viewability and ad impact
Post on 12-Apr-2017
439 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
PUTTING SCIENCE BEHIND THE STANDARDS
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 2
HOW BIG IS THE VIEWABILITY PROBLEM?
Source: Integral Ad ScienceStatistic for the U.S.
57%Of display ads are not
human/viewable
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 3
WE HAVE A STANDARD TO GO BY…
STANDARD BANNER ADS RICH MEDIA ADS VIDEO ADS
At least 50% in viewFor a minimum of 1 second
At least 30% in viewFor a minimum of 1 second
At least 50% in viewFor a minimum of 2 consecutive seconds
4
WE STILL DON’T KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE ADS THAT MEET THE MEDIA RATINGS COUNCIL’S (MRC) VIEWABILITY STANDARDS ACTUALLY ARE.
BUT,
1st Media TrialStandard Display, Rich
Media, Video on PC
2nd Media TrialIn-Feed, Auto Play Video on Mobile
TWO ROBUST MEDIA TRIALS
5
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 6
OUR GOAL IS TO…Present results from the first known study that scientifically ties viewability to ad effectiveness by testing the following hypotheses:
OUR GOAL IS NOT TO…Recommend changes to the MRC standard, or develop a new viewability standard
1. The more viewable an ad is, the more consumers will see it2. As viewability increases, so does ad effectiveness3. There are strategies advertisers can employ to make less viewable ads more
effective
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 7
RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC TESTINGParticipants recruited from nationally representative
online panel
Randomized into 1 of 189 viewability test cells; Viewed webpage that matched their typical consumption habits
Subset of sample viewed webpage while being eye-tracked
Answered post-exposure survey for branding metrics
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 8
189 DIFFERENT AD SCENARIOS WERE TESTED
*Two standard display ad sizes tested; 1 per industry vertical**Logo placement test cells only included for 1 ad type for 1 brand
PERCENT IN VIEW TIME IN VIEW AD TYPE INDUSTRY
VERTICALLOGO
PLACEMENT AUDIO SHARE OF VIEW CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE
25% .5 sec Standard Banner Ad CPG Top On 1 of 1 ads In Context
30% 1 secRich Media/
Large Format Ad
Auto Not at top Off 1 of 2 ads Out of Context
50% 2 sec Video Ad 1 of 4 ads
75% 4 sec
100% 7 sec
Full Exposure
?WHAT VALUE DO ADS THAT MEET THE MRC MINIMUM
STANDARD ACTUALLY OFFER
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 10
UNDER MRC STANDARD AT MRC STANDARD
ABOVE MRC STANDARD
NATURALLY, HIGHER VIEWABILITY = MORE EYEBALLS
Consumers see ad
23%Consumers
see ad
48%Consumers
see ad
76%
Results include all ad types based on eye tracking data
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 11
MRC STANDARD ISN’T A MAGICAL THRESHOLD FOR AD EFFECTIVENESS
* Statistically significant difference between control and test at >=90% confidence^ Statistically significant difference between MRC standard and test at >=90% confidenceResults include all ad types
Ads that simply met the standard did not have impact on ad recall
Ad Recall0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
+2%
+16%*^
AD RECALL BY MRC STANDARD (DELTA)
Met MRC Standard Above Standard
PERC
ENT
CHAN
GE IN
AD
RECA
LL (D
ELTA
)
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 12
WHICH MEANS EVEN SOME IMPRESSIONS BELOW THE MRC STANDARD HAVE IMPACT
* Statistically significant difference between control and test at >=90% confidence^ Statistically significant difference between MRC standard and test at >=90% confidenceResults include all types
Ad Recall0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
+6%*^
+2%
+16%*^
AD RECALL BY MRC STANDARD (DELTA)
Under Standard Met MRC Standard Above Standard
PERC
ENT
CHAN
GE IN
AD
RECA
LL (D
ELTA
)
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
6%*^
Under standard
BELOW MRC STANDARD BREAKOUT BY EFFECT ON AD RECALL
MOSTLY BECAUSE SOME PARTIAL ADS COULD BE IN VIEW FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME
% VIEW-below TIME-meets MRC
Results include all ad types* statistically significant difference between control and test at >=90% confidence^ statistically significant difference between % Met MRC standard and % Under standard at >=90% confidence
% VIEW-meets TIME-below MRC
% VIEW-above TIME-below MRC
% VIEW-below TIME-Below MRC
% VIEW-below TIME-above MRC
16
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
16%*^
Above standard
ABOVE MRC STANDARD BREAKOUT BY EFFECT ON AD RECALL
ON THE FLIP SIDE, SOME ADS ABOVETHE STANDARD DON’T HAVE IMPACT
Results include all ad types* statistically significant difference between control and test at >=90% confidence^ statistically significant difference between % Met MRC standard and % Under standard at >=90% confidence
% VIEW-above TIME-above MRC
% VIEW-atTIME-above MRC
Specifically, when time in view is low
% VIEW-above TIME-At MRC
% VIEW-above TIME-At MRC
