Earlier this year, mobile video ad platform AdColony teamed up with Nielsen and Universal Pictures to test the effectiveness of 15-second
video spots for a new movie release across TV and mobile screens. The multiscreen effort delivered much higher brand metrics than just the TV ads alone.
In its latest ad test, AdColony worked with Nielsen, an unnamed CPG brand, and Horizon Media to assess the performance of the same 15-second spot in live campaigns across TV, online and mobile (smartphones and tablets). The study found that consumers exposed to the mobile video ads had significantly higher brand awareness, favorability and purchase interest.
Specifically, the mobile video ad resulted in 79% general recall, 58% brand recall, 48% message recall, 24% ad favorability and 15% purchase intent. Here’s how those figures compared to online and TV across the same five metrics:
General Ad Recall: Mobile video was 2.7 times higher than online; 1.6 times higher than TV.
Brand Recall: 4.8 times/online; 5.8 times/TV.
Message Recall: 5.6 times/online; 7.5 times/TV.
Brand Favorability: 3.4 times higher than both online and TV.
Purchase Intent: 2.5 times/online; 3.8 times/TV.
The mobile video ad also outperformed established ad norms for online and TV across all metrics. The findings were based on a survey fielded from May 13-27 with a total of 838 respondents, including 156 who were exposed to the mobile video ad (test group) and 782 who weren’t (control group). The sample included only men 21 and over.
“We know that mobile works well for brands looking to engage consumers, but we wanted to dig deeper to see how well mobile fared relative to other leading mediums in video advertising,” stated Sarah Bachman, mobile director of Horizon Media. “This new research further validates our investment in mobile video for our clients.”
Video is still a small fraction of overall mobile ad spending. Earlier this year, eMarketer projected mobile video advertising will total $151 million, or 5.8% of the estimated $2.6 billion in total U.S. mobile ad spending this year. But that would represent an increase from 4.7% in 2011. Video is expected to reach 10% share of mobile advertising by 2016.
Apart from novelty, why would the 'worst' screen before many times more than 'better' and 'best' screens. It just doesn't pass the "this makes sense" test.
Sorry, that middle bit should read "... perform many times higher..."
This is a classic example of simply figuring out who paid for the results, err, I mean the “study”…
Is it the platform pusher (AdColony), who’s entire business is based upon mobile video ads? Is it the “mobile” media buyer (Sarah Bachman), who’s salary/bonus structure is inevitably predicated on the size of budget allocated to mobile?
Because every other (independent) study ever done has shown that “larger screen” online experiences, such as desktops, laptops, & tablets, (and specifically non-mobile screens) offer far better recall, etc., than smartphones. As in every study other than this one. As in every single one ever done, other than this one. Ever…done…
My guess is they looked at people who chose to watch a video vs. those who might have seen advertising. These stats are expected... But they are also apples and oranges. I saw research identical to this 20 years ago...amazed that the specific people motivated enough to call in response to a TV ad were more motivated than those general viewers who might not have even been in the target market. Nielsen wastes their brand name on tripe like this.
@Richard Gillam -
You're sorely missing the point of this study. It is looking at the coupling of TV AND mobile video, not mobile video vs. desktop video alone. I have seen studies from Aribtron and Flurry that indicate the same kind of synergy between TV and mobile, which is indicative of a multi-tasking behavior among mobile users.
Please prove your claims, all the research I've seen indicate that mobile video consumption/engagement is outpacing desktop.
Also, believe the study incorporated both smartphones and tablets. So you're assumptions again are a bit off here.
First off, nobody talks about fight club...
Secondly, the article above differentiated between "mobile" and "online". Tablets, for instance, are online (IMO) and smartphones are "mobile". I totally agree the second screen accompaniment offers a huge boost, if for no other reason than repetitiveness. But the article also swayed far from this simple and agreeable point, and called out "mobile" as a superior adjunct marketing device when compared to "online", etc., etc., and that simply isn't true.
Upon reading such outlandishness, the rest of the potentially valid claims become suspect - perhaps unfairly.
Either way, I suggest you take a moment to re-read the article...there was much that either wasn't clear or that could be interpreted in very different ways. My take away was that Nielsen simply sold a rubberstamp to Ad Colony for some undisclosed price point. I get it. It happens all the time. I don't fault anyone here, but I also can't pretend that these results are legitimate. And I am not going to be alone in concluding this.
I have no dog in this hunt; my company makes apps for Internet-connected devices (smart TV's, game consoles, laptops, tablets, etc.; we specifically don't bother with "mobile" because TV advertisers won't pay nearly the same CPM's for a video ad on an iPhone as they will for a video ad shown on a nice 15" laptop...but the moment media buyers will pay for it is the moment we will offer it.