Experts from IAB, YuMe and Interpublic Group (IPG) came together on a webinar to share a rare glimpse into the viewers of TV and online video, and how viewers respond to advertising in their natural habitat. During the session, the speakers shared results of research conducted with the IPG Media Lab, where the goal was to uncover how people watch TV and online video and how attentive they are to ads. The researchers hoped to answer the following questions: • Do people pay attention to online video differently than they do when watching TV? • If people have the option of avoiding advertising, will they? • What are the qualitative and quantitative differences between TV watching and online video watching? In March, 2011 at the IPG Media Lab in Los Angeles, YuMe observed 48 people in a home environment while they watched television, and an office environment while they watched online video. Users were asked to bring any companion media they normally use while watching both online video and television, and shows and online video that they commonly watched were loaded onto a DVR, and added to the favorites on the browser. Using facial tracking algorithms and biometric monitoring, a second-by-second monitoring of cognition, excitement, and stress, as well as a post-survey on ad recall, the companies found that despite constant distractions in both mediums, online video commands higher attention and recall from viewers. Presenters: Travis Hockersmith, Director of Market Analytics at YuMe Brian Monahan, EVP; Managing Partner, MAGNAGLOBAL Intelligence Practice (IPG) Title: Insights from the Intersection of Attention, Television, and Online Video, hosted by IAB, YuMe, and IPG Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 Time: 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Eastern US Time

1. ADVERTISING ATTENTION IN THE WILD –
A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND
TELEVISED VIDEO ADVERTISING Wild
Advertising Attention In The
g
Created in partnership with
YuMe Online Video Network
A Comparison of online and Televised Video advertising
By
IPG Media Lab
April 2011
Created in partnership with
YuMe
By IPG Media Lab
April 2011
1

2. Questions we set out to answer
1. How much more ad avoidance
happens beyond active ad skipping?
2.
2 What is the relative attention level to
video advertising in a lean forward
PC experience vs. a lean back
TV experience?
3.
3 What beha iors most distract
behaviors
attention to video ads?
2

3. Methodology
gy
• March 2011
• Los Angeles
• Recreated normal viewing choices
• Respondents brought companion media
• 30 minutes in office/30 minutes in living room
• Post survey on ad recall
3

4. Sample: N=48
p • Recruited from LA metro area
• Must watch online video
Gender Employment Status Household Income
Female 48% Full-time 56% $100,000-$200,000 13%
Male 52% Part-time 31% $75,000-$100,000 19%
Retired 6% $50,000-$75,000 33%
Age Student 4% $25,000-$50,000 25%
18-24 15% Unemployed
p y 2% Less than $25,000
$ 10%
25-29 15%
30-34 10% Education Children <18 in Household
35-39 10% High school/GED 8% No 77.08%
40-44 15% Some college 27% Yes 22.92%
45-49 13% Associate's degree 6%
50-55 10% g
Bachelor's degree 48%
56-60 6% Master's degree 6%
65-69 6% Doctorate degree 2%
Trade or o e technical
ade o other ec ca
school degree 2%
4

5. Attention scores explained
p
Frame by frame, second by second.
1 to 0.9
Full attention
0.9 and 0.4
Partial attention
0.4 to -1
No attention
5

6. Scale of TV ad Fast Forwarding
35% US DVR HH penetration
10% of DVR HH viewing time shifted
x 65% of ads skipped in time shifted viewing
2% of total TV impressions skipped
Source: Magna Global
6

7. Smart phones are the most
common distraction media
Online: % of Sample Using Distraction TV: % of Sample Using Distraction
TV Mobile Phone - Data 60.4%
OL Mobile Phone - Data 45.8%
TV DVR 45.8%
No OL Distractions 27.1%
TV Use Laptop 33.3%
OL IM/Chat/Email 16.7%
TV Read Book/Magazine 12.5%
OL Do Work 12.5% TV Do Work 12.5%
TV Other 8.3%
OL Read Book/Magazine 10.4%
TV Mobile Phone - Call 8.3%
OL Other 8.3%
No TV Distractions 6.0%
OL Mobile Phone - Call 6.3% TV Play Game 4.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
7

8. Persona 1: Cathy the Ad-Ignorer
8

9. Persona 2: Michie the Multi-tasker
9

10. Persona 3: Steve the Vegged-Out Relaxer
10

11. Finding #1:
Not all distractions are equal
Online Ad Attention Level TV Ad Attention Level
OL Read Book/Magazine 0.13 Worst TV Other 0.26
TV Mobile Phone - Call 0.33
OL Do Work 03
0.34
TV Read Book/Magazine 0.43
OL Other 0.38
No TV Distractions 0.44
OL Mobile Phone - Data 0.47 TV Mobile Phone - Data 0.46
TV Do Work 0.47
OL Mobile Phone - Call 0.47
TV Use Laptop 0.52
OL IM/Chat/Email 0.48
TV DVR 0.52
No OL Distractions 0.60 Best TV Play Game 0.54
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
11

12. Finding #1 (cont.) :
g
The more distractions, the lower ad attention
Ad Attention vs. # of Distractions
vs
1.00 TV Ad Attention OnlineVideo Ad Attention
0.80
0.60
0 60
0.60 0.53
0.44 0.45 0.44 0.40
0.37
ntion Score
0.40
0.20
Average Atten
0.00
0 1 2 3
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Count of Distraction Media During Viewing Session
12

