VIEWABILITY AND MEASURABILITY

Transcription

1 Whitepaper VIEWABILITY AND MEASURABILITY Principal Author, Ian Hewetson VP Client Services In a world where advertisers are demanding more trust, transparency and accountability from every element of the supply chain, viewability has become a lightning rod for quantifying that accountability. And on the face of it, measuring how many ads that were actually in view for real users sounds like a slam-dunk for the most measurable media in advertising. But unfortunately, sometimes things aren t as simple as they might appear. A ton of different variables have come into play, ironically bringing confusion into the very metric that s meant to straighten everything out. This whitepaper draws observations from a study that examined 300 million impressions for both measurability and viewability. It identifies different players in the ecosystem and illustrates that while transparency may come at a premium price, it s worth it.

2 INDUSTRY PROGRESS ON VIEWABILITY: In 2011, the Making Measurement Make Sense ( 3MS ) organization was formed by members of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A s), the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The Media Rating Council (MRC) is charged with certifying vendors for accuracy in reporting. The mission of 3MS is to standardize the way media is measured across every medium; with one of the key goals being to implement a viewability standard that can be agreed upon by all parties both in: 1. A solid definition of viewability; e.g., if 50% of the ad remains in view for 1 second, it is considered viewable. 2. The technical measurement standards used to measure viewability; e.g., if 10 vendors measure the same campaigns, each vendor s numbers should be within a tolerable discrepancy rate. 3. A key goal of these efforts is to bring viewability measurement to a level where viewability can be transactional; e.g., advertisers will buy x number of viewable impressions from a publisher, and both parties can agree ahead of time on both CPM rates and viewability rates. To have all of these pieces in place is critical if advertisers are ever going to accurately compare and buy based on viewability rates between publishers and other inventory sources, all of which could possibly use different vendors and definitions. Currently, none of these standards are at a point where they re being used in the real world. On the technical side, even amongst MRC accredited vendors measuring the same campaign, discrepancies are massive. On the definition side, both agency holding companies (Group M, Magna Global), and organizations (the 4A s) have recently said that they require a higher standard percentage than the IAB definition. Viewability Definitions What is considered viewable? The IAB standard for display-ad viewability is that 50% of the pixels of an ad must be in view for 1 second or longer. Challenges on the definition from the buy side have required that for an ad to be viewable, 100% of pixels must be in-view. There are varying requirements for the time period of this viewability. For the purposes of this study, Eyereturn used the IAB standard. TWO MAIN CATEGORIES OF METHODOLOGY Geometric: The dimensions of the browser window on the page are calculated and compared with the coordinates of the ad position within that browser window. This comparison reveals whether the ad appeared within the dimensions of that browser window. Pros: This is a technically-standardized measurement, leading to fewer discrepancies between vendors exclusively using this method. Cons: This technique cannot measure viewability of ads delivered into an unfriendly iframe. Browser Optimization: As a user views a webpage, the content is in crisp, high resolution. To conserve processor power, content that is outside of a user s browser window remains in low resolution. As the user scrolls towards this low-resolution content, it becomes crisper, which requires additional processor power. If the ad is the recipient of that additional processor power, it is considered to have entered the viewable window. Pros: This method claims the ability to see through unfriendly iframes, increasing the measurability rate. Cons: There are large discrepancies between vendors using this method; additionally, there is a reliance on flash by some vendors. Citation: -trade-group-rejects-online-ad-viewability-guildlines Viewability and Measurability 2

