1、Ebiquity Report A closer look at video advertising reach in theage of increasing media fragmentationMind theGapLast year,our report TV at the Tipping Point highlighted how fragmentation in viewership,rising prices,and declining reach will potentially erode TVs long-established ROI advantage.Many peo
2、ple particularly younger viewers are replacing linear TV with online video,broadcaster and subscription video-on-demand services.Yet TV remains the go-to medium todeliver mass audiences at scale and quickly.One year on,TV audiences have shrunk more quickly than predicted and the coverage gap compare
3、d to previous years has increased further.Meanwhile,TV prices are inflating.This makes reaching and engaging mass audiences with powerful brand messages more expensiveand more challenging.In theory,brands can achieve incremental reach using digital video channels.But there is evidence to suggest tha
4、t once quality of engagement is factored in,online video may not beenough to close the coverage gap.Brands must also approach online video differently.We worked with five leading UK advertisers to measure cross-media reach across 15campaigns,fusing BARB and AudienceProject panel data.In this report
5、we review the dataand findings,as well as implications and recommendations.Transparent,cross-media measurement has never been more important for brands,many ofwhom need to upgrade their measurement methodologies to better understand their own coverage gap in the evolving media ecosystem.This is beco
6、ming increasingly important as the nature of video advertising changes and as this pace of change accelerates.Published February 2020Executive summaryMind the GapIntroductionFollowing the advent of commercial TV last century,the medium quickly became the most efficient and cost-effective way for adv
7、ertisers to reach mass audiences at scale.In February 2019,Ebiquity published a study into the present and future of advertising on TV1.Our TV at the Tipping Point report showed that,while TV still commanded an ROI advantage of approximately 40%over other media lines in 2018,the market was approachi
8、ng atipping point to threaten the primacy of linear live TV.It showed that linear TV viewing is declining,and therefore commercial advertising is becoming more expensive.Advertisers are effectively able to achieve less while having to spend more.Industry orthodoxy suggests that brands must look else
9、where if they are to build the levels of reach that linear TV provided in past decades,and if theyre to successfully bridge the coverage gap that TVs evolution demands.“Elsewhere”means broadcaster video-on-demand(B-VOD)and digital video ads on YouTube,Facebook,Twitter,Snap,and Unruly.Our new report
10、from 2020 Mind the Gap is focused in three areas:1.We revisit our 2019 predictions on shrinking linear TV audiences and map them against actual commercial impacts recorded for the year,by age group.We also project these figures out to 2025.2.We report the findings of our new video-focused cross-medi
11、a measurement study,which weve run by fusing data from audience measurement providers AudienceProject and BARB.Our analysis examines whether digital video channels can help to close the coverage gap caused by the decline of linear TV,again for different age groups.3.We outline what marketers should
12、do to address their own coverage gap.31 TV at the Tipping Point(February 2019),https:/ebq.news/tv-reportMind the GapTV at the Tipping Point stimulated significant debate in the media and marketing communities,in the national news and media/marketing trade press.It was Ebiquitys most-downloaded repor
13、t of 2019 and the starting point of more conversations with clients,prospects,and partner organisations than anything else we published last year.TV at the Tipping Point hit a nerve because it articulated a very real challenge to advertisers and broadcasters from an objective position.Some commentat
14、ors argued that we had gone too far,too soon;that we had been“running amok with a ruler”.So we went back to our predictions and compared these with actual linear TV delivery in 2019.As shown in Figure 1 below,our estimates were,if anything,slightly too optimistic.Total commercial impacts from TV wer
15、e down-4.4%in 2019 against our prediction of-3.6%.Digging deeper,we were in fact too conservative with how fast younger viewers would leave TV in 2019.For 16-17s,we predicted-22%whereas the actual figures came in at-35%.For 18-24s,we predicted-16%against the reality of-21%.Indeed,for all demographic
16、s up to 45-54s,our predictions were too conservative.Viewers older than 65 came in on prediction(+1.6%vs our projection of+1.8%).We also predicted that linear TV audiences for 55-64s would grow+1.0%,when in fact they grew by+2.3%.This stronger-than-anticipated growth is attributed to population grow
17、th in this demographic band,combined with flat per capita commercial impacts.2019 revisited:linear TV audiences in retreatFigure 1.TV at the Tipping Point predictions for TV commercial impacts vs 2019 actuals5%0%-5%-10%-15%-20%-25%-30%-35%-40%16-17-22.2-35.235-44-9.7-11.245-54-5.1-5.755-641.01.82.31
18、.625-34-13.1-16.518-24-16.4-21.065+Total-3.6-4.42018/19(TP)2019 Actuals4Year-on-year Change in 30 Second Equivalent ImpactsMind the GapBut if younger viewers are the lead indicator of TV consumption and those at the older end of the spectrum are seen as the faithful,we see the 45-54s as the bellweth
19、er segment for TV ROI.It was an indexed decline in this key audience that originally alerted us to a tipping point,as they are economically powerful and critical to many brands commercial success;this age group saw a-5.7%decline in 2019 versus a prediction of-5.1%.A revised view of linear TV audienc
