Background
Diminishing Returns for Viewing Times
It is well known that multiple exposures to the same advertisement have diminishing returns in advertising effectiveness (Simon & Arndt, 1980, Taylor et al., 2013). This diminishing-returns model has also been applied to viewing time for online banner ads (Ghose & Todri-Adamopoulos, 2016; Goldstein et al., 2011). Field results suggest that a diminishing-returns model also applies to online video ads, as the first two seconds of a video ad exposure delivers over a third of a full-exposure’s effectiveness, measured by both recall and purchase intention (Buckley, 2018). If a large proportion of an ad’s effectiveness is delivered in the first few seconds of an exposure, the last portion of an ad may add little to its overall effectiveness. This leads to our research, which shows that the threshold for an effective exposure could be set much lower than 100%, simplifying media decisions for advertisers.
The Differences in Ad Avoidance for Television and Online Video
Ad avoidance differs dramatically for digital media and television. Video ad avoidance in digital media, such as swiping down in Facebook or skipping in YouTube, has fewer negative consequences compared with avoiding ads on television, which can result in missing the recommencement of the program. Hence, viewing times for the digital media environments are frequently less than 100%. A study into skippable YouTube ads found 39% of viewers skipped as soon as possible and only 45% of viewers watched these ads in their entirety (Belanche et al., 2020). Another study reported that 88% of YouTube ads were avoided (Campbell et al., 2017), which is a much higher rate than the 15% reported in the latest study of TV ad avoidance (Deng & Mela, 2018). This means that the distribution of viewing time is likely to be very different for online ads and television ads due to these differences in ad avoidance, with video ads being more likely to be viewed in their entirety on television than in digital media.
Our Approach
Two studies were conducted to determine the minimum completion rate that ensures television and online video ads are viewed long enough to be as effective as a 100% exposure.
Study 1 consisted of 3 experiments and focused on online video ads, with participants viewing television programs (either 1-hour or 30-minutes) with mid-roll ad breaks, each containing 5 30-second ads (ads, programs, and number of ads seen differed across experiments). One group of participants were unable to avoid the ads and the other group were able to fast forward after the first second of the advertisement. The advertising effectiveness measures—brand recall, purchase intention and ad liking—were measured by a questionnaire after the viewing session.
Study 2 investigated whether viewing time is a useful indicator of advertising effectiveness in the traditional television environment. Participants had the ability to use a remote control to change television channels. The 4 channels showed 4 different half-hour programs, each containing 2 mid-roll ad breaks with 5 30-second ads (i.e., a total of 10 ads). The same 10 ads were shown on each channel (in a different order). This experiment tested whether viewing time has a different distribution for traditional television ads versus online video ads and was conducted in a different country (Australia; Study 1 was conducted in the US) with a different measure of ad effectiveness: brand recognition instead of brand recall. As in Study 1, purchase intention and ad liking were the other 2 measures of advertising effectiveness.
Results
It was found from both studies that viewing time has diminishing returns, meaning the last portion viewed contributed little to the overall effectiveness of an advertisement. This was consistent for video ads across both television and online. For online video ads, viewing times beyond 75% did not add to the effectiveness of brand recall (see Figure 1) and ad liking. For brand recognition from television advertisements it was also found that 75% viewed could be an empirical threshold for effective exposure. Study 2 revealed a difference in the distribution of viewing time for television and online video ads. Viewing times for online video ads peaked at 0% and 100%, which was in line with video ad avoidance in prior research. However, the distribution differed for television advertisements, as most ads were viewed to completion because of lower levels of ad avoidance.
Implications
Our findings show that as the amount of time an ad is viewed increases, recall, recognition, ad liking and purchase intention increase, but with diminishing returns (see Figure 2). These results suggest the current 100% ad completion threshold could be lowered to 75%, and still adequately reflect the number of effectively reached viewers. For both television and online video advertisements, a 75% threshold, compared with a 100% threshold, increased the estimated number of viewers effectively reached by an average of 15% across our four experiments.
Research shows the biggest incremental change in likelihood to purchase occurs after the first exposure to an advertisement, and this leads to the media guideline of aiming for 1+ reach (refer to Report 66). Hence, the percentage of buyers reached is an important metric when the aim should be to reach all buyers. But all reach may not be equal. Differences in viewing time across media (e.g., online vs. cinema) suggest that it makes sense to weight 1+ reach by viewing time. Short ads are designed to be effective, even when a 100% view is just 3 seconds long (e.g., on Facebook), so the advertising industry’s Media Rating Council has recommended viewing time should be measured as the percentage of the ad’s duration viewed (e.g., 1%, 2%, 3%, … 100%). However, when 1+ reach is overlayed with the percentage of people who viewed different durations of an advertisement, from 1-100%, media comparisons become complex. Identifying a single lower threshold for effective duration (e.g., 75%), could simplify the use of viewing time as a cross-media metric making it valuable for advertisers when assessing media options. Our results provide evidence that viewing time measured as quartiles (25%, 50%, 75% viewed) provides better potential thresholds for measuring effective reach than continuous measures of viewing time in seconds or percentage viewed. Also, since most of the individuals who surpass a viewing time of 75% are interested in the product’s relevance, or in the market for that brand, effective reach is also a measure of effective targeting.
This leads to a vital implication for the online advertising industry, as adopting the 75% threshold of viewing time, rather than the current standard of 50% of ad pixels viewed for 2 seconds, could bring online video onto an even playing field with television. Online networks could charge equivalent fees to television ads for online video ads seen for 75% or more of their duration. Prioritizing effective reach, as opposed to just reach, would improve the performance of online ads. Through incorporating viewing time as a cross-media metric, with this empirical 75% threshold, both television and online media can be compared on the number of people they can effectively reach, simplifying media decisions for advertisers.
For further reading view the full journal article here:
Viewing Time as a Cross-Media Metric: Comparing Viewing Time for Video Advertising on Television and Online
