“Time is money”. All recent studies show that the more visible an advertisement is, the better it will be. Is not it logical to rethink the way we buy these ads, measure their effectiveness and, above all, better reward those who have contributed to the best performances?
The correlation between the success of a video campaign and its exposure time (called screen time) is indisputable. This evidence must be recalled when we know that, unfortunately, today every other video does not exceed 5 seconds on the screen.
“Time is money”. All recent studies show that the more visible an advertisement is, the better it will be performing Does not it make sense to rethink the way we buy these ads, measure their effectiveness and, above all, better reward those who have contributed? the best performances?
However, we do not do so much and continue to adhere to an existing standard of measurement (MRC) which tacitly implies that an ad that remains visible for two seconds has the same impact as an ad that has been viewed for 15 seconds or more .
Surprisingly, and I think no one would agree, advertisers pay the same price these two so different screen times. As actors in this ecosystem we must become more demanding about the visibility and the units of measurement that verify it. And even more with the video that needs a minimum screen time to be able to tell its story. Video is the most popular medium of communication and yet it is the one that knows the biggest advertising waste.
How should we act? First, we need to rethink how screen time is measured and rewarded. For example, a recent Financial Times study found that ads viewed longer than 5 seconds increase memory by three and by five if you reach 15 seconds; it is therefore obvious that we have to correlate purchasing methods with increasing visibility. But beware of the method of calculation: RATES of visibility and TIME of visibility are too often confused and agencies seek to optimize the first by giving little importance to the second.
The visibility rate that works with the famous standard MRC / IAB (which validates a video with 50% of pixels on the screen for 2 seconds elapsed) is a challenge for the advertiser. Binary and let’s be honest, not very engaging to the user. To apply this binary principle – visible and non-visible – to the standard MRC / IAB, and to suppose that our main measure is the visibility rate, is to admit that a video viewed 2.1 seconds is of value whereas a video seen 1.99 seconds would have none. Not very serious.
The solution to this problem: analyze the exposure time
By passing the KPI at an average of “on-screen time”, or a “cost per second”, the brands give themselves the possibility to adjust their own cursor and especially to decide what should be their minimum standard of visibility compared the objectives of the campaign. This solves the problems of binary measurements and at the same time makes it possible to optimize the time necessary to guarantee memorization synonymous with future commitment.
Moving from a rate to a visibility time is a major development for our industry. While changing mindsets is never easy, we need to free ourselves from the quantitative models in place which will lead to exciting opportunities for advertisers.
As a sign of this change, many major measurement players have improved their offerings and have recently provided data to optimize exposure. It’s now up to advertisers to rethink their buying strategies by incorporating minimum time data
Let’s make time the new currency of advertising! Stop buying these almost invisible ads that are expensive for the advertiser and serve only the clutter of advertising space.