20、esBased on 2019 actuals,we have now revised our projections for shrinkage in TV audiences up to 2022.This is shown in Figure 2 below.In most cases,our predictions remain consistent.We now suggest that there will be 61%fewer 16-17 year-olds reachable by linear TV by 2022 compared with 2018,48%fewer 1
21、8-24s,and 45%fewer 25-34s.35-44s will have shrunk by 37%and even 45-54s will be down by 20%.Overall,the 2019 actual data means weve revised our 2022 audience shrinkage figure to-14.4%,compared with-16.1%in last years report.The magnitude and direction of travel are the same as in TV at the Tipping P
22、oint,with the only upside being the larger-than-expected growth in 55+viewers,and particularly 55-64s.But by any analysis,our revised projections show the coverage gap for linear TV remains a challenge for advertisers and broadcasters.5Figure 2.Revised forecasts for linear TV commercial impacts by 2
23、022 vs 201810%0%-10%-20%-30%-40%-50%-60%-70%-80%16-17-63.4-60.935-44-33.5-36.845-54-18.9-20.155-64-3.0-1.94.40.825-34-43.1-45.318-24-50.7-48.465+Total-16.1-14.42018/22(TP)2018/22 Updated2022 vs 2018 Change in 30 Second Equivalent ImpactsMind the GapLooking further aheadProjecting forecasts further i
24、nto the future is a risky business.As the statistician and author of The Black Swan Nassim Nicholas Taleb has said:“If you ever do have to heed a forecast,keep in mind that its accuracy degrades rapidly as you extend it through time.”Scepticism of forecasts is a healthy starting point,yet we also be
25、lieve in their value when planning for the future.With that in mind,we now expect the commercial impacts of linear TV to decline by between 3.8%and 4.0%per year between 2020 and 2025.Our projections for the next five years are shown in Figure 3 below.Figure 3.Total 30-second TV impacts over time,ind
26、exed to 2010This increasing shrinkage of linear TV audiences creating an increasing coverage gap that advertisers need to close will compound to around a 21%fall in overall adult commercial impacts between 2019 and 2025.For 18-24s,even with a predicted slowdown in the rate of decline more than half(
27、56%)of the impacts will have disappeared.For 55+s the fall will be-4.6%,assuming they eventually adopt some of the behaviours we are now seeing in 45-54 year old age band.201020162018201420122020202220242026Index vs 201065+55-6445-5435-4425-3418-2416-171.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.006Mind the Gap7B
28、y the time we get to 2025,these predictions might not be particularly relevant.Viewers,advertisers,and agencies will no longer distinguish between linear TV and streaming TV in the way we do today.The market will have fragmented and evolved beyond this distinction.Nevertheless,until the costs of lin
29、ear TV and VOD advertising are harmonised and equally transparent,this information remains crucial for advertisers,and indeed anyone who is responsible for an advertising budget.It is no longer possible to ignore whats happening to audiences in the TV marketplace.Subscription streaming services clea
30、rly pose existential threat to the traditional broadcasting and advertising model as weve known since the mid-1950s.Viewers,advertisers,and agencies will no longer distinguish between linear TV and streaming TV in the way we do today.Mind the GapWith the cross-generational migration from linear TV t
31、o digital video now well under way faster for younger audiences but observed across most of the population logic suggests that brands should be able to secure incremental reach beyond TV by advertising in the environments to which consumers have moved their attention.And while subscription video-on-
32、demand(S-VOD)platforms carry no advertising,YouTube,Facebook,Broadcaster Video on Demand(B-VOD),and other digital formats all do.To investigate the potential of digital video to help brands close the coverage gap,we have conducted an analysis of the reach achievable using digital audiovisual(AV)chan
33、nels compared with linear TV,working with AudienceProject and BARB data.Our analysis covers 15 campaigns that were live during the second half of 2019 for five different brands,including leading advertisers in the financial services,entertainment,retail,and FMCG sectors,with their full consent and i
34、nvolvement.Our methodology fuses digital video advertising delivery data from AudienceProject which has a panel of more than 360,000 U.K.-based internet users withBARB audience data for TV,to give a consistent estimate of coverage,primarily across three key channels:TV,YouTube,and Facebook.We invest
35、igated total potential reach of these channels,as well as how the channels perform on an engaged basis by looking at a50%completion rate.We have only minimal B-VOD data STV was the only B-VOD provider willing to share the necessary data and we did not have a sufficiently large sample covering Twitte
36、r or other online video channels to include in this report.Including B-VOD data in our campaign analysis wouldbe an obvious next step.Lack of access to B-VOD data is one of the things that must change in2020 if the measurement challenge is to be addressed in a satisfactorily transparent manner forbr
37、and advertisers.Furthermore,we did not include cost data at this stage in our research,another logical next step to give a more complete picture of the choices and trade-offs that brand advertisers can make in reaching engaged audiences at scale.We explain this in more detail in oursidebar(see below
38、),labelled:Costs,completion rates,and targeting.Filling the coverage gap at an impression level The analysis in this section together with the six charts that follow compares coverage builds for each age group at a served-impression level for YouTube and Facebook compared with ratings for linear TV.
