A new framework aimed at giving advertisers a far greater understanding of their ads’ reach and frequency across all media is to be road-tested in the US and UK, the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) has said.

Accurate cross-media measurement has been a long-standing challenge within the industry, and the WFA has teamed up with global advertisers and platforms to put together both a framework and a technical solution.

This, it is hoped, will help brands ensure their ads are only seen the right number of times, wherever consumers are consuming content, and will stop consumers being excessively bombarded by the same ads. At the same time, advertisers will get a more complete picture of how and where ads are viewed.

The WFA has worked with national advertiser associations during the 18-month project in order to create the framework, which identifies advertisers’ cross-media measurement requirements along with principles that advertisers believe all solutions should be bound by.

Alongside the framework, the WFA is also publishing a technical proposal for cross-media measurement, which meets the principles outlined in the framework, including those covering transparency, neutrality and auditing.

The proposal, which was developed in partnership with digital platforms, including Facebook and Google, will now be tested in the UK and the US. Central to the proposal, says the WFA, is that it acknowledges that measurement is a local business and needs considerable local governance alongside the need for some global (or “common”) components to drive consistency and scale. Any parts of the proposal that need bespoke technology will be open sourced, says the WFA.

“Cross-media measurement is viewed as the ‘holy grail’ for marketers – as it optimises marketing decision making for driving business and brand growth,” said Bob Liodice, President and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA).

“Cross-media measurement is a global topic that needs to be answered locally, as every region has different starting positions and demands,” he added.

Stephan Loerke, CEO of the WFA, commented, “Advertisers have long struggled with poor quality data that doesn’t allow them to properly assess how best to invest their ad budgets across multiple platforms and media.

“This body of work provides a blueprint to build a cross-media measurement solution that responds to advertiser needs,” he stated.

Source: https://origin.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/advertisers-take-major-step-towards-holy-grail-of-cross-media-measurement/44108

In numerous “advertising attention” studies now done across Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and TV in Australia and international markets, Professor Karen Nelson-Field has data which answers the critical question many marketers and media specialists are either still not asking or care for: How much time does an ad need in front of a user or viewer to be effective? On average around 50% of “time-on-screen” has no viewer attention paid at all. And no platform is immune. Here’s everything you need to know – fast.

Last week a billion dollar-plus question was posed by Jonathan Fox, Director of Effectiveness at Nine Network, who asked Mi3 readers a question that everyone really wants to ask Facebook but don’t have a direct email to do it: “Is 1.7 seconds enough for an ad to be effective?”
The short answer is, no. But the longer answer is far more interesting and, perhaps, surprising. And it goes far and beyond Facebook.

Here’s why:

• The adequate number of seconds is not a question specific to Facebook, it’s a question for the entire media and advertising system
• “Attentive” seconds as a measure can truly answer the question.
• Beware proxy measures of attention or engagement – opaque metrics of time on-screen are not what they seem and can represent viewer or user distraction, just as easily as they can engagement.
• On average around 50% of viewer or user time on screen has no attention paid at all.
• Get this: Better performing media platforms (in terms of overall sales uplift), seem to perform better at lower numbers of attentive seconds than poorer performing platforms do even at higher numbers of attentive seconds.
• The simple truth is you should pay more for quality attention.

You know what it’s like reading an article and talking (sometimes yelling) at your screen – we all do it. You might also know that feeling when you realise you can actually answer a difficult question. This time I thought I’d come forward and talk to your screen, not just mine.

The extensive multi-country work we have done on attention and the effectiveness of the (low) global viewability standard, I’m asked this question often: Is the Media Ratings Council’s international benchmark of 50% ad viewability and a two-second cut-off enough?

We do see a material uplift in sales and attention when both pixels – or the actual size of the ad on a screen – and time, are increased. We also know that pixels (size of the ad) are more important than time. There is no point in an ad being on the screen for longer, if it can barely be seen.

