Addressable TV Consistently Gets 40% Reach: CIMM
- by Wayne Friedman , February 29, 2024
According to the research, the incremental target reach increases regardless of a marketer’s target audience penetration.
For instance, low-reach penetration brands -- defined as under 20% -- achieved a target audience reach of between 37% and 45% on average.
High-penetration brands -- those with greater than 70% research -- also had a similar result, with an incremental target audience reach of between 37% and 44%, on average.
Janus Strategy & Insights and Sequent Partners, two consulting firms commissioned to develop the study, interviewed 20 agencies and publishers for insights.
They two firms also conducted an in-depth analysis of 145 addressable TV ad campaigns, which measured the reach and frequency of both linear TV and addressable advertising.
advertisement
advertisement
In addition, addressable TV -- by way of messaging on multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) -- is more precise and outperforms IP address matching. The study found that 95% of addressable households were matched via postal address compared to 60% via IP address.
After 30 days, 82% of addressable homes remained accurately matched compared to 44% of connected television (CTV) homes.
While many analysts believe addressable TV media campaigns work best for adult viewers -- and that addressable advertising on connected TV platforms is best used to target younger audiences -- the data show that CTV addressable and MVPD addressable play complementary roles in reaching adults 18-49.
Wayne, after wading through the actual presentation---which is available for all--I think that it's important for those who are really interested in this subject to go through it carefully---and try to read between the lines as there are many questions that might be raised which are not necessarily answered. That doesn't mean that I'm panning the report---but it does require some answers as well as careful thought about the most important implications. Needless to say, we will try to do exactly that for our well informed MDI Direct subscribers, shortly.
Younger viewers are lighter viewers. Digital viewers are younger. Even among 18-49s you will get a higher concentration of 18-34s than 35-49s using digital. None of this is surprising or even enlightening. It's obvious.
There is also the issue of the definition of 'reach''. Generally, to be counted as being reached you must pass the two-second threshold. Is two-seconds what the advertiser wants and expects?
In order to evaluate the efficacy of ad placements in specific content in whcih the ads are placed you also need a frequency and a duration vector.
Put another way, let's say that the advertiser is funding a one-month campaign. And in that period Joe Blow stumbles across new content that s/he quickly flicks past and doesn't re-visit in that month. Joe qualifies as being reached.
Conversely, Jill Blow is enthralled by several sites and spends substantial time each day on thos sites.
Across the month Jill and Joe are counted equally as being reached .. mathematically.
I doubt the advertiser would. And I am with the advertiser on that one.
So, without knowing the frequency and the duration you simply don't know 'true' reach. Data I am seeing supports that. Yes, mathematically a chunk pass the 'reach threshold' to be counted but it doesn't reflect the market.
What I am finding is that including 'time spent' (the sum of all the seconds who pass the 2-second requirement) can be summed over the campaign duration, but is best reflected by converting all the data to "time-spent per day per reached person"". And I bet you will get much better metrics for campaigns as well as being shicked at a lot of the 'data' that is being pedalled.