39、The assumptions underpinning this analysis are detailed in the accompanying sidebar on our methodology.In each chart,the X-axis represents ratings(weight of advertising,or effectively the number of people who have seen the campaign),while the Y-axis represents coverage,or reach(the proportion of the
40、 audience reached).Our analysis does not take into account differences in how brands may be targeted or which buy-type they may have chosen and the consequences of different buy-type strategies(e.g.,brand vs response as an objective).Because of the myriad of ways in which digital can be bought,bring
41、ing everything back to the most common denominator gave us the clearest read of the data.Digging into the results,for the youngest 16-24s age band,Figure 4.1 shows that both YouTube and Facebook can match the speed of reach that TV delivers,at a served-impression level.YouTube builds coverage the fa
42、stest.Bridging the coverage gap with digital video8Mind the GapFigure 4.1.Coverage builds for 16-24s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFor 16-24s,Figure 4.1 shows that,at a served-impression level,both YouTube and Facebook can match the speed of reach that TV delivers.YouTube builds coverage fastest.9080706
43、050403020100500100150200250300350400Average TV Facebook YouTubeFigure 4.2.Coverage builds for 25-34s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFor the 25-34 age group Figure 4.2,the gap narrows and Facebook starts to move ahead of TV.9080706050403020100500100150200250300350400Average TV Facebook YouTube9Mind the Ga
44、pFigure 4.3.Coverage builds for 35-44s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFigure 4.4.Coverage builds for 45-54s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFor 35-44s Figure 4.3,Facebook and TV are again broadly in line and YouTube continues to demonstrate a better ability to deliver reach.Meantime,for 45-54s,we see TV start
45、to assert its primacy over digital and social video in Figure 4.4 Our 2019 report detailed how resolute the over 45s had been for TV.Indeed,over-45s account for more than three-quarters of all adult impacts.We believe that this audience is the beating heart of TVs ROI supremacy and its where we see
46、TV come into its own.This is not to say that the digital platforms cannot deliver this audience,but TV still is perfectly capable of delivering cost-efficient,rapid reach against this audience(and older).908070605040302010001002003002502501501505050400350350Average TV Facebook YouTube908070605040302
47、0100Average TV Facebook YouTube100100200300400Mind the Gap11Figure 4.5.Coverage builds for 55-64s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFigure 4.6.Coverage builds for 65+s on TV,YouTube,and FacebookFor 55-64s,the pattern that first emerged for 45-54s is accentuated,with TV better able to deliver reach than eith
48、er YouTube or Facebook,although its notable that YouTube continues to offer greater potential than Facebook.Finally,for 65+s TV reigns supreme,and is much better able to build reach than either YouTube or Facebook,though its also possible that digital was not being used in the campaigns we analysed
49、to target this demographic overtly.90807060504030201000Average TV Facebook YouTubeAverage TV Facebook YouTube908070605040302010001002003004001002003004002502501501505050350350Mind the GapAbout our research methodology This report utilises data from various sources in order to construct the view of r
50、each across platforms and encompasses data from 15 brand campaigns from five leading UK brands,all selected on the basis of understanding incremental reach to brand-oriented TV campaigns.To understand consumer exposure to online video channels across digital platforms,we worked with AudienceProject,