3 THE EYERETURN STUDY OVERVIEW: Sample size of 282,987,300 display impressions in the month of October 2014 The Eyereturn measurability and viewability study was designed to: Analyze the relationship between measurability and viewability Compare measurability/viewability across different categories of inventory This study included a wide range of publisher sites, both large and small, well-known and niche. Every campaign was delivered for a mainstream, quality advertiser, either booked directly through an advertiser, or by an agency acting on behalf of that advertiser. Publishers who use friendly iframes allow the advertiser to see the environment in which they re buying. If an advertiser buys in an unfriendly iframe environment, that advertiser must either be comfortable with a lack of information they are receiving on where they re buying, or they must resort to increasingly complex, costly, and potentially inaccurate technological means to see through unfriendly iframes. THE STUDY: TOP LEVEL RESULTS Where does the traffic for this study come from? As a 3rd party ad server, Eyereturn serves ads for advertisers, both directly and through agencies, on inventory that includes: Traditional direct buys on publisher sites Private Marketplace buys (programmatic buys on specific inventory through pre-negotiated deals, aka: Deal ID, PMP) Open-exchange RTB buys through various DSPs Open-exchange and direct-programmatic buys through the Eyereturn DSP, eyedemand 53% NON-MEASURABLE TOTAL IMPRESSIONS ANALYZED 47% MEASURABLE Measurability vs. Viewability. It is essential to consider viewability in the context of measurability. Regardless of the methodology used, not all impressions will be measurable. For example, a glance at a report might show that a campaign delivered 60% viewability, which could be taken to mean 60 impressions were viewable. But if the campaign delivered 100 impressions where 70% of these impressions were measurable and of those, 60% were viewable, this translates into an actual 42 impressions that were viewable. Of the remaining 58 impressions, 18 were actually measured as out-of-view and 30 were unknown. iframes as a proxy for trust Publishers can place ads on pages in a variety of ways, but the main variable is whether the advertiser delivering the ad can see what domain the ad is appearing on. Publishers who use unfriendly iframes do not allow advertisers to see the environment in which they re buying by shielding the ad placement from the rest of the page. This restricts the advertiser from easily seeing where the ad is located on the page, seeing the content of the page, and even the domain name the ad is being shown on. Figure 1- Impressions Analyzed 38% NOT IN VIEW 62% IN VIEW Of the 282,987,300 display impressions analyzed over the month of October 2014, 47% of impressions were measurable, of which 62% of those measurable impressions were in view. Viewability and Measurability 3

4 Of the 282,987,300 display impressions analyzed over the month of October 2014, 47% of impressions were measurable, of which 62% of those measurable impressions were in view. Various breakdowns: The study found that the most significant factor influencing viewability is the type of inventory. How to read these graphs: Dots in the lower left quadrant show that <50% impressions were measurable, and of those impressions, <50% were viewable Dots in the upper left quadrant show that <50% impressions were measurable, and of those, >50% were viewable Dots in lower right quadrant show that >50% impressions were measurable, and of those, <50% were viewable Dots in the upper right quadrant show that >50% impressions were measurable and of those, >50% were viewable By Browser Type Of the 100+ browser variants encountered during the study, the top 4 shared similar results on the viewability/measurability scatter graph. Large variations based on browser type were not anticipated but the fact that the four top browsers were closely aligned helps to validate that the methodology is not significantly affected by browser type. This is a summary of measurability & viewability by browser type. Viewability and Measurability 4

5 Publisher direct vs. DSP DSPs deliver more impressions per campaign, consistent with their usual low CPM/high volume approach Publishers cluster towards the high measurability quadrants, indicating a higher propensity to deliver into friendly iframes Publisher specific inventory is consistently highly measurable. There are only a few DSPs that provide you with better quality inventory. Viewability and Measurability by premium domains While the term premium is somewhat subjective, for the purposes of this study, premium was defined as inventory with a recognizable publisher brand and/or higher than average CPM Does site quality equal higher levels of measurability? Measurability and viewability appear at the high end of the scale for premium domains. Viewability and Measurability 5

6 Viewability and Measurability by suspicious domains For the purposes of this study, the suspicious category included domains that had evidence of robot traffic and/or abnormally high numbers of ad placements on pages This trend has an impact on the overall viewability reporting, especially on DSP buys which run across thousands of domains. If viewability is reported as one number across thousands of domains, it s possible that fraud domains which have engineered high viewability rates will skew the overall average up These results also underline how critical it is to address fraud before addressing viewability Looking at viewability in isolation does not mean that a human set of eyes viewed the ad Note as an adserver, eyereturn reports on these domains if they are served by another DSP or within a direct agency buy. On eyedemand campaigns, these impressions would be blocked pre-bid. All suspicious domains are disguised as non-suspicious. Top left quadrant suspicious domains stand out when looking at measurability and viewability. By contrast, right side quadrant domains were determined to be suspicious based on other methods, even though their measurability and viewability values are similar to normal domains. CPM effect on Measurability and Viewability Isolating high CPM domains reveals a positive relationship between price and both high measurability/viewability Note these results are exclusively from the eyedemand DSP, which is the only platform through which the study had access to actual CPM rates High CPMs result in higher viewability and more measurable inventory. Viewability and Measurability 6

