Commentary
Ad Frequency Overload Becomes Defining Challenge In CTV Ad World
- by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, October 19, 2023
Yes, linear TV gives viewers too many of the same ads, particularly if you watch only a small group of networks and are a heavy TV viewer.
But as bad as ad frequency management is on linear TV, it’s much, much worse on ad-supported streaming services.
For me, it’s typically the one of the things that someone I’ve just met asks me about when I tell them that I work in the world of TV ad-targeting tech.
It’s also in the numbers. If you analyze smart TV data comparing linear and streaming ad delivery, you find most of the outlier heavy ad frequency per show is on streaming.
Why is that? Well, a bunch of reasons. Two of the top reasons are:
Impression-based planning. I thank my good friend and industry legend Jim Meskauskas, of Media Darwin, for pointing this out. Planning by impression weight means that when the ad server finds viewers who fit the campaign’s criteria, they get the ad over and over again until they hit the daily frequency cap, if there is one.
advertisement
advertisement
Multiple, disparate sellers, platforms and servers for the same ad spots. Most streaming ad inventory is sold and served by a number of different companies, each using their own frequency controls and typically supplying the same advertisers. Thus, if there are three suppliers each applying a 3X per day cap, the viewer will get that ad nine times.
What’s the effect of these factors?
Viewers care; streamers will too. Ad experiences will increasingly be key elements in how viewers think about their streaming services. For sure, some services will work hard to differentiate themselves with better frequency management. Netflix has already talked about it.
Brand advertisers lose. The fact that streaming ad campaigns are not planned on a reach basis, with each impression secured on a predictive, unduplicated reach basis, is bad for brand advertisers, who have massive portions of their investments wasted on empty frequency (what Erwin Ephron famously called media’s “crabgrass”).
So what? If viewers and advertisers lose because of wasted frequency, it makes a lot of sense for publishers and intermediaries to care, too. Unfortunately, intermediate DSP and SSP platforms that could actually fix the problem tend to be most focused on impression throughput rather than long-term sustainability.
I believe that how ad frequency overload is handled by the CTV ad industry could very easily define it. What do you think?
YES! If Hulu shows me one more "For Hims" ad during "Only murders in the building" I will start a petition to have those over-exposers blacklisted. Every. Damn. Break. Ozempic is another serial offender.
Bravo Dave.
So long as advertisers pay for an impression they will get what they pay for -- an impression. The provider has no real financial incentive to do anything but serve -- even though there are complaints and perhaps decreased viewing as a result. But that doesn't seem to matter in the course of business. If you want less frequency, you have to plan and buy for it. Don't blame the provider, who has no clue about where or if your ads run elsewhere. If you trust your provider to grade their own homework, you haven't done what you should to steward a buy.
Jack, I agree that there are opportunities for premium pricing of frequency controlled campaigns, but for sure publishers have real incentives to manage frequency. The overloading annoys and, in extreme cases, drives away audiences.
I agree that the annoyance must be there, and under some circumstances may drive away tuning. But there are no systems I know that identify this tune out so folks don't pay attention to it in the course of business. For some outlets, the choice is deliver the impression and get paid, vs don't deliver it and don't get paid.
Jack, Great research project idea! With dynamic ad targeting in anonymous tracking in streaming, the tune-away is totally measurable. We can do either an organic a/b with & w/o freq capping and look at tune-away as well as future viewing in the service. Also, could do a look-back with synthetic a/b on same parameters. I'll have my team do it!
Agreed Jack.
My only caveat is that there are multiple definitions of what defines what "an impression" is, so that there is a common standard. Are televsion impressions the same as digital? Are digital 'impressions' the same irrespective of the device the 'impression' was delivered to. And of course, irrespetive of TV or digital et. al. was there a human at the time the impression was delivered. My 'phone is on my desk ... probaly missed a few.
I agree with Jack---and Dave. But, let's face it, most advertisers---CMOs and brand managers I mean---don't care about those "media" numbers or what they represent. It's not that they are accepting "impressions" and getting what they pay for---which is lots of phantom exposures to their ads----they just aren't interested in such details and they expect the agencies to deal with such ---to them-- minor problems---while at the same time earning the smallest fees possible.
Not surprisingly, the agencies respond by voicing complaints about the "frequency problem" at industry gatherings and then go right ahead and make their buys based on "impressions" anyway.Why? Because fixing "the problem" would take lots of time and effort---not just lofty speeches---and that would cost the agencies money---for which they would not be compensated.Also, it's not in the sellers' interests to reduce the number of ads that their "audiences" are "exposed" to. They want the money and who can blame them? So don't cout on most sellers to fix "the problem".
Sadly, I don't see any signs that advertisers are waking up their lost opportunities in media planning or buying. So the beat goes on---and on.
I love research and hope you are able to find something. Convincing the sellers that they 1. Have hurt themselves more than helped themselves and 2. Should stop, is another matter. Unless advertisers refuse to pay for high frequency impressions, this won't stop.
Jack, I just saw this research ... pretty powerful, and intuitive... https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/387435/the-fallout-from-repetitive-ads-is-worse-than-you.html?edition=131274
Certainly, providers could control this with if their own inventory. The advertiser should also request it in their contract.