I have published this data before. What I haven’t talked about is the findings from our multi-country studies that specifically describe differences in effectiveness between groups of ads that were seen at above – and below – two seconds of time.

Let’s just get a few things straight first.

1. My answer to this question has no relation to the Facebook boycott, which is a totally separate (and important) debate.
2. This answer is not directed at Facebook; this is clearly a marketing, media and advertising ecosystem issue.
3. We look at the number of “attentive” seconds, not the number of seconds an ad was on screen, and there is a big difference.

Attentive seconds can truly answer the question being asked.
As a measure it represents, on average, how many seconds of human attention were actually paid to advertising. Time-on-screen, does not. We see in our data that time-on-screen, a metric that is used as a proxy for attention, in reality tells us little about whether a human has actually seen the ad or not.

We find that on average around 50% of time-on-screen has no attention paid at all – so time-on-screen can equally represent distraction as it can engagement. And before you start yelling at your screen, no platform is immune to this problem. My point here is, that if we truly want to answer this question then we need to consider ads that were actually looked at above and below two-seconds.

The data presented below comes from one of our international collections (pre-Covid). It represents around 4,500 single ad views over four platforms: Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Linear TV. For this collection, we also collected brand choice after the ad exposure in order to determine Short Term Advertising Strength, a peer-reviewed, globally-accepted measurement benchmark (STAS). STAS, at its most basic, describes sales uplift after an ad was viewed. We use it to cross-check the relationship between attention and meaningful behavioural outcomes.
Quite simply, this table shows the difference between the STAS above and below the two-second mark across the four platforms.

There are a few things of note here.
First, it shows conclusively that there is a difference between above and below two seconds, so Jonathan Fox is right: two seconds is not enough when you consider the money left on the table (in terms of sales) when an ad is viewed for longer.

Second, and this is the surprising bit, you will notice the relative similarity in the number of STAS points difference across the platforms (no significant deviations from the average). What this says is that two seconds is not enough regardless of platform, even TV, and the size of the effect is similar.
Third, better performing platforms (in terms of overall STAS), seem to perform better at lower numbers of attentive seconds than poorer performing platforms do even at higher numbers of attentive seconds.

This is not super surprising to me. It comes back to the nature of the viewing experience. Platforms like socials, where the user has a greater opportunity to not look at the ad simply due to the user experience, suffer the consequences. Some platform designs simply create an environment with more distraction and lower ad visibility.
So why does this matter to you?
If someone is telling you that two seconds is enough, don’t believe them. A deeper understanding of real human attention within the advertising ecosystem, is what it takes to leverage ROI for media spend.

Don’t mistake this comment for advocacy of lower CPMs though. I have said this before and will say it again: seeking low cost reach is a fool’s errand. The simple truth is you should pay more for quality attention if you want to grow your brand.

Source: https://www.mi-3.com.au

No matter what data source you consult, the flight of TV viewers from traditional linear TV to Netflix, Roku, Hulu, Disney Plus and any number of other VOD platforms is unmistakable. Consider that 40% of adults in U.S. TV households are now watching video on a TV set via a connected device on a daily basis, compared to just 1% in 2010.

Reports are circulating that streaming to TVs has more than doubled during the pandemic because people are spending more time at home. Live sports’ prolonged absence is also a factor here because sports have historically been the main reason not to cut the cord for many cable subscribers. (It remains to be seen what will happen now that sports are returning.)

But viewership trends don’t always neatly track to ad spending, and a Connected TV (CTV) dollar simply isn’t the same as a linear one. (To be clear, CTV is a catch-all phrase for systems that allow people to watch video content via a streaming internet connection. It includes built-in Smart TV interfaces, stand-alone streaming devices such as Roku and Chromecast, connected video game systems and Blu-ray players.)

