Marketers have strong confidence in the measurement of advertising impact in individual channels but they’re far less certain when it comes to the overall effectiveness of their advertising work, according to the IAB.
That is not necessarily a new point of view. However the IAB’s Future of Measurement review has found measurement of Australia’s marketing and advertising effectiveness is now at a “critical juncture”.
The constraint, the IAB said, is a lack of shared, standardised and comparable data. There are plenty of measurement systems but these are not united and, therefore, not necessarily as useful for media planning and effectiveness assessment as they could be.
These challenges are not insurmountable, either, according to the IAB. But they do require cross-industry collaboration.
“This review confirms what much of the industry has felt for some time: while there is confidence in individual channels, there is less confidence in how they work together to demonstrate business outcomes,” said Natalie Stanbury, director of research at IAB Australia.
“The consistent message from respondents is that the industry doesn’t need another standalone measurement method. It needs to build on strong foundations, starting with a common standard for structured campaign data that every measurement method can rely on.”
The review found that respondents want a common taxonomy for campaign data across marketing mix modelling, attribution, and experimentation. In the US, the IAB released its Campaign Data Standards 1.0 in August 2026. This is existing global work that Australia could adapt rather than recreate.
There is strong industry consensus, the IAB found, that the solution relies on integrating complementary measurement methods however combining them is complex. Separate IAB US research cited in the review concurred finding only 39 per cent of US buy-side decision makers use marketing mix modelling, attribution and incrementality together.
Data clean rooms, often touted as a privacy compliant method for data collaboration for measurement, could be effective. However, the benefits are “among the least realised” in reality.
AI, again often touted as a benefit in this space, is not a silver bullet. It can automate data preparation, modelling, and reporting, but cannot compensate for poor-quality data, and raises new questions about what evidence machines can rely on as buying becomes more agentic.
The IAB also said that Australia’s channel-specific currencies operate largely in silos. The industry is calling for greater harmonisation of metrics and definitions and integration of these datasets. The OzTam and Ipsos iris data integration, the IAB said, is seen as the model for future combining of datasets.
The review also found wide agreement that economically sustainable, industry-endorsed digital audience data for media planning remains important. Media owners and agencies continue to rely on this independent, standardised, comparable, transparent, and audited data to compare and evaluate digital media ad environments and allocate investment.
“Good measurement starts with good data. If campaign data isn’t clean, consistent, and comparable across channels, no amount of modelling sophistication will make up for it. This review gives the industry a practical starting point. Agree the taxonomy, agree the standards, and build from there,” said Suzie Cardwell, chair of IAB Australia and chief data, product and technology officer – enterprise at Nine.
The findings have led to a set of eight priority areas and various suggested initiatives that will be put forward for further validation and consideration by IAB Australia’s Measurement, Ad Effectiveness, Data, Retail & Commerce Media Councils, to inform the organisation’s 2027 measurement strategy.
