DoubleVerify is launching a solution said to allow advertisers to measure signals that offer “a strong proxy” for viewability on connected TV.
“Viewability measurement in the CTV environment has been challenging for multiple reasons, from technical execution to lack of agreed-upon standards,” said Matt McLaughlin, COO of the digital media measurement and analytics company.
Called CTV Fully On-Screen Completion, the new solution, which extends to both the app and device levels, offers enhanced visibility into two core CTV metrics, according to DoubleVerify.
With quartile completion metrics, the solution enables understanding how many impressions were played to completion and identifying drop-off points along the way.
Completion metrics are measured and reported for impressions delivered via DoubleVerify’s VAST wrapper, which uses widely adopted VAST quartile events to deliver a breakdown of video campaign playback and reveal impressions volume.
With fully on-screen CTV completion metrics, where DoubleVerify also has performed a VAST Visibility Certification, the solution confirms that impressions originated from devices, apps and platforms that deliver 100% of the ad’s pixels on the screen consistently.The company also recently introduced a solution for mapping which CTV platforms and devices a campaign is running on, using app names normalized to IAB standards; and a CTV certification program for programmatic platforms.
There is a delicious irony in this approach.
Yes, if someone is in front of the CTV and starts to surf during the ad-break you can get quantile (or other duration based thresholds) data.
But ironically, if during the ad-break the person leaves the room, or ignores the CTV completely and (say) reads a magazine or looks at thoer mobile or tablet, then you can easily get 100% completion. Yes the ad may have been visible 100% of the duration - but simply because it was completely ignored.
Very true, John. The only worthwhile "metric' for "ad viewability" that advertisers will really agree on---once they do a little serious thinking about it-----is whether the presumed audience was present and actually looking at the screen while the ad was "visible". We are a long way off from that for all media---not just digital media----and no amount of jiggling with the stats is going to correct this situation. The problem is that as the funding for "audience" research comes mainly from the sellers, not the buyers, any attempt to refine these measurements so they really mean something to advertisers---thereby throwing out much of "the audience" as not watching---is not going to get much support.
As usual Ed and John are on-point. So a key question is, why is the ANA not counselling their members that measurement of ads rendered, or "viewable impressions" per MRC, is generally a very weak proxy towards their ultimate media investment goal and its associated metric - ad exposures (or contacts) to their target audience? And why are the 4As not echoing this fundamental media investment counsel?
Per Ed's audience research funding perspective and as I learned after many years at a media agency, when the audience research is driven by the sellers the media planners/buyers are at a severe disadvantage.
Perhaps a reminder of the mantra used for assessing linear media at the optimum level back in the day with a digital twist is needed? "Served" is not necessarily distribution (circualtion) of the media vehicle. Distribution of the media vehicle is not necessarily verified full on-screen delivery by that vehicle. Verified full on-screen delivery is not necessarily readership or listenership of the media vehicle (overall content). Readership or listenership of the media vehicle is not necessarily exposure to or contact with the ad. All of this needs to be within the context of purchase cycle time frames and a defined target audience of course. And respectfully to Josh Chasin, target audiences shoud be people based, not HH's, for most consumer categories.
"We" completely understand that advertisers ultimate goal is sales along with enhanced brand equity but without ad exposure there can be no media effects and as importantly impacts by the creative execution. However, media vehicles on a campaign buy with little or no ad expsoure will be included in the advertisers marketing mix and/or multi-touch attribution models that typically do not harmonize the very different media currencies or use very weak proxy media metrics. Part of the "50% of my advertising is wasted" could be addressed in a wink with proper ad exposure measurement across all media channels for any media plan. As MRC has advised, 'viewable impressions' are not a media audience currency. Nudge! Nudge!