70% Of Buyers Say All TV Should Be Bought On Impressions

More than 70% of media buyers in the U.S. and three other key markets agree that all forms of TV should be sold on impressions, according to the latest converged TV report from TVSquared.

The research included a survey of 300 U.S. client and agency buyers by Advertising Perceptions and Dynata surveys of buyers in the U.K., Germany and Australia (nearly 1,000 buyers in total across the surveys). In addition, ad impressions for 20 converged linear/streaming ad campaigns running on the ADvantage platform were analyzed.

Three-quarters of all marketers agreed that TV is now defined as including linear and streaming (CTV/OTT) platforms, and that legacy currencies and practices are impeding the innovation of what advertisers can do with converged TV.

Among U.S. respondents, 80% agreed that the upfronts need to be more data-driven, and 88% agreed that upfront deals need to make transacting across linear and streaming platforms more flexible and easier to transact.

Accuracy of cross-platform TV measurement and attribution was the converged TV advertising challenge most cited by U.S. buyers (57%), followed by lack of accurate and scalable ad occurrence and viewership data (43%), difficulties targeting audiences across linear and connected TV platforms (38%) and lack of standards for currencies across technology and platforms (38%) and lack of transparency (38%). (See chart top of page.)

Fewer than a third consider growing concerns around data privacy, and lack of industry standard identity resolution solutions, to be key challenges.

Asked about key factors in deciding to invest in converged campaigns, 94% deemed ability to measure incremental reach of streaming/CTV beyond linear as very or somewhat important, and 92% said the same about transparency of metrics across linear and streaming platforms.

Large percentages also view standardized cross-platform measurement, achieving scale and maintaining data precision, and other factors as important:

One in two report leveraging first- and third-party data, 36% use set-top-box data, and 31% use OEM viewership panel data. For attribution, more than 40% use online data and 34% use offline data.

As marketers are able to employ deterministic datasets that tie reach, frequency and outcomes directly to audience IDs, they are increasingly able to treat linear and streaming similarly.

More than 40% are measuring both linear and streaming for outcomes weekly, with about 10% to 15% measuring daily.

That frequency is “a huge step forward for an industry that has long been known for lag times and little flexibility in delivering and accessing insights,” notes the report.

Within OTT/CTV, 35% are optimizing campaigns for performance and 31% are optimizing creative weekly, and even within linear, 33% and 32%, respectively, now report doing the same.

“As TV becomes more flexible across channels, and as advertisers get more comfortable with balancing converged TV campaigns and leveraging apples-to-apples insights for linear and streaming, we should see an even greater majority of marketers managing TV holistically,” observes the report.

“However, given that a majority of total video spend still remains in linear, there is a lot of room for growth in terms of achieving greater reach across the total TV audience by allocating more impressions or investing more heavily in streaming platforms.”

On that front, the analysis of 20 converged campaigns found that incremental reach results ranged all the way from 2% to 80%.

However, on average, the audience overlap of linear and streaming campaigns was about 30% -- meaning, of course, that on average, 70% of the audiences reached via streaming services could not be reached by linear-only campaigns.

And advertisers committing at least 10% of total TV ad impressions to OTT/CTV were found to be most likely to generate at least 15% incremental reach.

4 comments about "70% Of Buyers Say All TV Should Be Bought On Impressions".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 13, 2021 at 1:34 p.m.

    Based on the replies as cited in this article, I assume that the sample did not include a fair proportion of major national TV time buyers who account for 90%+ of the national TV ad dollars actually spent. What's needed to evaluate such study findings are breakouts of the answers by spending levels in the various media. For example if 20% of the respondents claimed to handle brands spending $10 million or more in national TV yearly how do their replies compare with those whose clients spend much less or nothig at all?

  2. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, October 14, 2021 at 6:07 p.m.

    Without the definition of "Impressions" this piece is puzzling.  If the "impressions" referenced are defined as 'content rendered counts' aka MRC's so called, "Viewable impressions", then surely we have the blind leading the blind at least based on the proponents of attention metrics (which are based on the target group and the context).  Their position is that without attention (persons based versus device based) there can be no outcomes.  In addition they have found that ratio of attention to these nebulous impressions varies wildly by media platform, content, duration, screen size, etc., etc. etc. Conseqeuntly, 'impressions' are a very poor surrogate for delivering campaign effectiveness. 
    As Ed will no doubt confirm, weekly reach of the brand's target grouip based on Eyes-On or attention is still an optimal media planning/buying approach. 

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 14, 2021 at 6:45 p.m.

    Tony, I will confirm that reach is rated far higher than frequency by most branding advertisers---though the time frame varies and is usually about a month for such evaluations. As I commented in my first post, I doubt that the sample is representative of your typical national TV advertiser as they are not as confused-----or muddled in their thinking---as the respondents to this study appear to be---judging by some of the reported findings. As for buying by "impressions" not GRPs, that's just a great leap sideways as branding advertisers will continue to want to attain certain reach and frequency levels---at specified GRP levels ----and such goals are always going to be expressed in percentages. Worse, it is far from established that a "page view" of 2+ seconds for a digital video commercial is equal to a complete playout of a "linear TV" commercial from start to finish---with no other content on the screen in terms of ad exposure or impact. So what  good are comparisons of "impressions" across platforms when  their value may vary in ways we have yet to determine?

  4. mark sherman from Sherman Media, October 14, 2021 at 10:53 p.m.

    This whole TV should be bought on impressions narrative is mind boggling to say the least. I've been reading numerous comments on this topic that say TV buying should be audience based. OMG!

    It's staggering that so many who see themselves as pundits do not understand the very  basics of an $80 Billion industry that has been doing business the same way for 60 years. Rating points , GRPs.. are simply audience impressions expressed as a percentage of the population. We have been buying Television based on audience impressions for 60 years. Duh!!
    Media buyers have been reporting ratings and audience impressions complete with CPMs to their clients since the sixties. 
    The lack of basic understanding around how linear TV has been traded for decades is tragic. Thank you Ed for being there day in day, out to set the youngins straight.

    If one surveys a group about something they should have knowledge of, but are actually ignorant about....dangerous misleading results and headlines like this are perpetuated. 

    All quite tragic IMHO.

Next story loading loading..