FEATURE21 November 2013

Believed to be seen

x Sponsored content on Research Live and in Impact magazine is editorially independent.
Find out more about advertising and sponsorship.

Impact

Viewability metrics will soon be the primary trading currency for digital display advertising. Marketers can’t wait to start getting what they’re paying for.

Res_4010851_eyeball

When advertisers pay for an ad, they want people to see it. But estimates are that, in 2012 at least, 1.8 trillion online display ads were paid for but could not be seen. No wonder marketers are counting down the days to the arrival of the ‘viewability’ metric.

Viewability measurement has long been heralded as the answer to the question of how to get advertisers to spend more money on digital brand advertising. Direct response advertisers have their clickthroughs and conversion metrics. But brand advertisers want to know that their ads are being seen by the right audience and that their target audience is becoming more aware of their brand as a result.

But brand advertisers have good reason to suspect that digital hasn’t been delivering the goods for them. An oft-quoted study by ComScore, first published in June, found that 54% of display ads do not have the opportunity to be seen by consumers.

Then, a follow-up eye-tracking study by the technology company Sticky raised this figure to 77%. Using webcams to monitor where people looked on screen, Sticky determined that an additional 23% of ads were technically viewable – more than 50% of their pixels were in a visible space for at least one second – but they weren’t looked at.

For the time being, however, advertisers aren’t demanding a measurement system that only counts when an ad is seen. As long as the ad has the opportunity to be seen, advertisers will move a step closer to being able to make “apples-to-apples, cross-platform comparisons that will increase marketer confidence in the development of intelligent and capable multi-screen marketing plans,” wrote Bob Liodice, the president and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers in an August blog post.

There’s just a bit longer left to wait. By the end of the first quarter of next year, the Media Rating Council – the US media measurement auditor – is expected to have lifted an advisory opinion that warned the industry off making a premature shift to viewability as a trading currency. But once it lifts, “marketers will eagerly start buying digital media on viewable metrics”, says Liodice, adding: “Publishers and agencies, we hope you’re ready.”

Brian Tarran

Impact

@RESEARCH LIVE

2 Comments

NickD

11 years ago

There's lot of uncertainty in this space, unfortunately. "Marketers can’t wait to start getting what they’re paying for". Surprisingly, on the ground there's much less focus on this than one would expect. The big advertisers are already working with adservers to try to improve the adserving process (so impressions aren't counted if the ad is below the fold etc), but the industry as a whole seems not to be so urgently concerned. Perhaps it's because marketers have for years been used to buying ads that don't count - in print, for example, or outdoors. Sticky's approach is innovative, but there seems to be reluctance to really adopt its findings within the online ad space. I think it's a mixture of uncertainty about their approach, and frankly fear at what the numbers imply. As for the MRC and 3MS pushing ahead; frankly they've not shown themselves to be particularly dynamic so far. IIRC, on the original timescale they published we are all supposed to be buying and selling on viewability by now. Instead, we're stuck with major technical hurdles (unfriendly iFrames being one), and vendors chomping at the bit to declare their own approach "THE" currency. As things stand, it's a bit of a mess, really. There are noble intentions, but the action on the ground isn't really matching the hyperbole yet. Watch this space... but be prepared to keep watching it for another year or so...!

Like Report

Jeff Bander

11 years ago

NickD. You are correct on there being a lot of uncertainty in all media. A few comments on your comments. 1. Impressions below the fold are not necessarily bad. Multiple variables are attributed to an impression being SEEN or not. Content, creative, and placement are the three main factors. You mention print and outdoor as two medias where ads are bought but are not seen, or don't count as you put it. Don't forget TV, just because a TV is on does not mean anyone is in the room or even at home. 2. Sticky's approach is innovative as you say, but the adoption to the SEEN metric is anything but reluctant. Major brands and publishers are using Sticky at a fast growing pace. Brands partner with Sticky to optimize their branding buys. Brands are seeing 25-60% optimization on average. By optimizing, Brands are able to increase the number of impressions seen and time spent by consumers SEEING their brand, with no increase in budget. Strong, publishers who have vision are using Sticky to see the true value of their high CPM placements and how they measure versus competitors. 3. As far are there being fear in what the number imply, this is true with weak publishers. Strong publishers partnering with Sticky are using their strength to get more of the branding buy and in some cases increase CPM's. 4. MRC is doing a terrific job of changing the paradigm completely on how digital is bought, sold, measured etc . Not a small job at atll. While it might look a little messy to some, others are seeing the shift to transparency as a major win for digital to more of a major slice of the offline branding dollars online. One thing we can all be sure of is that change is not going to stop. Those who embace new technology and are quick to see the future will have a big advantage over the followers. We are living in very exciting times.

Like Report