Viewability is an important issue, but trying to force users to view is not the solution, writes ISBA’s Mark Finney
“I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when looked at in the right way did not become still more complicated.” (Poul Anderson, cited by P.B. Checkland in Formulating problems in Systems Analysis 1985)
The issue of viewability is fiendishly complex and anyone who tells you otherwise is either being economical with the truth or hasn’t thought it through.
First we must distinguish between whether an ad is technically viewable versus actually viewed.
Telling if an ad was “technically” viewable is easy with legacy media and is rigorously monitored – either the ad appeared as bought and paid-for or it did not.
We cannot tell what external factors may have prevented the person from viewing the ad: the bus passing in front of a 48-sheet obscuring the view of a passer-by, the trip the toilet during the ad break (except by extrapolation from a viewer panel), the fact that a person’s dog ate the colour supplement.
Whether a person actually viewed the ad or not is very tricky to ascertain. The issue of non-viewed ads or ad-avoidance affects all media, because people are downright difficult.
Many of them steadfastly refuse to do what we in the advertising industry would like them to.
Instead of looking out of the bus window at the 48-sheet you have carefully placed en route they will insist on staring at their phones whilst playing Candy Crush; people stay in the bar and miss the show reel of commercials at the cinema; and instead of watching the TV ads, people will get up to all manner other, more enjoyable things.
[advert position=”left”]
The (in)famous late 1980s trade press masterpiece by HHCL depicted a young couple getting steamy on the sofa whilst the TV played on, unwatched in the corner, it read: “According to current audience research, this couple are watching your ad. So who’s really getting screwed?”
Online channels differ from legacy media in that it is possible to measure If the advertising was technically viewable (see definition below) and identify some of the factors which interfere with viewability even to the level of the individual user, so long as the right measurement product is used.
There are many available, with widely differing capabilities, so it is important to choose carefully (six different ones have been certified by JICWEBS – here).
By “technically viewable”, we are usually referring to the norm set by the Media Ratings Council, i.e. 50% (of the pixels) in-view for one second for display ads and 50% for two seconds for video.
Using the right monitoring tools, we can tell when users minimise a window (on which the ad appears) in order to check their emails, when they scroll down the screen on our mobile before the ad has loaded (in most cases), or open a spreadsheet in a new window, obscuring the display ads on a web page.
We can also monitor publisher actions that interfere with viewability, for example positioning the ad “below the fold” where the majority of viewers will never see it, or has ads stacked so that one loads on top of another.
Even impressions that are “technically” non-viewable may still have a positive effect on sales”
What is harder to monitor is ads which are technically viewable but are still not viewed, because users simply refuse to look at them, even though they there, trying to stare them in the face.
Eye-tracking research conducted by Lumen has shown that of all technically viewable impressions (a mere 54% of total), only 35% are actually seen at all, and of these only 25% get noticed for at least a second. So, 75% of ads that are technically “viewable” are routinely ignored or barely glanced at by users.
It is important to state that the technical viewability norm set by the MRC was never meant to be a target or a recommendation, just a base level to enable comparison between platforms for measurement purposes; nevertheless, this is exactly how some agencies and advertisers have reacted.
GroupM has pushed for 100% in-view impressions for its clients for display ads and 100% of the video player in view for video and that at least half the ad should be viewed with the sound on. This is a very clear and strong positioning, but does it make any sense?
Setting the bar so high means that publishers have far less qualifying inventory to sell, which inevitably pushes prices up.
It also encourages publishers to “game” the system by re-configuring their sites to provide 100% viewable impressions for a higher price, whilst simultaneously lowering the quality of the experience for their users.
For example, packing in more ad sites above the fold to improve viewability has led to greater clutter which many users hate. The use of floating ad formats which pursue users around a website in order to guarantee 100% viewability is a nightmarish solution.
Such approaches designed to “fix” one problem are almost certainly exacerbating another, namely the continuing growth of ad-blocking. Enabling advertisers and their agencies to better interrupt and frustrate consumers may be counter-productive in the long run.
For brand advertisers, such as Unilever, 100% viewability is an understandable goal, but it makes less sense for many other companies, especially those optimising to conversion or sale.
The more criteria placed on a bid in an open auction the more the available, qualifying inventory is reduced. However, even impressions that are “technically” non-viewable may still have a positive effect on sales. The question is, what are they worth?
It is up to every advertiser to set viewability targets based on their specific objectives for each campaign. It makes no sense to set a blanket target for viewability as the requirements of each advertiser are very different.
Mark Finney is ISBA’s new director of media and advertising
