E marketer video_advertising_benchmarks-key_data_trends_and_metrics

Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved.
Video Ad Metrics 2
Types of Video Ads 8
Video Ad Spending 10
The Digital Video Audience 12
Conclusions 18
Related Links 18
November 2012
Executive Summary: The valuable digital video audience is growing in both number and time spent viewing
content. Much of that content is increasingly ad-supported, which puts an ever-greater focus on the metrics used to
measure results.
137376
The data gathered from a variety of advertising campaigns
during different time periods by several video-ad firms should
best be viewed as basic indicators of larger trends. That’s
because a plethora of factors will color the results of any single
metric, such as completion rate, for a specific campaign. Those
factors include everything from the time of day an ad runs to
the nature of the creative.
But to orient marketers, this benchmarks report offers
an overview of the latest data about several core,
interrelated categories:
■■ Digital video ad metrics, including completion rate,
engagement and brand health
■■ Video ad types, such as pre-roll and in-banner
■■ Ad spending forecasts, for both computers and mobile
■■ Video audience, including size, time spent, favorite
destinations and usage of video content and
associated advertising
The sheer size of the digital video viewing audience will compel
more marketers to invest more ad dollars to reach it.The latest
eMarketer projection shows that by 2014,nearly three-quarters of all
US internet users will watch video online at least once per month.
Key Questions
■■ Which metrics best indicate video advertising effectiveness?
■■ How will digital video ad spending proceed over the next
few years?
■■ What are the most salient characteristics of the
video audience?
millions and % of internet users
US Digital Video Viewers, 2010-2016
2010
145.6
65.0%
2011
158.1
68.2%
2012
169.3
70.8%
2013
178.7
72.9%
2014
187.6
74.7%
2015
195.5
76.0%
2016
201.4
76.9%
Digital video viewers % of internet users
Note: internet users who watch video content online via any device at least
once per month
Source: eMarketer, March 2012; conﬁrmed and republished, Aug 2012
137376 www.eMarketer.com
David Hallerman
dhallerman@emarketer.com
Contributors
Lauren Fisher, Mitch Winkels, Tracy Tang
Video Advertising
Benchmarks:
Key Data,Trends and Metrics

Video Advertising Benchmarks: Key Data, Trends and Metrics Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
Video Ad Metrics
The metrics used to measure video advertising’s results
are influenced by a host of factors.That’s why the
examples given in this benchmarks report are best used
as guidelines, not absolute rules, for any campaign.
The elements that color nearly all online video ad
metrics include:
■■ The length and nature of the content an ad runs against
■■ The type of site where an ad is viewed
■■ The device used to view the video
■■ The time of day or day of the week when an ad runs
■■ The degree to which the audience is habituated to digital
video advertising
■■ The advertising creative itself
For digital video advertising—on computers, mobile devices
and connected TVs—the core metrics include:
■■ Clickthrough rate
■■ Completion rate
■■ Engagement, including views, interactivity and the degree of
attention paid to the advertising
■■ Brand health, such as awareness or favorability
■■ Gross rating points (GRPs) and target rating points (TRPs)
Clickthrough Rates
Clickthrough rates for online video ads can vary widely due to
the factors above.
For example, in one study from VINDICO, a video ad serving and
tracking company, ads in short-form content (i.e., less than 10
minutes long) garnered slightly higher CTRs than in long-form
content during Q2 2012. It also found that ads in video portals
were clicked more often than ads in business/news sites.
Ads run against shorter videos likely get a higher CTR because
the audience isn’t really invested in the content; a longer video
indicates a deeper commitment to the content. Similarly, CTRs
on portals (such as YouTube) likely reflect audience behavior
on those sites—users have an expectation of viewing multiple
smaller pieces of content and may be less averse to the idea
of interrupting the experience by clicking on an ad.
