It's always the same questions. What did digital add on top of TV? How many times did we hit the target in total, counting every medium together? Is 12 too many? Did the sponsorship actually pay off?
FLUZO eliminates blind spots and delivers a level of clarity that helps you win the client's trust, and, above all, spend their budget smarter on the next wave.
One methodology. Your entire portfolio. Centralise cross-media intelligence across large multi-market campaigns or local brands, with the same agility. Start fast and scale without friction, with an efficiency that brings top-tier measurement within reach of any account, large or small.
The medium that added reach no one else did. CTV or whatever's rising.
Brand lift. Exposed versus not exposed. That's the impact.
Simulate the next wave. Optimise before you buy.
Pick the campaign you most need answers on. Same platform, same methodology, no commitment for the rest of your portfolio.
See what FLUZO has revealed across your campaigns, clients and markets, all in one place. Compare results, uncover patterns, and turn accumulated knowledge into smarter media strategies, all from one command centre for your teams.
There isn't one accepted standard, which is part of the problem. But the reliability of any cross-media methodology comes down to three things.
Whether exposure is observed or declared. Asking people what they watched depends on memory; recognising it on the screen doesn't.
Whether every medium is measured with the same unit. If TV counts in one currency and digital in another, the comparison is an estimate, not a measurement.
Whether it all comes from a single source. Stitching together six providers means the overlap between them is modelled, not seen — and the overlap is exactly what you need to know.
That's how we built Fluzo: observed exposure, one unit across every audiovisual medium, one continuous panel.
Independent measurement means the company reporting on a campaign has no financial stake in the media it measures: no inventory to sell, no platform of its own, no data partnership that creates an incentive to shade the result.
That matters because most advertising data is self-reported. Each platform measures its own performance, using its own definition of an impact, and none of them can see who else reached the same person.
A third-party provider, as FLUZO, measures every medium with the same unit, from the same source, so reach, frequency and overlap are observed rather than estimated.
Walled gardens report their own performance using their own metrics, with limited external auditability. The practical solution is requiring third-party, platform-independent measurement as a standard in media briefs — so campaign delivery is verified by a party that has no stake in the result. Agencies that make this a default practice protect themselves and their clients.
It doesn't replace it — it puts it in context. Each platform's data is still useful for what happens inside that platform. What it can't give you is the cross-media picture, because no platform can see who else reached the same person. That's what an independent measurement provider adds.
Duplication is the same person being reached by more than one medium. It's not a mistake, it's what happens in any real campaign.
The problem is counting it twice. If TV reached 40% of your target and YouTube reached 30%, you haven't reached 70%. A good part of those people are the same person, seen twice. How large that part is changes everything: how many people you actually reached, how many times you hit them, and how much of the budget went to someone who had already seen the ad five times.
Incremental reach measurement requires knowing exactly who was already exposed via TV before calculating how many additional individuals digital added. That's only possible with a single-source, cross-media panel — not with separate platform reports stitched together after the fact.
By isolating what that medium added and nobody else was giving you. Its own reach isn't enough, because much of that audience had already been reached by the rest of the plan: what matters is incremental reach — the people only that platform got to.
From there we can also see what it did to the saturation of the rest of the mix, whether it moved brand metrics among those exposed, and whether it translated into recall or store visits.
Yes. On the same people who were exposed to the campaign, we can see whether they searched for the brand, visited the site and ended up walking into a physical store, among others. It isn't a correlation between two curves — it's the same person, measured before and after exposure.