13. Finding #2:
TV 2x video clutter; Ubiquitous banners
OL TV
Video 5.5 9.5
Banner/
Bug 21.6 0.7
Total 27.1 10.3
13

14. Finding #3:
g
Online video content +8.5% more attention
100%
ecieving Full Attention
90% OL TV
80%
A
70%
60.1%
60%
51.6%
50%
% of Seconds Re
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Full Attention During Content Time
14

15. Finding #4:
TV has 3x drop in attention from content to ad
100%
Decrease in Attention From Program to Ad
90%
ntion
% of Seconds Recieving Full Atten
80% OL = ∆ - 4.8% TV = ∆ - 14.7%
70%
60.1%
60% 55.2%
51.6% % Full Attention During
50%
Content Time
40% 36.9%
% Full Attention During
30% Video Ad Time
20%
o
10%
0%
OL TV
15

16. Finding #5:
g
Online video ads +18.3% more attention than TV
• 63% of TV impressions were ignored.
• DVR fast forwarding is estimated to lead to 2% ad skipping
f tf di i ti t dt l dt d ki i
100%
90%
OL TV
econds Recievin Full Attention
80%
70%
60% 55.2%
ng
50%
40% 36.9%
30%
% of Se
20%
10%
0%
% Full Attention During Video Ad Time
16

17. Finding #6:
Attention is correlated with recall
tt ti i l t d ith ll
1.00 DVR fast-forwarding
artificially increased
0.80 unremembered ad
b d d
attention score
0.61 0.64
0.60
0.60
0.49
0.44 0.44
0.40
0 40
0.30 0.28
0.20
0.00
Online TV
-0.20
Unremembered Ads
-0.40 Correctly Recalled Ads,
Aided
-0.60 Correctly Recalled Ads,
Unaided
-0.80 Average Attention
-1.00
17

18. Finding #7: Online ads have 1.8x
g
the aided recall and 1.5x the unaided recall
% of Sample Who Correctly Identified the
Brand in a Video Ad Seen
100%
90%
80%
TV Online
70%
60%
50%
50%
40%
38%
30%
28% 25%
20%
10%
0%
Aided Unaided
Aided Recall is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
18

19. Finding #8: Gender attention is even,
g
Women more likely to recall video ads
Ad Attention by Gender Ad Recall by Gender
60% 56%
1.00 Female Male
Female Male
0.80 50%
43%
0.60 0.51 0.48 0.48 42% 42%
0.44
40%
0.40 35%
0.20 30%
30%
0.00
-0.20 Average of Average of TV Ad 20%
19%
OnlineVideo Ad Attention 16%
-0.40 Attention
-0.60 10%
-0.80
0%
-1.00
TV Aided TV Unaided OL Aided OL Unaided
19

20. Finding #9:
Ad attention drops off with time on screen
1
0.8
Average Attention Lev While Watching Ad
TV
0.6
OL
0.4
Log. (TV)
0.2
Log. (OL)
vel
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165180195210225240
-0.2
-0.4
e
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Length of Video Ad Exposure in Seconds
20

21. Finding #10:
g
Ad Fast-Forwarders have high attention levels…
% of Ad Time Paying Full Attention to
100% Screen
90%
80%
70%
DVR FF No DVR
60%
50% 47%
40% 35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% of time paying attention while an ad is on screen
21

22. Finding #10 (cont.) :
Fast-Forwarders have low recall levels
50%
45%
Unaided Recall Aided Recall
40%
35%
32%
30%
29%
25%
20%
20% 18%
15%
10%
5%
0%
DVR FF No DVR
22

23. Finding #11: Attention is1.4x higher
for TV “bugs” than video ads
100%
90%
OL TV
80%
70%
59.7%
59 7% 62.3%
62 3%
60% 55%
49.4% 50.2%
50%
40% 37%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total % Full Attention % Full Attention During % Full Attention During
Video Ad "Other" Ads
23

24. Conclusions
1. Ad fast forwarding accounts for a sliver of wasted
ad impressions
2. Smart phones are a persistent companion to video
content
3. Online video ads h
3 O li id d have 20% more attentive iimpressions.
tt ti i
4. The familiar cadence of TV content increases drop off to
ads vs. online
5. Attention is even but women more likely to recall video
ads than men
6. Fast forwarded video ads have little recall
7. The commercial “layer” gets more attention than the
g
commercial break.
24

25. THANK YOU!
Travis@yume.com
Brian.Monahan@ipglab.com
Brian Monahan@ipglab com
25

26. QUESTIONS?
Please type your
questions into the chat
ti i t th h t
feature on the upper-right
corner of your screen
26

27. Upcoming Member Events
g
Educational Webinars
– Self-Regulation and Accountability: You’re In
Self Regulation You re
Compliance. Now What? Wednesday, October 12,
12-1 PM EST
Professional Development Classes
– Integrated Media Selling Workshop, Monday,
October 24, 9 AM – Noon, NYC
– Selling to Marketers and Agencies, Monday,
October 31, 9 AM – Noon, NYC
– On-demand training classes also available @ iab.net
Conferences
– MIXX Conference (sold out event; tix still available for
MIXX Awards and Expo Hall) October 3-4, NYC
– Ad Operations Summit, November 7, NYC
27