A new study says advertising on free streaming/FAST platforms can result in the same “attention” level -- or higher -- than those airings on advertising-supported paid streaming platforms.
The study -- from Roku and Magna Media Trials, a service of the IPG media agency intelligence unit -- cites second- and third-quarter 2024 research from TVision and its panel of 16,000 TV viewers.
It defines “attention” as the percentage of advertising impressions where viewers have their eyes on the screen for two or more seconds.
Roku, the distributor of streaming apps, owns the Roku Channel, a FAST (free-advertising supporting streaming television) channel.
The research says the viewability rate -- the percentage of ads in which a viewer was “in the room” for one or more seconds -- is 75% for free streaming and 74% for ad-supported/paid streaming.
advertisement
advertisement
Looking deeper, it says the visual ad attention rate -- the percentage of ads getting more than two seconds of cumulative attention -- was at 50% for both free-streaming/ad-supported/paid streaming.
In addition, it says the portion of advertisements with total duration length seen by a viewer who was “actively paying attention” was 26% for free-streaming and 27% for ad-supported/paid streaming.
The research also shows that when a second advertising exposure is aired on a streaming platform -- versus a second exposure on a traditional TV network -- streaming boosts attention levels more than traditional TV.
While there is concern over the maturity of the streaming industry --- and “churn,” when subscribers cancel streaming apps -- the study says that over the past three months, 44% of respondents added a subscription service, while 36% cancelled a service and 29% "modified" a service, which could include upgrading a service.
Hardly a surprise, Wayne. But to fully evaluate the results we need more informtion. For example how do FASTs and AVODS compare by age? And regardinjg the finding that if a commercial is shown again within 24 hours CTV ads gain slightly more than linear TV ads in attentiveness. Are these observations based on the same viewer being exposed twice or any viewer being exposed twice within 24 hours? If it's the same viewer you might get a different answer--maybe less attention--- but if it's any viewer, you might have a heavy viewer bias at work as such viewers watch much more TV than the norm, hence are more likely to be reached twice and are probably more positivrely inclined towards TV content of any kind--even ads.