1 advertising attention in the wild – a comparison of online and televised video advertising...
TRANSCRIPT
1
ADVERTISING ATTENTION IN THE WILD – A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND TELEVISED VIDEO ADVERTISING
Created in partnership with
YuMe Online Video NetworkBy
IPG Media LabApril 2011
Advertising Attention In The Wild
A Comparison of online and Televised Video advertising
Created in partnership with
YuMe By IPG Media Lab
April 2011
2
Questions we set out to answer
1. How much more ad avoidance happens beyond active ad skipping?
2. What is the relative attention level to video advertising in a lean forward PC experience vs. a lean back TV experience?
3. What behaviors most distract attention to video ads?
3
Methodology•March 2011•Los Angeles•Recreated normal viewing choices•Respondents brought companion media•30 minutes in office/30 minutes in living room•Post survey on ad recall
4
Sample: N=48Gender Employment Status
Household Income
Female 48% Full-time56%
$100,000-$200,000 13%
Male 52% Part-time31% $75,000-$100,000 19%
Retired 6% $50,000-$75,000 33%Age Student 4% $25,000-$50,000 25%18-24 15% Unemployed 2% Less than $25,000 10%
25-29 15%
30-34 10% EducationChildren <18 in Household
35-39 10% High school/GED 8% No 77.08%
40-44 15% Some college27% Yes 22.92%
45-49 13% Associate's degree 6%
50-55 10% Bachelor's degree48%
56-60 6% Master's degree 6%
65-69 6% Doctorate degree 2%
Trade or other technical school degree 2%
• Recruited from LA metro area• Must watch online video
5
Attention scores explained
1 to 0.9Full attention
0.9 and 0.4Partial attention
0.4 to -1 No attention
Frame by frame, second by second.
6
Scale of TV ad Fast Forwarding
35% US DVR HH penetration
10% of DVR HH viewing time shifted
x 65% of ads skipped in time shifted viewing
2% of total TV impressions skipped
Source: Magna Global
7
Smart phones are the most common distraction media
OL Mobile Phone - Call
OL Other
OL Read Book/Magazine
OL Do Work
OL IM/Chat/Email
No OL Distractions
OL Mobile Phone - Data
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
6.3%
8.3%
10.4%
12.5%
16.7%
27.1%
45.8%
Online: % of Sample Using Distraction
TV Play Game
No TV Distractions
TV Mobile Phone - Call
TV Other
TV Do Work
TV Read Book/Magazine
TV Use Laptop
TV DVR
TV Mobile Phone - Data
0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
4.2%
6.0%
8.3%
8.3%
12.5%
12.5%
33.3%
45.8%
60.4%
TV: % of Sample Using Distraction
11
Finding #1: Not all distractions are equal
No OL Distractions
OL IM/Chat/Email
OL Mobile Phone - Call
OL Mobile Phone - Data
OL Other
OL Do Work
OL Read Book/Magazine
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.60
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.38
0.34
0.13
Online Ad Attention Level
TV Play Game
TV DVR
TV Use Laptop
TV Do Work
TV Mobile Phone - Data
No TV Distractions
TV Read Book/Magazine
TV Mobile Phone - Call
TV Other
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.54
0.52
0.52
0.47
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.33
0.26
TV Ad Attention LevelWorst
Best
12
Finding #1 (cont.) : The more distractions, the lower ad attention
0 1 2 3
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.44 0.53
0.44 0.37
0.60
0.45 0.40
Ad Attention vs. # of DistractionsTV Ad Attention OnlineVideo Ad Attention
Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session
Avera
ge A
ttenti
on S
core
13
Finding #2: TV 2x video clutter; Ubiquitous banners
OL TV
Video 5.5 9.5
Banner/ Bug 21.6 0.7
Total 27.1 10.3
14
Finding #3: Online video content +8.5% more attention
% Full Attention During Content Time0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
60.1%51.6%
OL TV
% o
f S
eco
nds R
eci
evin
g F
ull
Att
enti
on
15
Finding #4: TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad
OL TV0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
60.1%51.6%55.2%
36.9%
% Full Attention During Content Time
% Full Attention During Video Ad Time
% o
f S
eco
nd
s R
eci
evin
g F
ull
At-
ten
tio
n
Decrease in Attention From Program to Ad
OL = ∆ - 4.8% TV = ∆ - 14.7%
16
Finding #5: Online video ads +18.3% more attention than TV
• 63% of TV impressions were ignored.• DVR fast forwarding is estimated to lead to 2% ad skipping
% Full Attention During Video Ad Time0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
55.2%
36.9%
OL TV
% o
f Seconds R
ecie
vin
g F
ull A
ttenti
on
17
Finding #6: Attention is correlated with recall
Online TV
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.30
0.44
0.61
0.28
0.60
0.44
0.64
0.49
Unremembered Ads
Correctly Recalled Ads, Aided
Correctly Recalled Ads, Unaided
Average Attention