The question now is what this surge in CTV consumption means for advertising supply and inventory value across linear and VOD channels alike. In my view, the impact of CTV’s surging viewership on linear TV’s standing will be blunted by the lack of maturity and trustworthiness of VOD platforms.

Beware of CTV Ad Fraud

Fraud plagues all digital platforms, and CTV is no exception to that. In fact, what may have been the biggest CTV scam of all time came to light recently. In January, a bot network called ICEBUCKET impersonated more than 2 million people in over 30 countries, generating around 1.9 billion ad requests per day—or 28% of total volume—on programmatic platforms for CTV. According to a White Ops investigation, ICEBUCKET counterfeited more than 300 publishers, tricking advertisers into thinking that real people were seeing their ads.

This kind of fraud doesn’t happen on reliable and brand-safe linear TV. If advertisers can’t be sure they’re getting true viewers from CTV’s growing ad supply, they’ll refuse to allocate additional spending to ad-supported video on demand (AVOD) channels—and for good reason.

Conduct an ROI Analysis

It’s also important to remember that CTV is not yet a very effective vehicle for mass reach. For that reason, it’s still of limited interest to global consumer brands, such as Coke and Pepsi, who focus on brand awareness and affinity, not “down funnel” metrics that are supported by CTV’s targeting capabilities. For the most part, AVOD services don’t offer mass reach, and platforms such as Roku and Hulu with larger audiences have significantly higher average CPMs than linear TV. As a result, traditional linear TV still offers the best value for advertisers who care most about tonnage.

As part of the digital advertising ecosystem, with its array of intermediate technologies, CTV imposes a “tax,” which eats into sellers’ net revenue and profit margin. For example, a large amount of CTV inventory is sold in programmatic marketplaces, which take a percentage of the value of every impression sold. Sellers should conduct an ROI analysis to determine whether the higher CPMs from CTV actually yield a better return than linear after accounting for the additional costs and human resources required to plan and deliver CTV.

For “up funnel” marketers, I believe that CTV is most valuable in the short run as a reach extension for linear TV. This is especially true in the COVID era, when big brands and local advertisers alike need sophisticated targeting capabilities to tailor content based on how coronavirus infections are trending and how the economy is impacted on a local basis. After all, restaurant commercials would land badly in cities where restaurants have been ordered to close—as would soda commercials depicting large-group gatherings.

Source: https://blog.furiouscorp.com

Toxic Behaviors in Advertising — and Your Business: What’s Your Threshold?

The pull that Social Media exerts on today’s world is unquestionable. It helps us stay connected, keep informed, and is generally a source for light entertainment. But we now know there’s a dark side which exists in social media that’s tearing the fabric of who we are — individually and collectively. It might only be 1% of the time or .001% — but it’s there and it’s undeniable. If you have a teenage daughter you know exactly what I’m talking about.

As a business owner or brand manager, you need to ask yourself this question: what is your tolerance threshold for toxic behavior? Until recently, marketers have been willing to overlook the downside of their social media associations. As social media has grown in use and popularity, over time it has become an increasingly substantial part of media plans, and the digital ad dollars have flowed into it like a river.

But that river now appears to be changing course. Fortune 500 companies are beginning to draw a line in the sand perhaps due to big business’ re-awakened sense of social responsibility, or the realization that they’ve been sunning themselves next to a cesspool. In either case, billion dollar advertisers are increasingly hitting the pause button on social media to deliver their brand message.

For brand managers, this move creates a significant messaging and marketing dilemma. No savvy marketer believes that simply cutting out a big chunk of their advertising is the right answer. Research and real world evidence proves that’s a recipe for erosion in brand awareness, customer loyalty, and ultimately revenue.