Clickthrough and Completion Rate of Digital Video
Ads Served to US-Based Audiences, by Content
Length and Site Type, Q2 2012
Clickthrough rate Completion rate
Content length
Long-form 0.63% 91%
Short-form 0.85% 73%
Site type
Full episode player 0.64% 93%
Video portal 1.75% 84%
Business/news 1.04% 83%
Portal 0.66% 74%
Lifestyle 0.96% 73%
Ad network 0.73% 68%
Source: VINDICO, "Insights 2012 Q2," Oct 5, 2012
146267
It’s important to reiterate, though, how much these measures
can vary. For instance, VINDICO’s data from the first quarter of
2012 showed clickthrough rates on video portals of 2.38%, a
CTR more than half a percentage point higher than during the
second quarter.
The variability of the data shows how metrics from diverse
ad campaigns can only roughly indicate market trends. Your
mileage may vary—and likely will.
Completion Rates
Completion rates are a core metric for audience engagement.
When a user views a video ad for its full length, marketers can
be more confident that their message got across.
One would assume that shorter ads would have higher
completion rates, and data from video ad network YuMe
supports that assumption. In each of the quarters in the chart
below, shorter ads saw higher completion rates.
Average Completion Rate for US Online Video Pre-Roll
Ads, by Video Ad Length, Q1 2011, Q1 & Q2 2012
Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012
15 seconds 69% 74% 76%
30 seconds 66% 62% 65%
30+ seconds 50% 37% 40%
Total 67% 68% 69%
Note: among 2,000+ publishers in theYuMe network
Source:YuMe, "Q1 2012 Video Advertising Metrics Report" & "Q2 2012
Video Advertising Metrics Report," Aug 2012
147041
Besides the length of the ad, several additional factors
influence completion rates—in particular, the length of the
content the ad is attached to. Research from FreeWheel, a
video-content management company, makes that abundantly
clear. In a study of digital video ad completion rates during the
first half of 2012, FreeWheel found completion rose noticeably
as the length of content grew.

Completion Rate for Digital Video Ads Among
US-Based Audiences, by Content Length,
Q1 2011-Q2 2011
Q1 2011
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Long-form
content
(20+ minutes)
85%
81%
82%
88%
85%
91%
Mid-form
content
(5-20 minutes)
67%
71%
70%
68%
76%
80%
Short-form
content
(<5 minutes)
60%
59%
56%
54%
64%
69%
Source: FreeWheel, "FreeWheel Video Monetization Report Q2 2012," Aug
8, 2012
144243
Time of day is an important factor as well.An analysis by
VideoHub found that completion rates were highest between
9pm and 2am.While the hourly shares of videos streamed daily
were not as high as earlier in the day, much of the video content
watched during those times was likely long-form.
index and % of total
US Digital Video Ad Completions and Share of US
Digital Video Streaming, by Daypart, Q1 2012
Completions
(index*)
Share of
streaming**
12am 28.9 3.23%
1am 25.7 2.73%
2am 14.6 2.75%
3am -11.9 3.19%
4am -19.4 3.25%
5am -40.5 2.62%
6am -54.2 2.58%
7am -54.7 2.87%
8am -47.3 3.29%
9am -34.1 4.03%
10am -27.1 4.55%
11am -17.4 5.00%
12pm -9.7 5.58%
1pm -2.7 5.72%
2pm 2.0 5.45%
3pm 3.1 5.61%
4pm 3.9 5.63%
5pm 4.8 5.24%
6pm 5.9 5.00%
7pm 10.1 4.70%
8pm 17.3 4.57%
9pm 27.4 4.40%
10pm 39.9 4.19%
11pm 44.8 3.79%
Note: includes PC and mobile; *where 0 is the baseline for average
performance; **numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: VideoHub, "Performance Replay Report: Q1 2012," June 25, 2012
147125
But for marketers more concerned about driving actual
clicks from ads, it’s important to note that the connection
between completion rates and clickthrough rates is not
always straightforward.
Consider the implications of the data from a February 2012
study from Videology, a video ad platform:
■■ With 15-second ads, the CTR peaked during the 7.5-to-11.25
second mark, with diminishing returns among those viewers
closer to completion.
■■ With 30-second ads, the CTR peaked during the 7.5-to-15.0
second mark, but that peak was significantly lower than for
the shorter ads.
■■ Longer ads tend to run with longer content, so it’s likely
people click less during 30-second ads than 15-second ones
because they are more involved with viewing the video
they want.
