Same Ads On CTV/OTT Lose Viewers' Attention, Depending On Frequency

A new study from TVision says TV commercial wear-out isn’t just about too much frequency of viewing spots, but also about the time duration between when those messages run.

The report, released at the recent ARF conference this week, shows commercials on CTV/OTT streaming platforms that air multiple times less …

2 comments about "Same Ads On CTV/OTT Lose Viewers' Attention, Depending On Frequency".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 23, 2021 at 1:04 p.m.

    Another interesting stiudy from our friends at TVision, Wayne. It's limited in scope to CTV commercials and in duration in that it deals mainly with a very short time frame in repeat exposures. The report notes that when a commercial is exposed more than once within five minutes, that short messages---"15s' ---seem to perform better than longer ones---"30s" and "60s". Specifically, the "15" viewer watches 45% of the repeat ad's content while the corresponding percentages drop to only 27% for "30s" and 14% for  "60s". Which, of course, when translated into CPMs, makes the shorter message length seem more efficient. However when you project these percentges against the three message lengths, it develops that the repeat "60" gets 8.4 seconds of the viewer's attention and the repeat "30" generates about the same degree of dwell time---8.1 seconds.  In both cases these are more than the 6.8 seconds noted for 'I5s". So as with all studies of this type, new questions are raised. For example, how many seconds does it take for each commercial length to make a sale? Also, to what extent are memories of the first exposure rekindled by the second or third exposure. Finally, what happens, specifically, when an ad is repeated once, twice, three times, etc. as opposed to "multiple". times? The TVision data seems to say that attentiveness builds up  with  a number of repeat exposures, then levels off as the time between exposures is extended to an hour. Such findings make one ask what happens over the course of several days or weeks or months? Does the levelling off effect continue as the time frame is extended---or are there peaks followed by valleys? Hopefully we will get more on this from TVision. All of which is an example of the kind of thing that attentiveness research can tell advertisers over and above its use as a rating "currency" modifier for time buying and selling. There's much more to attentiveness than that.

  2. John Grono from GAP Research, September 23, 2021 at 6:53 p.m.

    Ed, you raise a good point when you ask "Such findings make one ask what happens over the course of several days or weeks or months?".

    There was a great piece of research done in the UK and reported in AdMap (which you are familiar with Erwin's articles as co-writer) probably some 15-20 years ago from memory.   It focussed on FMCG/CPG advertising and using a shopper panel, andf looked at the decay rate of action rather than recall for CPG ads.   The conclusion was along the lines that up to 11 days (I think that was the cross-over point0 was the sweet spot.   That is, there was a noticable increase in product sales within those 11 days then back to regular sales patterns.

    It was a robust quantative study that I used for planning CPG ad flighting - spend less, spend smarter, more sales.   The world has changed a lot since then and it would be great to repeat it, but I think that the principles would probably still apply.

    For the life of me I can't think of the researcher's name, and I can't go back through my AdMaps and research library as I lost them all in the bushfire.

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications