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

Created in partnership with

YuMe
By

IPG Media Lab

May 2011

Questions we set out to answer

1. How much more ad avoidance happens beyond active ad skipping? 2. 2 What is the relative attention level to video advertising in a lean forward PC experience vs. a lean back TV experience? 3. 3 What beha iors most distract behaviors attention to video ads?
2

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

Sample: N=48 p
Gender Female Male Age 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-55 56-60 65-69 48% 52% Employment Status Full-time Part-time Retired Student Unemployed p y Education High school/GED Some college Associate's degree g Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctorate degree

Recruited from LA metro area Must watch online video

Household Income 56% 31% 6% 4% 2% $100,000-$200,000 $75,000-$100,000 $50,000-$75,000 $25,000-$50,000 Less than $25,000 $ 13% 19% 33% 25% 10%

15% 15% 10% 10% 15% 13% 10% 6% 6%

8% 27% 6% 48% 6% 2% 2%

Children <18 in Household No 77.08% Yes 22.92%

Trade or o e technical ade o other ec ca school degree

4

Attention scores explained p

Frame by frame, second by second.

1 to 0.9 Full attention 0.9 and 0.4 Partial attention

0.4 to -1 No attention

Scale of TV ad Fast Forwarding

35% 10% x 65% 2%

US DVR HH penetration of DVR HH viewing time shifted of ads skipped in time shifted viewing

of total TV impressions skipped

Source: Magna Global
6

Smart phones are the most common distraction media

Online: % of Sample Using Distraction
OL Mobile Phone - Data 45.8%

TV: % of Sample Using Distraction

TV Mobile Phone - Data TV DVR 45.8% 33.3% 12.5% 12.5% 8.3% 8.3% 6.0% 4.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60.4%

No OL Distractions

27.1% TV Use Laptop

OL IM/Chat/Email

16.7%

TV Read Book/Magazine TV Do Work TV Other TV Mobile Phone - Call

OL Do Work

12.5%

OL Read Book/Magazine

10.4%

OL Other

8.3%

No TV Distractions TV Play Game

OL Mobile Phone - Call 0%

6.3% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Persona 1: Cathy the Ad-Ignorer

Persona 2: Michie the Multi-tasker

Persona 3: Steve the Vegged-Out Relaxer

10

Finding #1: Not all distractions are equal

Online Ad Attention Level
OL Read Book/Magazine OL Do Work OL Other OL Mobile Phone - Data OL Mobile Phone - Call OL IM/Chat/Email No OL Distractions 0 0.13 03 0.34 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.60

TV Ad Attention Level Worst

TV Other TV Mobile Phone - Call TV Read Book/Magazine No TV Distractions TV Mobile Phone - Data TV Do Work TV Use Laptop TV DVR 0.26 0.33 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.52 0.52 0.54 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Best

TV Play Game

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

11

Finding #1 (cont.) : g

The more distractions, the lower ad attention

Ad Attention vs. # of Distractions vs
1.00 0.80 0.60 Average Atten ntion Score 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session 0 1 2 3 0.60 0 60 0.44 0.53 0.45 TV Ad Attention OnlineVideo Ad Attention

0.44 0.40

0.37

12

Finding #2:

TV 2x video clutter; Ubiquitous banners

OL Video Banner/ Bug Total 5.5 21.6 27.1 TV 9.5 0.7 10.3

13

Finding #3: g
100% % of Seconds Re ecieving Full Attention A 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Online video content +8.5% more attention

OL 60.1%

TV 51.6%

% Full Attention During Content Time

14

Finding #4:

TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad

100% % of Seconds Recieving Full Atten o ntion 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OL TV

Decrease in Attention From Program to Ad OL = - 4.8% 60.1% 55.2% TV = - 14.7% 51.6% 36.9%
% Full Attention During Content Time % Full Attention During Video Ad Time

15

Finding #5: g

Online video ads +18.3% more attention than TV

63% of TV impressions were ignored. DVR fast forwarding is estimated to lead to 2% ad skipping f tf di i ti t dt l dt d ki i
100% 90% % of Se econds Recievin Full Attention ng 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

OL

TV

55.2% 36.9%

% Full Attention During Video Ad Time

16

Finding #6:
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0 40 0.20 0.00

Attention is correlated with recall tt ti i l t d ith ll

0.61 0.60 0.64

DVR fast-forwarding artificially increased unremembered ad b d d attention score

0.44 0.44 0.28 0.49

0.30

Online -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00

TV

Unremembered Ads Correctly Recalled Ads, Aided Correctly Recalled Ads, Unaided Average Attention

17

Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x g

the aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall

% of Sample Who Correctly Identified the Brand in a Video Ad Seen
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

TV
50% 28%

Online

38% 25%

Aided

Unaided

Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence

18

Finding #8: Gender attention is even, g

Women more likely to recall video ads
Ad Attention by Gender
60%

Ad Recall by Gender
Female
50%

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 0.44

Female
0.51

Male
0.48 0.48

Male

56%

42%
40%

42% 35%

43%

30%

30%

Average of OnlineVideo Ad Attention

Average of TV Ad Attention

20%

19%

16%

10%

0%

TV Aided

TV Unaided

OL Aided OL Unaided

19

Finding #9:
1

Ad attention drops off with time on screen

Average Attention Lev While Watching Ad e vel
0.8 0.6 0.4

TV OL Log. (TV)

0.2

Log. (OL)
0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165180195210225240 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1

Length of Video Ad Exposure in Seconds

20

Finding #10: g

Ad Fast-Fowarders have high attention levels

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

% of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to Screen

DVR FF 47%

No DVR

35%

% of time paying attention while an ad is on screen

21

Finding #10 (cont.) :

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Fast-Fowarders have low recall levels

Unaided Recall Aided Recall 32%

29% 20%

18%

DVR FF
22

No DVR

Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higher

for TV bugs than video ads
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

OL

TV
62.3% 62 3% 50.2% 37%

59.7% 59 7% 49.4%

55%

Total % Full Attention

% Full Attention During Video Ad

% Full Attention During "Other" Ads

23

Conclusions
1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted ad impressions 2. Smart phones are a persistent companion to video content 3. Online video ads h 3 O li id d have 20% more attentive iimpressions. tt ti i 4. The familiar cadence of TV content increases drop off to ads vs. online 5. Attention is even but women more likely to recall video ads than men 6. Fast forwarded video ads have little recall g 7. The commercial layer gets more attention than the commercial break.
24

THANK YOU!
Travis@yume.com Brian.Monahan@ipglab.com Brian Monahan@ipglab com

25