Digital v Traditional Media – the Pendulum Swings

When marketers jumped on the digital and social media bandwagon, in some cases it was at the expense of traditional media — broadcast radio and TV. But due to a new, heightened societal awareness, the tectonic plates of marketing are again shifting. Marketers are responding to public outcry and their media plans are in a state of flux. As advertisers re-evaluate the media mix in search of brand-safe alternatives, broadcast media is getting a fresh look. “Consumer safe content” and “brand safe” are today’s watchwords among CMOs. Unlike in social media, broadcast media is required by strict guidelines to regulate its content. For decades, AM/FM radio and broadcast TV have been regulated by the federal government. The FCC charter mandates that broadcasters serve the public interest. Steering clear of the “7 dirty words” is just part of it. “Brand Safety” — a pre-built feature in broadcast — is something that’s largely been taken for granted by both advertisers and the public. But it’s a compelling and fashionable value proposition in today’s hyper-sensitive ad messaging world. The pendulum is in motion once again.

When the Plan Changes: Mid-year Course Correction & How to Maintain Campaign Results

Advertisers downsizing or opting out of social media altogether are being forced to revise media plans and reconsider budget allocations. For many brands, maintaining a broad audience reach is critical. Nielsen studies repeatedly confirm that Reach is the most important media-related element to the success of an ad campaign. For all the talk of traditional media being put out to pasture, good old AM/FM radio and broadcast TV continue to deliver shockingly large audiences. The Nielsen ratings validate the audience reach and targetability. It’s an intriguing option for advertisers who just got thrown an anti-social curveball.

Your media plan just got punched in the gut, what are your options?

To help answer this important and topical question, the media experts at Nielsen turned to Nielsen Media Impact (NMI), a media planning tool designed to help marketers see what combination and proportions of media will yield optimal results. NMI is the nexus of the Nielsen ratings and a variety of media usage data sets. With it, users have the ability to run hypothetical media planning scenarios, mixing and matching different combinations of media. The system projects the combined, cross-media campaign results.

As a case study, the Nielsen data folks ran scenarios through NMI to see what happens when you pull $1M investment out of social media and split it between broadcast radio and TV. The results were eye opening:

Shifting from exclusively utilizing social media, to a radio/TV mix, has noteworthy implications: The reach footprint of the campaign almost doubles. Gross impressions nearly triple and CPMs are cut by 60%. All with the same $1M ad budget.

Looking under the NMI hood, you can additionally see from the graphic below how a progressive reallocation in 10% increments affects audience reach. It’s a helpful view to identify where the reach curve starts to flatten out, indicating a point of diminishing returns.

Bottom line: Socially conscious advertisers don’t have to sacrifice campaign performance when they draw the line, take a stand, and send a clear message. Pivoting your media plan and reallocating ad spend to the relative safety of broadcast radio and TV can actually improve performance. Go figure. Maybe playing it “safe” is not such a bad idea after all. Now, as November approaches and politics take center stage in the ad world, it will be interesting to see if the candidates and campaigns will take the high road and follow suit. Let’s hope.

Source: https://radioink.com/

In The Long and Short of It, Binet and Field famously posited that brands should aim for a 60:40 split between brand building and performance driving activities to effectively market themselves. For a long time marketers looked to gain the ideal equilibrium between the two to reach consumers effectively, and TV has always been the golden channel providing the best way to build a brand at scale, with other digital channels giving a home to performance marketing.

The Internet is fundamentally changing the way audiences interact with their TVs, and this in turn is providing new opportunities to the advertiser who can now apply digital metrics to TV. The promise of a platform that can deliver on both long and short term goals concurrently sounds like a dream come true, right?

However, the challenge for this still nascent platform is: how can we work together as an industry to effectively turn this promise into a reality.

Creating lean-in experiences for consumers

Being connected to the Internet, Smart TVs now offer advertisers the ability to lean-in and engage with a consumer through the use of tools like branded apps and micropages.

During MediaTel’s ‘The Future of TV Advertising Global’, I was speaking to Melanie Rupp from SEAT Germany and Annika Woerder about from PHD about the brand’s new CTV campaign. SEAT wanted to showcase interesting and engaging content about a new car to build brand equity, whilst giving consumers the opportunity to actively engage when watching TV, which was measured via targeted performance metrics. SEAT invested in a microsite rich with video content showing features of the car, whilst also giving viewers the opportunity to shop via a QR code leading them directly to a test-drive form.

The brand also created a smart TV app to give consumers the opportunity to find out more about the product whilst watching TV. The results so far has been a more sophisticated campaign that uses Samsung Smart TV data to extend the reach of traditional linear TV campaigns; showcasing CTVs versatility to be not just a TV but also a content hub, a browser and a place to discover more.

TV advertising goes beyond the 30 second spot

Our latest first-party Q2 data analysis shows that, for the first time, Samsung Smart TVs in the UK are showing more streaming content than linear TV – where linear TV is defined as TV consumed on a set channel at a set time of day – constituting over 55% of total TV viewership time.

Of that group, the majority are accessing subscription-based, ad-free services, creating a challenge for brands to reach large audiences with commercial messages via linear TV campaigns alone. It’s therefore important for brands to consider other methods to engage with TV audiences that complement, but also reach beyond, the traditional 30 sec ad spot.

Effective data is vital to give a sense of how the landscape is changing to help engage with audiences in new ways – ones that complement linear brand-building activities by engaging with the consumer more through data-driven targeting. For example, using a combination of deterministic data points we have access to at Samsung Ads, brands have the ability to understand which TV devices have been exposed to their linear TV ads, as well as those ads served within on-demand streaming services on devices connected to our TVs.

We can also understand the audience profile of those exposed audiences, such as when exposed audiences are more likely to watch TV, what other programmes and channels they watch, the types of connected devices they have attached to their Samsung Smart TV and more.

This enables advertisers to target those unexposed TVs using new ad formats, giving them incremental reach – providing the ability to reach those that would have been missed by a traditional linear campaign, whilst preventing duplication of reach.

Discussing how data helps define the wider TV strategy, Annika Woerder from PHD said, “The audience insights from Samsung…[allow us to] measure incremental reach… which is a helpful KPI to measure the success of a campaign….During our last campaign we reached about 73% incremental reach, which is a great number. Gaining insights from the Cupra campaign [means] we have the possibility to point out the users who visited our app [which] is a good way to optimise with data and…gives us the possibility to learn about what [our audience is] interested in and what they are doing, so this data is powerful.”

Making the most of CTV for effective brand performance

There’s still some way to go to perfect the balance between brand and performance. The key to this is developing data and measurement tools that helps us improve TV campaign planning iteratively.

Consumers always want good content at their convenience and advertisers can contribute to this by curating ad experiences that create a more active and engaged TV experience. This isn’t a matter of replacing traditional TV campaigns, but extending them, enabling brands to reach relevant audiences wherever they’re viewing their TV content.

Brand building is still the most important driver for growth, and with the increase in Internet usage over the past ten years it has given advertisers new ways to fulfill this job.

The digital revolution has made TV advertising more effective, not less. It’s an exciting opportunity to engage with viewers and tell the brand story in a different way, connecting both linear and CTV to improve overall brand campaign performance. There’s never been a better time to start testing and learning what CTV can do for a brand.

Source: https://www.v-net.tv/2020/07/24/the-long-and-short-of-ctv-turning-the-promise-of-smart-tv-advertising-into-a-reality/

European broadcasters are no longer playing catch up on first run video on demand content.

A new study by Ampere Analysis has found that broadcasters’ VOD audiences tend to be both younger and more affluent than those watching linear television. This has contributed to an increase in digital only commissions.

Ampere believes investment in online services is essential to ensure that commercially funded groups can offset the anticipated declines in broadcast revenue resulting from the ongoing transition to online viewing.
The problem for broadcasters is that their share of the advertising cake was in decline even before the coronavirus crisis. Ampere does not expect ad funded online video revenue to offset the systematic decline in linear advertising revenue in the near term.

