Joe Nguyen's comScore WAN-IFRA Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Joe Nguyen's comScore WAN-IFRA Presentation

on

  • 1,963 views

Joe Nguyen's Presentation at WAN IFRA's Digital Marketing Asia conference in Kuala Lumpur. 2 Trends for Publishers: Viewability content and advertising and mult-platform consumption.

Joe Nguyen's Presentation at WAN IFRA's Digital Marketing Asia conference in Kuala Lumpur. 2 Trends for Publishers: Viewability content and advertising and mult-platform consumption.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,963
Views on SlideShare
1,416
Embed Views
547

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
21
Comments
2

8 Embeds 547

http://opportunitytoexcel.wordpress.com 519
https://twitter.com 13
http://sam1metagrupo.tumblr.com 5
https://opportunitytoexcel.wordpress.com 3
http://prlog.ru 2
http://www.365dailyjournal.com 2
http://www.slashdocs.com 2
http://twitter.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Viewability will be be spearheaded by advertisers to try to understand advertising and branding effectiveness. Publishers will follow when the money demands it. Some markets will adopt slower than others.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • What about some of the SEA sites that have upwards of 20 ads a page? How to convince the publishers that are raking in the ad dollars because the country culture has accepted and adopted clutter as the norm? Some examples: http://dantri.com.vn/, http://vnexpress.net/)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Joe Nguyen's comScore WAN-IFRA Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Two  Trends  for  Publishers  in  2013       WAN-­‐IFRA  Digital  MarkeBng  Asia  2012   Joe Nguyen Sr. VP, Asia Pacific – comScore jnguyen@comscore.com @jnguyen © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 1
  • 2. Trend  #1:  Viewability    Trend  #2:  MulB-­‐plaHorm  ConsumpBon   © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 2
  • 3. In the beginningthere was a promise… © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 3
  • 4. The Internet is the‘most measuredand most accountable’medium © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 4
  • 5. 15 years later, the promise has frayed…RESPONSE RESPONSE DIRECT DIRECT RESPONSE BRANDING BRANDING IMPRESSIONS IMPRESSIONSated Inflated Inflated Inflated IMPRESSIONS Inflated Inflated Inflated IMPRESSIONS DIRECT RESPONSE BRANDING CLICK-THROUGH THROUGHTHROUGH Gamed CLICK CLICK Gamed Irrelevant Irrelevantmed Inflated Gamed IMPRESSIONS Irrelevant CLICK THROUGH Inflated RATE RATE RATE RATE DIRECT RESPONSE Gamed CLICK THROUGH Confounded by BRANDING Irrelevant COOKIE REACH Not Important COOKIE REACH Confounded by cookie-to- Confounded by cookie-to-portant Not & FREQUENCY Important COOKIE REACHRATE Not Important cookie-to-person COOKIE REACH & FREQUENCY & FREQUENCY Inflated IMPRESSIONS person relationship Inflated person&relationship FREQUENCY relationship Not Important COOKIE REACH Confounded by cookie-to- Not Important PERSON-BASED Distorted by PERSON-BASED Not CLICK&THROUGH Distorted by non-visible Gamed by non-visible Distorted relationship Irrelevantportant & FREQUENCY PERSON-BASED FREQUENCE Important person PERSON-BASED REACH RATE impressions REACH & REACH & Not Important FREQUENCE non-visible REACH & FREQUENCE impressions FREQUENCY Not Important PERSON-BASED impressions Distorted by non-visible Not Important COOKIE REACH REACH & FREQUENCE Confounded by cookie-to- impressions © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. & FREQUENCY 5 person relationship
  • 6. Are we creating arace to the bottom?Stuffing pages with ads:ü Lowers ad effectivenessü Increases advertiser riskü Devalues valuable online ads © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 6
  • 7. Ads at the top of the page… © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 7
  • 8. More ads after scrolling down1 time… © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 8
  • 9. Many more ads after scrollingdown an additional 7 times © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 9
  • 10. Digital advertising needs areality checkü Clutterü Poor visibilityü Glut of low-quality inventoryü Bad actors gaming the system © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 10
  • 11. The Making Measurement Make Sense (3MS) Mission:§ Reduce costs of doing business due to complexity of digital advertising ecosystem§ ‘Single Tag’ solution to reduce complexity§  Improve reporting of ad exposure§  Bolster confidence that ads delivered are actually seen © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 11
  • 12. The industry has started discussions & Google is in play: © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 12
  • 13. BUT Is Viewability Measurement Possible? © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 13
  • 14. vCE APAC Charter StudyThe first Asia industry study to bring 6 leading marketers togetherto VALIDATEcampaigns 10 online advertising delivery9 countries 347 million impressions 329,000 sites © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 14
  • 15. Study Objective:Quantify incidence of successful and sub-optimal addelivery across key dimensions … VIEWABILITY GEOGRAPHY TARGET AUDIENCE DELIVERY SAFETY LEVEL OF FRAUD • Demographically • Behaviorally © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 15
  • 16. Across all campaigns, the average in-view rate was58% or about 4 out of 10 ads weren’t seen Percentage of Ads In-View for 10 Asian Campaigns 1 73% 2 68% 3 67% 58% Campaign 4 65% 5 54% AVERAGE 6 51% 7 44% 8 40% 9 26% 10 20% © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 16
