×

The Future Of Viewability

viewabilty

Viewability remains a key issue in the programmatic landscape, with advertisers calling for transparency and standardisation of viewability measurement.  

In this Q&A, Nick Reid, UK MD, TubeMogul, shares his insights on viewability and evaluates the problems and the future of viewability. With advertisers redefining their KPIs, viewability is becoming more and more important; so much so, that ad buying on viewable CPM basis will be the norm in the future, and drive inventory quality that will benefit both advertisers and publishers.

ExchangeWire: In TubeMogul's latest viewability report, it states that viewability measurement can blur the lines between currency and effectiveness metrics. Who should assume responsibility for user engagement (effectiveness) with creative?

The issue is that the currency used doesn’t necessarily relate to effectiveness – one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. What we learned through our work with clients over the last few years is that clients are becoming much smarter – they are using software to become much more informed.

Advertisers are building on their knowledge to recalibrate and rethink their KPIs, with viewability becoming a primary KPI for their campaign ad buys.

Previously with Video, Completion Rates, or Cost Per Completed View were the measurements of success – viewability was not really considered.

Viewability is now the primary foundation, of expectation and success:

– “Was my Ad Seen?”

– “Who saw the ad?”: On Target Audience Buying

– “What did they do?”: Completion Rate or Engagement

– “What was the effect?”: Brand Recall, Uplift etc

How you purchase ads and how you determine effectiveness really depends on what KPIs you are using to measure and manage that success.

Do you believe prices will increase as we tackle the problem of low viewability rates? Should advertisers be prepared to pay a premium to ensure user viewability?

We do believe that prices will increase because it’s the simple result of supply and demand. As more and more brands and agencies realise that viewability has to become a key campaign metric, the demand for more premium, highly viewable content will increase. This will naturally put a price on inventory. The debate then is down to the importance of veiwability rates and the right viewable CPM.

Should a marketer buy an in-app mobile ad with a 70% chance of being viewable or a TV ad that is, by definition, 100% viewable? Which one is more likely to have a viewer’s attention?

The very nature of the question ignores the fact that today’s marketing challenge is that consumers aren’t single-screen users and the importance of a cross-screen approach. It’s not an either/or issue. It really depends on who you are trying to target. There are demographics tho only use mobile and never watch traditional appointment to view TV, and vice-versa.

So, it isn’t about making a choice between the two. Instead, it’s about determining who your target is and selecting the right platform to reach that target audience. Then, either way, you want your ad to be viewed. We see mobile as a fantastic way of delivering on target audiences and high viewability. A TV ad is always delivered in a viewable manner; however, whether there is someone in the room at the time is not always guaranteed; or whether someone fast-forwards the ad, is not guaranteed. No media is 100% viewable.

The US report shows that viewability is lowest when buying 'run of exchange'. Does this mean that buyers should stop buying impressions this way and instead only buy directly, or with a viewability goal in place?

It really depends on what the campaign KPIs are. Most of our customers buy a mix of open RTB and programmatic direct. It’s about buying the right mix to secure cost-efficient audience reach and effectiveness. There isn’t a perfect mix. It changes all the time depending on the campaign and metrics.

What makes the biggest impact is the use of software to constantly manage and optimise the ad buy, whether its across open RTB or Programmatic Direct. Viewability is actually increasing the scale of opportunity across automated direct buys – there is simply a demand for premium viewable impressions, which are still delivered in an automated manner – just not auction-based.

Should advertisers be buying on a viewable CPM basis?

Until we get consistency regarding verification tools of viewability and the discrepancies between them (which we know that the IAB, JCWIBS, IPA, etc are working towards) this will be a challenge. However, we have multiple customers who are measuring and tracking their activity, on a viewable cpm basis. Whether or not they initially buy on a VCPM, they certainly track and assess the inventory quality based on this.

At TubeMogul, we do see that buying on a viewable CPM basis will eventually become the norm, we just aren’t quite in a place to do it at this time. Viewability should be an expectation, and its certainly one that brands want to have guaranteed or only pay for.

What’s the future of viewability?

The future of viewability will be about having advertisers evaluate inventory that is measured across the board in a consistent manner – and making purchases on a viewable CPM basis. What this does to price and the realms of supply and demand will be interesting. Viewability is a great thing for the market, as it drives quality in the inventory ecosystem, which benefits the advertiser as well as the publisher/broadcaster. It should be embranced and strived towards and the future only allows for continued improvement.

The FT recently launched cost-per-hour pricing, guaranteeing publishers 100% viewability for five or more seconds. Do you see more publishers following this pricing model?

We believe that this is a trend designed to alleviate fears about viewability rates. But, we go back to what we have said before: Viewability should not be measured according to viewability rates. Rather, it should be about viewable CPM rates. Additionally, 100% viewability isn’t necessarily the goal for which we should be striving. Are these consumers actively engaging with ads? Are they the right target for the product being advertised? Just because we are getting guaranteed views doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right views. And this increased viewability standard with minimum view times simply muddies the waters with guidelines as we will just be adding a new, and divergent, minimum into the mix. Will this mean that every inventory source will then have to make the same promise? Will this become the new minimum? And, to stand out, will the next publisher then have to promise 100% viewability to completion? At what point does the creative come into play? There are simply too many questions to make this work and too much of the pressure comes onto the shoulders of ad tech without thinking of how the marriage between ad tech creative and targeting has to work.

If the industry standard for viewability was increased, do you think that this may blur the line between publishers measuring engagement and effectiveness?

The industry standard for viewability should only be increased if both publishers and advertisers come to that conclusion together. As Elisabeth Hodson from Heineken said in her interview, it’s not about one or the other deciding on metrics. It’s about having everyone get around a table and ensuring that the numbers work for everyone. Blurring the line between engagement and effectiveness will only occur if publishers make decisions bilaterally. And this will only happen if they don’t include advertisers at the discussion table – which would be a very poor move to make in light of what advertisers, like Heineken, are saying about the current state of the industry and how they would like to see it change.