■■ Perhaps click rates for 15-second ads drop off appreciably
close to the end because viewers realize the ad is almost
over, and therefore don’t want to click away when the
content they are trying to access is so close at hand.
index*
Clickthrough Rate for 30- and 15-Second Online
Video Ads Served to US-Based Audiences,
by Time Spent Watching Ad, Feb 2012
0.0-3.75 seconds
3.75-7.5 seconds
7.5-11.25 seconds
11.5-15.0 seconds
15-second ad
51
167
178
109
0.0-7.5 seconds
7.5-15.0 seconds
15.0-22.5 seconds
22.5-30.0 seconds
30-second ad
96
112
104
92
Note: read chart as 12% more viewers click on a 30-second spot after
watching it for 7.5-15.0 seconds compared to overall CTR average;
*where average=100
Source: Videology, "Video Wars: Click Through vs. Completion Rates,"
March 27, 2012
138512
Perhaps the most important takeaway is not to expect click
and completion rates to grow in tandem.
Other Engagement Markers
In addition to completion rate, other key forms of engagement
measured for video include:
■■ Time spent viewing the ad, even if not to completion
■■ Interactivity, such as starting the ad or mousing over it
■■ Dwell rate, a term used by some vendors to measure the
proportion of impressions that were intentionally engaged
with by touch, interaction or click
■■ When people share the ad or comment on it—the social,
word-of-mouth or viral aspects of engagement
■■ Visiting a brand’s website as a result, even if not directly, of
viewing the video ad
Simply paying attention is, in many ways, the core
engagement metric. A May 2012 study from YuMe and IPG
Media Lab looked to measure the amount of attention people
Video Ad Metrics

paid to videos based on their location and the devices used.
While this research did not focus explicitly on advertising, the
attention the audience pays to the screen will, in most cases,
translate to all the videos, content and ads alike.
In that light, some of the best combinations for an attentive
audience were:
■■ Watching connected TV at home, sitting at a desk or table
■■ Watching either computers or “linear” (i.e., traditional) TV in
bed at home
■■ Watching video on computers at home on the couch
In general, the lowest attention scores were either on mobile
devices or while doing some other activity.
average rating on a 10-point scale*
Amount of Attention US Video Viewers Give to Video,
by Location and Device, May 2012
Home, in bed
Home, sitting at a
desk or table
Home, on the couch
Home, while doing
an activity
Ofﬁce
Other, neither home
nor work
Mobile
(n=91)
6.6
5.8
6.2
5.0
5.5
5.5
PC
(n=84)
7.4
7.1
7.3
6.1
6.7
6.7
Connected
TV
(n=57)
5.7
7.9
6.1
5.0
-
-
Linear
TV
(n=78)
7.4
6.8
6.3
4.4
-
-
Total
6.8
6.8
6.4
5.1
6.0
6.0
Note: read as among people who watch video on a mobile device on the
couch, their level of attention got an average rating of 6.2 on a 10-point
scale; *where 10=max attention
Source:YuMe and IPG Media Lab, "Are All Screens Created Equal?" Sep 17,
2012
145655
Research firm Prosper Mobile Insights offered another
perspective by looking at how often smartphone or tablet
owners, depending on activity, paid attention to ads. It found that
viewers of either gender were less likely to pay attention to ads
when either watching video clips or full-length TV episodes.
In contrast, smartphone or tablet viewers paid more attention
to ads—not necessarily video ones—when simply surfing the
web or visiting social media sites.
% of total
Frequency with Which US Smartphone/Tablet Owners
Pay Attention to Ads While Using Select Mobile
Content, by Gender, May 2012
Surﬁng the web
Visiting social media sites
Playing games
Downloading apps/music/etc.
