Imagine paying to go to an Ashes decider only to find out that you have a scoreboard blocking your view. You would want your money back wouldn’t you? No one likes not getting what they have paid for; it’s one of life’s greatest aggravations. So what if I told you that the idea of not getting what you paid for was happening online, every day?
It’s understood by our industry that a worrying proportion of purchased ad impressions go ‘un-viewed’. Commscore has that number at around three in ten. Taking into account the increasing use of exchange and network buying in brand campaigns, this figure is unsurprising however that excuse doesn’t fly when clients work out 30-40% of their paid for impressions never catch the eyeballs of their audience.
Like every other hurdle in digital advertising, a new measurement metric has been conceived to save the day. Measuring ‘Ad viewability’ has been coined in an attempt to stop paying for un-seen impressions.
Ad ‘viewability’ is measured by time spent with a creative pixel. The current IAB industry standard ‘view’ counts as a user viewing half the pixels in an ad for one second. Now it’s worth mentioning that this definition is one of the most contentious in digital measurement. Currently, there are too many methodologies for viewability to be considered a full proof.
The variables in measurement can come down to screen size, how many ad units there are on the page, even the size of the ad unit can skew viewability measurement. It’s for these reasons along with the reality that we cannot truly know if a user is truly viewing an ad that viewability measurement in its current forms are flawed.
A compelling example of how varied the methodologies are; The IAB tested 22 live campaigns involving more than 3 billion impressions. Viewable rates varied from a high of more than 78% to a low of 7%.
The other argument is around using viewability as part of the currency of online media buying. The ideal outcome for agencies would be to pay a something of a CPMv (cost per thousand ‘viewed’ impressions). The result of this however will see publishers drive up the relative price of CPM’s to factor in the risk they take on in ensuring the impressions served meet the viewability criteria.
Despite the current flaws, there is no denying that viewablity is a crucial discussion for advertisers and publishers to be having. If advertisers can make the same impact with less intrusion into the consumer’s space, it will mean more meaningful results, more receptive audiences and a cleaner on page experience.
Publishers and advertisers need to work with bodies like the IAB to identify a consistent definition of viewability because at the moment, there are simply too many. This consistent measurement will need to exist before any monetisation of viewability comes into play. The data must be robust and the methodology reflective of what users experience on site. When this occurs, ad viewability can become a viable online measurement.
The road is long for perfecting viewability; as an industry, we aren’t quite there yet. Nevertheless, given the potential viewability has to create a more informed, accountable digital landscape with less shades of grey, there is no denying it should to the digital measurement agenda.
James Wainwright
Executive, Implementation, Planning & Investment
MediaCom
THE ADNEWS NGEN BLOG: Shades of Grey - improving online viewability
26 August 2013