ADVERTISING ATTENTION IN THE WILD –A COMPARISON OF ONLINE ANDTELEVISED VIDEO ADVERTISING   Created in partnership with   Y...
Questions we set out to answer   1. How much more ad avoidance      happens beyond active ad skipping?   2.   2 What is th...
Methodology         gy• March 2011• Los Angeles• Recreated normal viewing choices• Respondents brought companion media• 30...
Sample: N=48   p                                   • Recruited from LA metro area                                       • ...
Attention scores explained                   pFrame by frame, second by second.               1 to 0.9               Full ...
Scale of TV ad Fast Forwarding  35%    US DVR HH penetration  10%    of DVR HH viewing time shiftedx 65%    of ads skipped...
Smart phones are the most  common distraction media      Online: % of Sample Using Distraction                            ...
Persona 1: Cathy the Ad-Ignorer                8
Persona 2: Michie the Multi-tasker                 9
Persona 3: Steve the Vegged-Out Relaxer                  10
Finding #1:     Not all distractions are equal            Online Ad Attention Level                                       ...
Finding #1 (cont.) :      gThe more distractions, the lower ad attention                                       Ad Attentio...
Finding #2:TV 2x video clutter; Ubiquitous banners                   OL      TV         Video     5.5     9.5         Bann...
Finding #3:      gOnline video content +8.5% more attention                                        100%              eciev...
Finding #4:TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad                                           100%                  ...
Finding #5:      gOnline video ads +18.3% more attention than TV                                 • 63% of TV impressions w...
Finding #6:Attention is correlated with recall tt ti    i       l t d ith      ll     1.00                                ...
Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x      gthe aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall             % of Sample Who Correctly ...
Finding #8: Gender attention is even,          g    Women more likely to recall video ads    Ad Attention by Gender       ...
Finding #9:Ad attention drops off with time on screen                                                 1                   ...
Finding #10:      gAd Fast-Fowarders have high attention levels…                % of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to     ...
Finding #10 (cont.) :Fast-Fowarders have low recall levels      50%      45%                  Unaided Recall   Aided Recal...
Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higherfor TV “bugs” than video ads100% 90%                                        OL        ...
Conclusions1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted   ad impressions2. Smart phones are a persistent companio...
THANK YOU!    Travis@yume.comBrian.Monahan@ipglab.comBrian Monahan@ipglab com          25
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ad Attention In The Wild - YuMe By IPG Media Lab May 2011

1,809

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,809
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Ad Attention In The Wild - YuMe By IPG Media Lab May 2011"

