ADVERTISING ATTENTION IN THE WILD –A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND TELEVISED VIDEO ADVERTISING

Created in partnership withYuMeByIPG Media LabIPG Media LabMay 2011

1

Questions we set out to answerQuestions we set out to answer1. How much more ad avoidance

happens beyond active ad skipping?

2 What is the relative attention level to 2. What is the relative attention level to video advertising in a lean forward PC experience vs. a lean back PC experience vs. a lean back TV experience?

3 What beha iors most distract 3. What behaviors most distract attention to video ads?

2

Methodologygy•March 2011•Los AngelesLos Angeles•Recreated normal viewing choices•Respondents brought companion media•30 minutes in office/30 minutes in living room30 minutes in office/30 minutes in living room•Post survey on ad recall

3

Sample: N=48 • Recruited from LA metro area• Must watch online video p

Gender Employment Status Household Income

Female 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 2% Less than $25,000 10%p y $

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% Associate's degree 6%

50-55 10% Bachelor's degree 48%g

56-60 6% Master's degree 6%

65-69 6% Doctorate degree 2%

Trade or other technical

4

ade o o e ec ca school degree 2%

Attention scores explainedpFrame by frame, second by second.

1 to 0.9Full attention Full attention

0.9 and 0.4Partial attentionPartial attention

0.4 to -1No attention

5

Scale of TV ad Fast ForwardingScale of TV ad Fast Forwarding

35% 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

6

Source: Magna Global

Smart phones are the most common distraction media

Online: % of Sample Using Distraction TV: % of Sample Using Distraction

27.1%

45.8%

No OL Distractions

OL Mobile Phone - Data

45.8%

60.4%

TV DVR

TV Mobile Phone - Data

12.5%

16.7%

OL Do Work

OL IM/Chat/Email

12.5%

12.5%

33.3%

TV Do Work

TV Read Book/Magazine

TV Use Laptop

8.3%

10.4%

OL Other

OL Read Book/Magazine

8.3%

8.3%

TV Mobile Phone - Call

TV Other

6.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

OL Mobile Phone - Call 4.2%

6.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

TV Play Game

No TV Distractions

7

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

0.34

0.13

OL Do Work

OL Read Book/Magazine

Online Ad Attention Level

0.33

0.26

TV Mobile Phone - Call

TV Other

TV Ad Attention LevelWorst

0.47

0.38

0 3

OL Mobile Phone - Data

OL Other

0.46

0.44

0.43

TV Mobile Phone - Data

No TV Distractions

TV Read Book/Magazine

0.48

0.47

OL IM/Chat/Email

OL Mobile Phone - Call

0.52

0.52

0.47

TV DVR

TV Use Laptop

TV Do Work

0.60

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

No OL Distractions 0.54

0.52

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

TV Play GameBest

11

Finding #1 (cont.) : gThe more distractions, the lower ad attention

Ad Attention vs # of Distractions

0 60 0.80

1.00

Ad Attention vs. # of DistractionsTV Ad Attention OnlineVideo Ad Attention

0.44 0.53

0.44 0.37

0.60

0.45 0.40

0.20

0.40

0.60

ntio

n Sc

ore

-0.40

-0.20

0.000 1 2 3

Ave

rage

Atte

n

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session

12

Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session

Finding #2: Finding #2: TV 2x video clutter; Ubiquitous banners

OL TVOL TV

Video 5.5 9.5Banner/

Bug 21.6 0.7

Total 27.1 10.3

13

Finding #3: gOnline video content +8.5% more attention

80%

90%

100%

Atte

ntio

n

OL TV

60.1%51.6%

50%

60%

70%

ecie

ving

Ful

l A

10%

20%

30%

40%

of S

econ

ds R

e

0%

10%

% Full Attention During Content Time

%

14

Finding #4:Finding #4:TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad

90%

100%

ntio

n

Decrease in Attention From Program to Ad

60.1%51.6%55.2%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ievi

ng F

ull A

tten

% Full Attention During Content Time

OL = ∆ - 4.8% TV = ∆ - 14.7%

36.9%

20%

30%

40%

of S

econ

ds R

ec

Content Time

% Full Attention During Video Ad Time

0%

10%

OL TV

% o

15

Finding #5: gOnline video ads +18.3% more attention than TV

• 63% of TV impressions were ignored.DVR f t f di i ti t d t l d t 2% d ki i• DVR fast forwarding is estimated to lead to 2% ad skipping

90%

100%

OL TV

55.2%60%

70%

80%

ng F

ull A

ttent

ion

OL TV

36.9%

30%

40%

50%

econ

ds R

ecie

vin

0%

10%

20%

% o

f Se

16

% Full Attention During Video Ad Time

Finding #6: tt ti i l t d ith llAttention is correlated with recall

1.00 DVR fast-forwarding artificially increased

b d d

0.44

0.61 0.60

0.44

0.64

0.49

0 40

0.60

0.80 unremembered ad attention score

0.30 0.28

0.00

0.20

0.40

-0.40

-0.20

Online TV

Unremembered Ads

Correctly Recalled Ads,

-0.80

-0.60AidedCorrectly Recalled Ads, UnaidedAverage Attention

17

-1.00

Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x gthe aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall

% of Sample Who Correctly Identified the

80%

90%

100%

% of Sample Who Correctly Identified the Brand in a Video Ad Seen

TV Online

50%38%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

28% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence

0%

Aided Unaided

18

Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence

Finding #8: Gender attention is even, gWomen more likely to recall video ads

1.00

Ad Attention by Gender

Female Male56%60%

Ad Recall by Gender

Female Male

0.44 0.48 0.51 0.48

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

35%

43%42% 42%

30%

40%

50%

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

Average of OnlineVideo Ad

Attention

Average of TV Ad Attention

19%16%20%

30%

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

0%

10%

TV Aided TV Unaided OL Aided OL Unaided

19

Finding #9: Ad attention drops off with time on screen

1

0.6

0.8

1

chin

g A

d

TV

OL

0

0.2

0.4

vel W

hile

Wat

OL

Log. (TV)

Log. (OL)

-0.4

-0.20 15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165180195210225240

e A

ttent

ion

Lev

-1

-0.8

-0.6

Ave

rage

20

Length of Video Ad Exposure in Seconds

Finding #10:gAd Fast-Fowarders have high attention levels…

% of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to

80%

90%

100%

% of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to Screen

47%50%

60%

70%

80%

DVR FF No DVR

47%

35%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

10%

20%

% of time paying attention while an ad is on screen

21

% of time paying attention while an ad is on screen

Finding #10 (cont.) : Fast-Fowarders have low recall levels

50%

40%

45%

Unaided Recall Aided Recall

29%32%

25%

30%

35%

18%20%

15%

20%

0%

5%

10%

22

0%

DVR FF No DVR

Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higher for TV “bugs” than video ads

100%

59 7% 62 3%70%

80%

90%

100%

OL TV

59.7%55%

62.3%

49.4%

37%

50.2%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

0%

Total % Full Attention % Full Attention During Video Ad

% Full Attention During "Other" Ads

23

ConclusionsConclusions1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted

ad impressions

2. Smart phones are a persistent companion to video content

3 O li id d h 20% tt ti i i3. Online video ads have 20% more attentive impressions.

4. The familiar cadence of TV content increases drop off to ads vs. onlineads 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

24

gcommercial break.

THANK YOU!THANK YOU!Travis@yume.com

Brian Monahan@ipglab comBrian.Monahan@ipglab.com

25