Most Media Professionals Reject Standard Definition of Video Ad “View”: Only 18% Agree Two Seconds Is Sufficient for Views
By: Richard Carufel
June 4, 2015
Following on the heels of a STRATA study examining the debate around the definition of a video ad “view, ” a new survey of ad professionals by media planning software firm SQAD LLC found that 82% feel the current industry definition of a “view” for desktop video advertisements is insufficient. Only 18% of those polled believe the current standard, which states that desktop video ads are considered “viewable” if 50% of an ad’s pixels are in view for at least two seconds, to be an acceptable minimum amount of time. Almost half (49%) feel video ads should be displayed for at least five seconds to be considered viewable, raising questions about the Media Rating Council’s current definition of “viewability.”
In addition to sentiment, the survey also asked respondents about their level of understanding of the new standards. The survey found that a minority of those polled could identify the industry standard for desktop display viewability. More than half (56%) responded that the current definition for desktop display ads calls for more than 50% of an ad’s pixels to be displayed for at least one second, while another 13% selected 25% of pixels as the definition. Only 30% of respondents correctly identified the definition, which is 50% of an ad’s pixels need to be displayed for at least one second.
“Attempting to tackle the issue of finding a standard definition of viewability is an extremely complex and difficult task, especially in the current dynamic and evolving media marketplace, ” said SQAD CEO Neil Klar, according to a news release. “Despite the challenges, it is reassuring to know that the IAB, ANA, 4A’s and the MRC continue their efforts to achieve a consensus regarding an acceptable definition for all parties that accurately reflects the way digital ads are being viewed and consumed.”
The survey also found that media professionals are still familiarizing themselves with the cost of in-stream video advertisements. According to the poll, there is a higher level of knowledge of the cost of display ads as compared to in-stream video ads. When asked to identify which ad category had the highest average CPM for display in 2014, 43% were able to properly identify the Finance/Insurance category while only 27% correctly identified the costliest category for in-stream video (also Finance/Insurance). According to SQAD’s WebCosts, the average CPM in 2014 in the Finance/Insurance category was $20.13 for display and $44.17 for in-stream video.
SQAD LLC conducted a survey of 92 advertising professionals attending the 2015 ANA Advertising Financial Management Conference between April 26-29, 2015.
Source: Business Wire; edited by Richard Carufel
See the full article on Bulldog Reporter here.