  1. 1. ADVERTISING ATTENTION IN THE WILD –A COMPARISON OF ONLINE ANDTELEVISED VIDEO ADVERTISING Created in partnership with YuMe By IPG Media Lab May 2011 1
  2. 2. Questions we set out to answer 1. How much more ad avoidance happens beyond active ad skipping? 2. 2 What is the relative attention level to video advertising in a lean forward PC experience vs. a lean back TV experience? 3. 3 What beha iors most distract behaviors attention to video ads? 2
  3. 3. Methodology gy• 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 3
  4. 4. Sample: N=48 p • Recruited from LA metro area • Must watch online videoGender Employment Status Household IncomeFemale 48% Full-time 56% $100,000-$200,000 13%Male 52% Part-time 31% $75,000-$100,000 19% Retired 6% $50,000-$75,000 33%Age Student 4% $25,000-$50,000 25%18-24 15% Unemployed p y 2% Less than $25,000 $ 10%25-29 15%30-34 10% Education Children <18 in Household35-39 10% High school/GED 8% No 77.08%40-44 15% Some college 27% Yes 22.92%45-49 13% Associates degree 6%50-55 10% g Bachelors degree 48%56-60 6% Masters degree 6%65-69 6% Doctorate degree 2% Trade or o e technical ade o other ec ca school degree 2% 4
  5. 5. Attention scores explained pFrame by frame, second by second. 1 to 0.9 Full attention 0.9 and 0.4 Partial attention 0.4 to -1 No attention 5
  6. 6. Scale of TV ad Fast Forwarding 35% US DVR HH penetration 10% of DVR HH viewing time shiftedx 65% of ads skipped in time shifted viewing 2% of total TV impressions skipped Source: Magna Global 6
  7. 7. Smart phones are the most common distraction media Online: % of Sample Using Distraction TV: % of Sample Using Distraction TV Mobile Phone - Data 60.4%OL Mobile Phone - Data 45.8% TV DVR 45.8% No OL Distractions 27.1% TV Use Laptop 33.3% OL IM/Chat/Email 16.7% TV Read Book/Magazine 12.5% OL Do Work 12.5% TV Do Work 12.5% TV Other 8.3%OL Read Book/Magazine 10.4% TV Mobile Phone - Call 8.3% OL Other 8.3% No TV Distractions 6.0% OL Mobile Phone - Call 6.3% TV Play Game 4.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 7
  8. 8. Persona 1: Cathy the Ad-Ignorer 8
  9. 9. Persona 2: Michie the Multi-tasker 9
  10. 10. Persona 3: Steve the Vegged-Out Relaxer 10
  11. 11. Finding #1: Not all distractions are equal Online Ad Attention Level TV Ad Attention LevelOL Read Book/Magazine 0.13 Worst TV Other 0.26 TV Mobile Phone - Call 0.33 OL Do Work 03 0.34 TV Read Book/Magazine 0.43 OL Other 0.38 No TV Distractions 0.44OL Mobile Phone - Data 0.47 TV Mobile Phone - Data 0.46 TV Do Work 0.47 OL Mobile Phone - Call 0.47 TV Use Laptop 0.52 OL IM/Chat/Email 0.48 TV DVR 0.52 No OL Distractions 0.60 Best TV Play Game 0.54 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 11
  12. 12. Finding #1 (cont.) : gThe more distractions, the lower ad attention Ad Attention vs. # of Distractions vs 1.00 TV Ad Attention OnlineVideo Ad Attention 0.80 0.60 0 60 0.60 0.53 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.40 0.37 ntion Score 0.40 0.20 Average Atten 0.00 0 1 2 3 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session 12
  13. 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 13
  14. 14. Finding #3: gOnline video content +8.5% more attention 100% ecieving Full Attention 90% OL TV 80% A 70% 60.1% 60% 51.6% 50%% of Seconds Re 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Full Attention During Content Time 14
  15. 15. Finding #4:TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad 100% Decrease in Attention From Program to Ad 90% ntion % of Seconds Recieving Full Atten 80% OL = ∆ - 4.8% TV = ∆ - 14.7% 70% 60.1% 60% 55.2% 51.6% % Full Attention During 50% Content Time 40% 36.9% % Full Attention During 30% Video Ad Time 20% o 10% 0% OL TV 15
  16. 16. Finding #5: gOnline 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 f tf di i ti t dt l dt d ki i 100% 90% OL TV econds Recievin Full Attention 80% 70% 60% 55.2% ng 50% 40% 36.9% 30% % of Se 20% 10% 0% % Full Attention During Video Ad Time 16
  17. 17. Finding #6:Attention is correlated with recall tt ti i l t d ith ll 1.00 DVR fast-forwarding artificially increased 0.80 unremembered ad b d d attention score 0.61 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.40 0 40 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.00 Online TV -0.20 Unremembered Ads -0.40 Correctly Recalled Ads, Aided -0.60 Correctly Recalled Ads, Unaided -0.80 Average Attention -1.00 17
  18. 18. Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x gthe aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall % of Sample Who Correctly Identified the Brand in a Video Ad Seen 100% 90% 80% TV Online 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 38% 30% 28% 25% 20% 10% 0% Aided Unaided Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence 18
  19. 19. Finding #8: Gender attention is even, g Women more likely to recall video ads Ad Attention by Gender Ad Recall by Gender 60% 56%1.00 Female Male Female Male0.80 50% 43%0.60 0.51 0.48 0.48 42% 42% 0.44 40%0.40 35%0.20 30% 30%0.00-0.20 Average of Average of TV Ad 20% 19% OnlineVideo Ad Attention 16%-0.40 Attention-0.60 10%-0.80 0%-1.00 TV Aided TV Unaided OL Aided OL Unaided 19
  20. 20. Finding #9:Ad attention drops off with time on screen 1 0.8 Average Attention Lev While Watching Ad TV 0.6 OL 0.4 Log. (TV) 0.2 Log. (OL) vel 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165180195210225240 -0.2 -0.4 e -0.6 -0.8 -1 Length of Video Ad Exposure in Seconds 20
  21. 21. Finding #10: gAd Fast-Fowarders have high attention levels… % of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to 100% Screen 90% 80% 70% DVR FF No DVR 60% 50% 47% 40% 35% 30% 20% 10% 0% % of time paying attention while an ad is on screen 21
  22. 22. Finding #10 (cont.) :Fast-Fowarders have low recall levels 50% 45% Unaided Recall Aided Recall 40% 35% 32% 30% 29% 25% 20% 20% 18% 15% 10% 5% 0% DVR FF No DVR 22
  23. 23. Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higherfor TV “bugs” than video ads100% 90% OL TV 80% 70% 59.7% 59 7% 62.3% 62 3% 60% 55% 49.4% 50.2% 50% 40% 37% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total % Full Attention % Full Attention During % Full Attention During Video Ad "Other" Ads 23
  24. 24. Conclusions1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted ad impressions2. Smart phones are a persistent companion to video content3. Online video ads h3 O li id d have 20% more attentive iimpressions. tt ti i4. The familiar cadence of TV content increases drop off to ads vs. online5. Attention is even but women more likely to recall video ads than men6. Fast forwarded video ads have little recall7. The commercial “layer” gets more attention than the g commercial break. 24
  25. 25. THANK YOU! Travis@yume.comBrian.Monahan@ipglab.comBrian Monahan@ipglab com 25

×