DVR fast-forwarding arti-ficially increased unre-membered ad attention score
18
Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x the aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall
Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Aided Unaided0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
28% 25%
50%
38%
% of Sample Who Correctly Identified the Brand in a Video Ad Seen
TV Online
19
Finding #8: Gender attention is even, Women more likely to recall video ads
Average of On-lineVideo Ad At-
tention
Average of TV Ad Attention
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.44 0.48 0.51 0.48
Ad Attention by GenderFemale Male
TV Aided TV Unaided OL Aided OL Unaided0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
19%
35%
56%
43%42%
16%
42%
30%
Ad Recall by Gender
Female Male
20
Finding #9: Ad attention drops off with time on screen
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TV
Loga-rithmic (TV)OL
Loga-rithmic (OL)
Length of Video Ad Exposure in Seconds
Avera
ge A
ttenti
on L
evel W
hile W
atc
hin
g
Ad
21
Finding #10: Ad Fast-Fowarders have high attention levels…
% of time paying attention while an ad is on sc...0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
47%
35%
% of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to Screen
DVR FF No DVR
22
Finding #10 (cont.) : Fast-Fowarders have low recall levels
DVR FF No DVR0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
18%
29%
20%
32%
Unaided Recall Aided Recall
23
Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higher for TV “bugs” than video ads
Total % Full Attention % Full Attention During Video Ad
% Full Attention During "Other" Ads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
60%55%
62%
49%
37%
50%
OL TV
24
Conclusions1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted
ad impressions
2. Smart phones are a persistent companion to video content
3. Online video ads have 20% more attentive impressions.
4. The familiar cadence of TV content increases drop off to ads vs. online
5. Attention is even but women more likely to recall video ads than men
6. Fast forwarded video ads have little recall
7. The commercial “layer” gets more attention than the commercial break.
26
How we made sense of it:While respondents were relaxing alone in our living room and office environments, we had three cameras with simultaneous, matched time-stamps recording:
1. Their face• This video was sent to Affectiva, which used a facial tracking
algorithm to determine on a second-by-second level basis whether the person was paying attention to the screen
2. The environment• This video was used to understand what distraction media
was being used and when
3. Their screen• This video allowed us to record against the time-line
– When an ad was on-screen– What brand the ad was for– When an individual fast-forwarded an ad– What an individual was viewing when spikes in
bio-metrics occurred
Additionally, a subset of respondents were given a bio-metric monitoring bracelet which told us when increases in cognition, excitement, and stress occurred.
All of these various data streams were then matched to a single time-line, which allowed the data to be aggregated, analyzed, and mined for meaning.
29
How to read a bio-metric chart
Source: Affectiva
EDA measures moments of intellectual engagement or relaxation on the green line
A “2” blue line means a video ad is on screen, and when it dips to 1.5 that means it’s being fast forwarded
Attention (the red line) is measured on a scale of 1 to -1. Anything over 0.9 is considered full attention on the screen
Any rapid changes in body temperature indicate stress or emotional engagement (purple Celsius line)
The time-line is used to sync all of these inputs to recorded video
30
Cathy the Ad-Ignorer: OnlineSimilar to TV, her attention is split between magazines or her phone screen and the computer screen. She consistently tunes out commercials with distraction media. Though nervous at first, she quickly calms down.
31
Michie the Multi-tasker: TVThough exposed twice to the same lengthy ad, her computer and phone are constant distractions as Michie flips nonchalantly from screen to screen. Moments of high engagement occur while she talks with friends, and the TV serves only as a pacifying distraction.
32
Steve the Vegged-Out Relaxer: OnlineIn place of a DVR, Steve switches rapidly between types of online video. He shows spikes of engagement watching footage of the Japanese earthquake aftermath, but quickly settles in to passively watch a long-form show, during which he maintains interest in ad breaks and correctly recalls Campbells soup as a sponsor.