C-level stakeholders throughout the video advert ecosystem have two subjects on their minds today:
- The inevitability of “cross-media measurement” giving entrepreneurs single-source calculations of deduplicated attain and frequency throughout all video property on a marketing campaign stage.
- The sharpness of latest insights from a number of analysis firms (like Adelaide, Dumbstruck, Lumen, MarketCast, Moat, TVision, and so on.) that demonstrates how differentiated advert video consumption is by advert platform, machine sort, display screen dimension, content material period and context, advert period, artistic execution and different elements.
These two conversations mixed put us nearer to the onset of true cross-media measurement – with the understanding that every one video impressions will not be created equal. That appears apparent, however one key participant within the ecosystem disagrees.
YouTube’s dissent
There are such a lot of comparative metrics to now think about in video measurement, together with eyes-on-screen attentiveness, dwell time, period/consideration variables, consideration/affect correlations and depth of communication/persuasion scores, and so on. With so many variables, it’s inconceivable to defend weighing and calculating all video impressions as being of equal worth for reaching gross sales and model objectives.
And but a mini debate has arisen.
Simply as a big group of main company holding firms and multiscreen TV publishers issued their first set of mixed future foreign money necessities, together with content material high quality metrics and distinctions between premium video and user-generated content material (UGC) or social, YouTube issued its personal 5 rules for video measurement and foreign money.
YouTube’s philosophy is rooted in its insistence that every one video impressions be thought-about equal, “no matter content material creator, video size or digital camera high quality.”
YouTube insists that metrics shouldn’t separate video alongside “arbitrary ideas like manufacturing worth or curation.” The corporate additionally cited the bottom of low-bar parameters for viewable video impressions – two seconds with or with out audio – as splendid for all.
Why would YouTube begin the impressions limbo recreation a quarter-inch from the ground? Don’t they’ve some “premium,” professionally produced video? Aren’t they one other TV content material conduit? Why set the bar so low?
The reply lies in YouTube’s limitless lengthy tail of low-grade UGC video clips.
An ultra-low, “ultra-dumb” foreign money customary permits YouTube to inform a marketer the impressions from three-seconds-long, grainy, shaky, low-grade UGC video clips with no audio have equal worth to the impressions from professionally produced, long-form video content material that draws excessive ranges of emotional engagement in a brand-safe setting, no matter platform or machine.
So how might one reconcile the disconnect between video advert measurement that accounts for high quality variations and YouTube’s want for essentially the most dumbed-down video advert foreign money customary conceivable – one through which every thing’s equal?
“Driving larger efficiencies” is the YouTube-cited upside for advertisers. The advertiser is free to swap out multi-screen TV’s skilled content material for YouTube’s low-grade UGC. And the advertiser wins by driving their video advert pricing additional down.
All of promoting historical past has proven that races to the underside are solely gained by the bottom-feeder media choices – by no means by the advertiser that has gross sales development and model development objectives.
So pretending that every one video impressions are equal is simply plain dumb.
“On TV & Video” is a column exploring alternatives and challenges in superior TV and video.
Observe VAB and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.
