‑sharing clauses can require the disclosure of methodologies, frequency data, co‑viewing assumptions, and impression definitions. Advertisers should insist that partners support third‑party audience measurement, and are verification ready, eg having OM-compliance (IAB Open Measurement). Commercial pressure often drives transparency faster than regulation.
Use incrementality testing & experiments
When cross‑platform impression alignment is not possible, incrementality and test‑and‑control designs provide reliable performance evidence. Advertisers can run geo‑split tests across TV, CTV and BVOD markets. They can use platform‑agnostic lift studies and apply matched‑market tests to compare CTV-heavy regions against control regions. Experiments deliver evidence of campaign effectiveness without requiring unified measurement frameworks.
Triangulate data using mixed‑model measurement frameworks
A single currency may not exist, but triangulation can allow advertisers to build directional confidence. For instance, by blending long-term marketing mix modelling (MMM) with short-term multi touch attribution (MTA) measurement, advertisers can understand prolonged business impact. Also, metrics such as completion rate, reach and frequency help explain how CTV contributes to overall performance. And, clean room tools like Google PAIR let you safely connect exposure and outcome data across platforms such as YouTube and Amazon.
Consolidate the CTV supply chain to reduce fragmentation
Fragmentation is a major cause of inconsistent CTV measurement. To overcome this, advertisers should use fewer, more transparent streaming partners. Prioritise inventory (or PMPs) where measurement and verification are supported, and avoid suppliers unwilling to adopt independent measurement or verification. Ultimately, less fragmentation means fewer gaps, less duplication and cleaner performance data.
Uniform cross-platform measurement should be the goal of the industry and we should all continue to support this. It’s the right thing to do. But commercial reality has to prevail. And that means focusing on what’s needed right now. Advertisers need confidence, certainty and accountability. That’s why we need to double down on ‘usable accountability’: frameworks that acknowledge commercial complexity and reality of today’s market.
Article originally appeared in Mediashotz, link below.