“Broadcaster Video on Demand (BVoD) platforms were initially designed for TV catchup viewing, but in recent years broadcasters have been investing in technical enhancements and original content to beef up their services to attract a young demographic,” said Léa Cunat, Senior Analyst, Ampere Analysis. “We anticipate that the shift to digital marketing will be accelerated if the behaviours consumers have adopted during lockdown persist following the reopening of economies.”

Ampere points to BVoD users are generally younger and more affluent than those of linear television. It says that European services such as the ProSiebenSat.1 and Discovery platform Joyn and France Télévisions, where 30% of its new shows are destined for VOD are leading the way.

The UK is listed by Ampere as Europe’s leading BVoD market, although the most popular service is BBC iPlayer which is ad-free. ITV Hub, All4 and My5 are the leading ad supported platforms in the local BVoD market with a heavy focus on catch-up, although Channel 4’s platform All4 continues to promote a deep catalogue of boxsets.

Source: https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2020/07/20/european-broadcasters-targeting-the-young/

Just when it seemed 2020 couldn’t hold any more surprises, major brands hit pause on their Facebook advertising.

Facebook reportedly bore a loss of as a result of brands pulling their ad spend. However, those brands also forgo countless consumer connections while deciding how to repurpose temporarily stalled ad dollars.

Regardless, many believe the cost is worthwhile. With consumer scrutiny of brand messaging on the rise, the Facebook boycott is confirmation that brands must react decisively — or suffer the consequences.

Trust in brands and advertising has waned for years. Add a pandemic, a growing emphasis on social accountability and continued data privacy concerns to the mix, and the issue has only compounded.

Suddenly brands are center stage, and the world is waiting for their response. Choose that response wisely, and your brand might experience dramatic growth. Err, and the tide of public opinion may turn against you.
In such circumstances, thoughtful advertising can empower your brand to authentically reconnect with customers. But how? Rebuilding lost trust and restoring bruised reputations are not simple tasks.

The solution has two parts. The first involves what you tell your customers. Marketers agree transparency is essential. Consumers expect brands to demonstrate awareness and honesty. Know your limitations and be honest with your customers about what those limitations are. If you don’t, your customers may decide your limits themselves.

The second part of rebuilding consumer trust is equally vital. How is your message of transparency and accountability actually shared? Does the communication medium even matter?
Absolutely, yes. And our bet is on TV.

Traditional broadcast channels held up impressively over recent months, expanding their reach while consumers stayed home and switched on their TVs.

Both TV and radio consistently rank high for consumer trustworthiness in past years, with global trust levels recently reaching nearly 70%. Social media, on the other hand, has seen a frightening decline in perceived reliability. In fact, double the number of people say TV advertising creates a more positive impression than digital.

These results pose an interesting question: why is TV considered trustworthy, especially as opposed to digital channels?

TV requires a high level of accountability, and for good reason. TV advertising is high-profile. A national ad aired on prime-time television garners notice, either positive or negative. Reasonably, brands tend to avoid large-scale missteps as much as possible.

Admittedly, the costs of TV are higher than digital alternatives — but that also plays into why consumers are more willing to trust TV advertising. They recognize brands shouldn’t rationally invest in TV without being confident in their message. Therefore, customers can also enjoy confidence.
Plus, TV’s process may include approvals from the advertising agency, the brand itself, and the networks on which the ad airs, so there are multiple checkpoints at which the messaging is refined and substantiated.

On the other side of the spectrum, digital’s traditionally low cost and flexibility also come with downsides. Digital marketing is valuable, and omnichannel marketing is undeniably effective.

But for brands attempting to strengthen their reputation with a strategic advertising approach when consumer trust is lower than ever, now might be the perfect time to highlight TV within your advertising mix.

Source: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353472/how-to-rebuild-consumer-trust-through-tv-and-trans.html