In a study conducted with BrightRoll, Kellogg discovered major discrepancies in the effectiveness and accuracy of four competing video viewability solutions. Each vendor was presented with a matrix of viewability scenarios consisting of five different user-scrolling actions, conducted in four browsers, and with iframes sometimes present. The same four vendors were then tested in a live campaign environment.
The results were discouraging. The report concluded:
"The consistency associated with display viewability measurement does not hold true in video viewability measurement. Significant differences were identified between viewability measurement companies in terms of capabilities and accuracy. The accuracy of various measurement partners varied primarily based on user behavior (whether the user scrolled during playback) and based on browser/iframe combinations. Some vendors may utilize sampling methodologies to estimate viewability, which may yield significant measurement error in certain types of campaigns (e.g. smaller campaigns with many sites)."
Despite these doubts, Kellogg has already begun trading based on the new video viewability metrics in certain scenarios. But it prefers to layer those metrics on top of completed videos only – rather than the "50% in view for two seconds" standard – and it's not the only brand doing this.
Tremor Video says it has seen "tremendous" interest from advertisers in "100% viewable," completed ad views, according to Katie Seitz, VP for sales strategy and product marketing at Tremor Video.
This is a high bar for publishers, even without a functional viewability metric.
"If companies are using different vendors to measure viewability, as a publisher it's hard to measure along disparate metrics," Seitz said Tuesday during a panel hosted by Integral Ad Science. "MRC has accredited 12 people but none of these numbers align, which doesn’t make it any easier for anyone in the space."
Kelly Liyakasa contributed reporting.