7 Behind the High Viewability Screen To have any value as a metric, viewability must be expressed as a percentage of measurability 80% viewability is impressive if it is based on sampling 100% of impressions. The same 80% viewability metric is not so impressive if it is only based on sampling 20% of impressions. This is illustrated in the real-world example below. Especially in the case of DSPs buying inventory on open exchanges, many impressions are served into unfriendly iframes, making viewability more difficult to accurately determine. In the example, see how DSP A initially looks like the leader in viewability, but when measurability is factored in, DSP A is shown to have the lowest actualized rate of viewability At a glance, it seems DSP A has achieved the highest viewability without measurability Figure 3- Viewability without measurability When factoring in measurability DSP A no longer achieves the highest viewability. In this case, DSP F produces the highest viewability and measurability. Figure 4 - Viewability in the context of measurability Viewability and Measurability 7

8 How Viewability Relates to Conversion Advertisers looking to measure ROI on their display campaigns often use last touch viewthrough conversion. This model generally relies on cookies so a user visiting a publisher/dsp site containing an ad receives a cookie from that publisher/dsp. When the user later visits the brand site, that publisher/dsp cookie is read, and the same publisher/dsp receives credit for the conversion. The advertiser/agency will generally buy more impressions on the publishers/dsps that deliver the highest number of conversions. The user does not have to click on the ad, or even see the ad for the cookie to be set, and the conversion to be attributed to that publisher/dsp. This model creates an incentive for cookie-bombing where many ads are delivered on many pages, sometimes purposefully at the bottom of the page, simply to increase the odds that the user visits one of those pages and the cookie is set, resulting in the conversion. These graphs illustrate that many conversions were attributed to impressions that were not viewable which means that conversion credit is being given to ads and publishers/dsps that did not influence the user on that impression. Note this data is based on a single, large campaign since only a minority of the total study impressions included conversion data. Figure 5- Total viewthrough conversions with NO viewability filter: 1372 conversions counted Figure 6- Total viewthrough conversions with viewability filtered: 197 conversions counted Viewability and Measurability 8

9 Low CPMs: False Economy? In an environment where advertisers are increasingly focused on measuring campaigns against ROI, low priced inventory can seem attractive but if low price also comes with high levels of fraud and low levels of viewability, the value of low price has been eroded by the lower quality of these impressions. Note these figures use aggregate information from the study If an advertiser only considers impressions that are 100% measurable, 100% viewable and filtered for fraud, the effective CPM could be $11 Viewability and Measurability 9

10 Overall Conclusions: The key predictor of measurability & viewability is transparency of domain. Where publishers are transparently identified, whether the buys are direct, or programmatic, measurability and viewability are both generally higher. Even though this transparent inventory may be more expensive, these buys may ultimately offer more value, in several ways: Conversion costs become more accurate after removing non-human traffic, and verified non-viewable traffic Conversion costs decrease further if the advertiser chooses to classify unmeasurable impressions as suspect Transparent inventory is more easily vetted for non-human traffic Measurement Methodologies are still evolving. Possibly the most important factor in the accurate reporting of viewability is the percentage of measurability. But given that there are wide discrepancies between vendor counts on the same campaigns, even amongst MRC certified vendors, and definitely between advertiser and publisher, what numbers should an advertiser believe? Just as importantly, what numbers should a publisher believe? The current state of transactional viewability. Currently, contracts between publishers and buyers that include viewability as a transactional metric rely on one of these options: To agree on the same vendor to measure viewability Or, as it commonly happens, if the two parties insist on two different vendors, to check each other s numbers on a regular basis to monitor discrepancies This is after the two sides agree to the actual definition of viewability. Since discrepancies between vendors are known to be the norm, the approach of comparing numbers is incredibly labour-intensive both in the actual checking, and the resulting negotiations on make-goods etc. The Way Forward For viewability to become an easily-reconciled transactional metric, the first critical step is for buyer and seller to agree on a method of measurement. Until the different measurement vendors can consistently be measured against each other with minimal discrepancies, the only way that the counts will add up depends on buyer and seller using the same vendor, which may lead to market domination by a single player representing both the buy and sell side. Once the technical side of measurement has been resolved - the two sides will be free to negotiate rates of actual viewability, whether that be the percentage of pixels that constitute viewability in each ad, or the percentage of ads that need to be viewable for them to be buyable. Contact a representative today, and inquire about our managed & self-service console options. Toronto: New York: Los Angeles: Viewability and Measurability 10