17
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 15
BUT, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT VIEWABILITY IS HIGHLY RELATED TO EFFECTIVENESS
* Statistically significant difference between control and test at >=90% confidenceResults include all ad types, % in view under the MRC standard excludes large format since it was not tested
Under standard
At MRC standard
75% 100%0%
1000%
2000%
459% 403%
868%*
1098%*
AD RECALL BY PERCENT IN VIEW (DELTA)
Averaged Delta for All Ad TypesPERCENT IN VIEW
PERC
ENT
CHAN
GE IN
REC
ALL
(DEL
TA)
Under standard
At MRC standard
4 seconds 7 seconds0%
1000%
2000%
135%
321%
827%*
1668%*
AD RECALL BY TIME IN VIEW (DELTA)
Averaged Delta for All Ad TypesTIME IN VIEW
PERC
ENT
CHAN
GE I
N RE
CALL
(DEL
TA)
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 16
“TIME IN VIEW” IS KING
*This was only tested for Standard Banner and Video Ads, since Large Format was not tested with a lower % in viewResults include all ad types
TIME IN VIEW
PERC
ENT
IN V
IEW
7 sec0
100%EFFECT OF PERCENT AND TIME IN VIEW ON AD RECALL (DELTAS)
Percent in view higher, Time in view lower+3.8%
Percent in view higher, Time in view higher+14.0%
Percent in view lower, Time in view lower+0.4%
Percent in view lower, Time in view higher*+10.4%
AT MRC STANDARD
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 17
LOGO AT TOPStronger impact after MRC
viewability standard for both time in view and % in
view
AUDIO ON3x impact for ads under
the MRC viewability standard
LOW AD CLUTTER
200% more impact once time in view exceeds the
standard
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
PERSONAL TWITTER FEED
Users logged into their own Twitter page and saw
real time content from their feed, along with the
test ad
IN-FEED, AUTO PLAY VIDEOTWITTER PROMOTED VIDEO
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R² = 0.852034007840131
Aided Ad Recall (Δ)Linear (Aided Ad Recall (Δ))
Viewability Index
% W
ho R
ecal
led
The Viewability Index Score is an algorithm that takes into account both Time in View and Percent in View and creates a composite value. The values are linear, so that an indexed score of four represents an ad that is approximately twice as viewable as a score of two.
VIEWABILITY MATTERS!
AIDED AD RECALL BY VIEWABILITY INDEX
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
1 SEC 3 SEC
4 SEC
6 SEC
All Unaided and Aided test-control deltas are significantControl n=400, 1 sec n=241, 3 sec n=212, 4 sec n=175, 6 sec = 138, 15+ sec n=49
RECALL METRICS BY “TIME IN VIEW”
22.6%
31.5%37.9% 35.0%
51.2%49%
64%60%
66%73%
42%
55% 55%60%
72%
Unaided Ad Recall (Δ) Aided Ad Recall (Δ) Message Recall (%)
Time at 100% in View
15+ SEC
THE LONGER IN VIEW, THE HIGHER THE AWARENESS
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & ConfidentialIn-Feed, Auto-Play Video: Control n=400, 1 sec n=241, 3 sec n=212, 4 sec n=175, 6 sec = 138, 15+ sec n=492015 Webpage: Control n=103, 1 sec n=103, 2 sec n=104, 4 sec n=104, 7 sec n=101, Full Exposure n=103
VIEWABILITY BY VIDEO AD TYPEAIDED RECALL (Δ) COMPARING
VIEWABILITY RESULTS ACROSS STUDIES
SEC1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
49%
0%
64% 60%
0%
66%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 5%0%
13%
0% 0%
23%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2015 Webpage Study (PC, video ad, sound on)In-Feed, Auto-Play (Smartphone, video ad within social media post, sound off)
Time at 100% in View
73%
60%
SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & ConfidentialIn-Feed, Auto-Play Video: Control n=400, 1 sec n=241, 3 sec n=212, 4 sec n=175, 6 sec = 138, 15+ sec n=492015 Webpage: Control n=103, 1 sec n=103, 2 sec n=104, 4 sec n=104, 7 sec n=101, Full Exposure n=103
VIEWABILITY BY VIDEO AD TYPEAIDED RECALL (Δ) COMPARING
VIEWABILITY RESULTS ACROSS STUDIES
SEC1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
49%
0%
64% 60%
0%
66%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1% 5%0%
13%
0% 0%
23%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2015 Webpage Study (PC, video ad, sound on)In-Feed, Auto-Play (Smartphone, video ad within social media post, sound off)
Time at 100% in View
73%
60%
SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC SEC
OBVIOUS BRANDING BEGINS (TWEET TEXT, HANDLE, USERNAME
ABOVE VIDEO)
OBVIOUS BRANDING BEGINS (WITHIN VIDEO)
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential23
OBVIOUS BRANDING
APPEARS BEFORE “PERCENT IN VIEW”
MEASUREMENT STARTS
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential 24
TO SUMMARIZE….
25
THE MRC STANDARDS AREN’T MEANT TO GUARANTEE AD EFFECTIVENESS.
THAT’S THE AD’S JOB.
ADS THAT EXCEED THE STANDARD END UP HAVING THE GREATEST IMPACT.
VIEWABILITY IS IMPORTANT, BUT IS NOT THE END-ALL-BE-ALL. IT ISN’T A KPI.
SO…WHILE WE CAN’T COMPLETELY CONTROL VIEWABILITY, WE CAN CONTROL THE CREATIVE & WHERE IT RUNS.
© 2015 IPG Media Lab. Proprietary & Confidential
THANK YOU
top related