  • 17. Wide Skyscrapers delivered the strongest in-view rates… But there was significant variance across campaigns with arange of 42% to 94% in-view for this ad size Percent of A/Pac Ads Delivered In-View by Ad Size 76% Page location, 50% clutter and 48% size matters Wide Leaderboard Medium Skyscraper (728x90) Rectangle (160x600) (300x250) © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 17
  • 18. vCE Charter Studies Compared Viewability ASIA 58% CANADA 65% EUROPE 67% US 69% Slightly lower levels of viewability compared to those found for the US, EU and Canada © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 18
  • 19. Findings on ad position from US charter findings: Viewability Rates Viewability Rates Above the Fold Below the Fold 120% 80% 100% 67% 100% 60% 80% 60% 48% 40% 40% 20% 20% 7% 0% Min Max 0% Min Max ….but context is the key driver of duration, not position © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 19
  • 20. Viewable impression pricing:More extensive and valuable reserved inventory Remnant (70%) Remnant Viewable Reserved Reserved Viewable (30%) © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 20
  • 21. How Does Viewability Impact Publishers?u  Advertisers are moving towards viewability measurementu  Viewability makes digital more relevant to brand marketers and brand marketing metricsu  Publishers will have more premium inventory and better designed pagesu  Publishers will be able to understand what ads placements and ad units are working and package accordingly © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 21
  • 22. Trend  #1:  Viewability    Trend  #2:  MulB-­‐plaHorm  ConsumpBon   © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 22
  • 23. con·∙sump·∙Bon    noun    1.  the  act  of  consuming,  as  by  use   © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 23
  • 24. Digital Consumption Used to be Fairly Simple…. © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 24
  • 25. And then something called “Platform Explosion” began to occur © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 25
  • 26. Today in the U.S., New Platforms are being Adopted at IncreasinglyHigher Rates 100.0% 98.0% 6% from Non- 96.0% PCs 10% from Non- 94.0% PCs 92.0% Other 90.0% Tablet 88.0% Mobile 86.0% PC 84.0% 82.0% 80.0% © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 26
  • 27. Tablets in the U.S. reached 40MM owners in Two yearsSmartphones took Ten Years to Reach that Same Level 100 MILLIONDevice Owners 40 MILLION 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 27 Source: comScore MobiLens & TabLens U.S
  • 28. We’re Becoming Digital Omnivores 10% of Total Traffic§  10% of Web traffic comes from non-PCs –  Up 56% over past ten months 6% of 35% Total Traffic Other 23% Tablet§  40% of US Households have three or more Mobile connected devices 68% 61% –  In addition to PCs & TVs May 2011 March 2012 Majority of tablet traffic is over WiFi © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 28
  • 29. The non-PC share of traffic, specifically mobile traffic, in Singapore is higherthan both Thailand and Australia Non-Computer Share of Traffic Source: comScore Device Essentials, June 2012 18.0% 15.9% 16.0% 0.24% 13.1% 11.8% = non-computer total 14.0% 0.28% 12.0% 6.15% 0.43% 10.0% 6.13% 4.66% Other 8.0% Tablet 6.0% 9.55% Mobile 4.0% 6.74% 6.69% 2.0% 0.0% Singapore Thailand Australia © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 29 Source: comScore Device Essentials TM – International Data June 2012
  • 30. And it’s Not all About the Browser Anymore… U.S. Top Smartphone Properties, % Share of Time Spent by Access Method Google Sites Facebook Yahoo! Sites Amazon SitesWikimedia Foundation Sites Apple Inc. Cooliris, Inc AOL, Inc. Browser eBay APP Zynga Twitter Rovio (Angry Birds) Weather Channel, The Microsoft Sites ESPN 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 30 Source: comScore Mobile Metrix 2.0, July 2012, U.S.
  • 31. Cross-Device Consumption: Device Usage Differs Throughout Day Tablets rule PCs dominate the home working hours Smartphones bridge the gapsWeekday Share of Device Page Traffic in the Singapore Confidential and Proprietary 31 Source: comScore Device Essential, Week of May 14, 2012, © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 31 Singapore
  • 32. iOS leads the way among the operating systems on non-PC devices inSingapore– particularly on tablets, with 91% of tablet page views Device Share of Non-Computer Traffic – Singapore Source: comScore Device Essentials, June 2012 Tablet Mobile 0.22% 3.67% Other 1.13% RIM Tablet 32.77 % Windows 38.61% 90.91 Mobile iOS % Mobile Android 59.90% 62.43 % Android iOS 8.87% Other 1.49% © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 32 Source: comScore Device Essentials TM – International Data June 2012
  • 33. How to measure audience overlap and duplication across platforms? PC ? ? ? Video ? Mobile © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 33
  • 34. comScore uses the following assets to accomplish this goal Network Logs User Site Panels Tags Dynamic Application Panels Tags © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 34
  • 35. What Does Multi-Platform Consumption Mean For Publishers?u Publishers need to understand how their audiences are consuming their content (when, where, how, duplication)u Deploy the relevant CMS to manage multi-platform assetsu Learn to leverage audience data (targeting, ownership, reselling, privacy issues)u Deploy advertising platforms to take advantage of multi-platforms to engage advertisers © comScore, Inc. Proprietary. 35
  • 36. Two  Trends  for  Publishers  in  2013:  Viewability  &  MulB-­‐plaHorm  ConsumpBon       WAN-­‐IFRA  Digital  MarkeBng  Asia  2012   Joe Nguyen Sr. VP, Asia Pacific – comScore jnguyen@comscore.com @jnguyen
  • 37. Thank  You