Shopping on device
Watching video clips
Watching full TV episodes
Male
Regularly
Occasionally
Never
Female
Regularly
Occasionally
Never
Total
Regularly
Occasionally
Never
38.2%
37.6%
24.2%
32.8%
39.7%
27.6%
35.3%
38.7%
26.0%
27.4%
33.1%
39.5%
26.4%
32.2%
41.4%
26.9%
32.6%
40.5%
23.6%
25.5%
51.0%
20.1%
32.2%
47.7%
21.8%
29.0%
49.2%
22.3%
36.9%
40.8%
19.5%
32.2%
48.3%
20.8%
34.4%
44.7%
21.7%
33.8%
44.6%
16.1%
34.5%
49.4%
18.7%
34.1%
47.1%
17.8%
37.6%
44.6%
12.6%
38.5%
48.9%
15.1%
38.1%
46.8%
15.3%
22.3%
62.4%
11.5%
23.6%
64.9%
13.3%
23.0%
63.7%
Note: n=331; numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Prosper Mobile Insights, June 6, 2012
141365
One implication of these mobile viewing results is that small
devices might not (yet) be the most hospitable places for
video advertising.
Sharing is another prime engagement metric.While most
videos that people share are not advertising, a July 2012 study
conducted by Harris Interactive for MediaBrix, a social and mobile
ad company, found that of Facebook users who have shared a
video ad on the social site, 59% were female and 41% were male.
The Harris Interactive study’s outcome has major implications
for advertisers looking to entice the audience into a viral
video campaign, pointing to better results for efforts
targeting women.
Abandonment and Opt-In
Completion’s opposite is abandonment—the audience
deserting an ad before it is finished. VINDICO data shows that
the vast majority of people who abandon digital video ads do
so before an ad’s midpoint. Interestingly, viewers may give ads
more of a chance when viewing short-form rather than long-
form content; that’s likely due to shorter ads running against
shorter content.
Video Ad Metrics

Abandonment Rate for Digital Video Ads Served to
US-Based Audiences, by Content Length and Site
Type, Q1 2012
Before midpoint After midpoint
Content length
Long-form 92% 9%
Short-form 70% 30%
Site type
Full episode player 90% 10%
Video portal 95% 5%
Business/news 87% 13%
Lifestyle 80% 20%
Ad network 75% 25%
Portal 75% 25%
Note: includes mobile video ads; read chart as saying 90% of viewers who
abandoned an ad, abandoned the ad before the midpoint
Source: VINDICO, "Insights 2012 Q1," May 14, 2012
140752
What does that mean for advertisers? Make sure to put key
branding elements early in the ad, to capture some attention
from the entire audience, including those viewers bound to
click away before the midpoint.
However, in the hopes of countering ad abandonment, marketers
and video sites are increasingly offering the audience some kind
of viewing choice or opt-in.
For example, the abandonment rate for video ads on the
AdoTube network decreased when viewers were given the
ability to opt out completely (what the video technology firm
calls a “polite pre-roll”) or to choose which pre-roll ad to see
before the content started.
Performance Metrics for Pre-Roll Online Video Ads
Served* to a US-Based Audience, Q3 2011
Pre-roll
Polite pre-roll**
Ad selector
Click-
through
rate
2.0%
2.2%
4.0%
View-
through
rate (25%)
75.0%
66.0%
80.0%
View-
through
rate (100%)
59.0%
47.0%
65.0%
Close
rate
-
18.0%
10.0%
Abandonment
rate
39.0%
32.8%
21.0%
Note: *over the AdoTube network; **gives the viewer the ability to view
the ad anytime during the video or to opt out completely
Source: AdoTube, "Q3 2011 Format Index," Dec 19, 2011
135364
Video advertising can learn from successful email marketing,
in that by giving consumers the choice whether to receive
those marketing messages, they become more receptive
to the pitch. That’s likely why 32% of online video viewers
(the largest single segment) in an April 2012 survey taken in
Canada by Yahoo! said the ability to close or skip a video ad
was the primary factor that affected their receptivity.
The Yahoo! survey results were echoed by a July 2012 study
from MediaBrix, which found that 62% of mobile app users
and 63% of Facebook app users preferred video ads that they
could initiate.
As they do for all other metrics, various elements color
engagement results for opt-in video ads. For example, in an
August 2012 study from Jun Group, an opt-in video platform
provider, engagement rates were highest for video ads that
were 30 to 60 seconds long.
Engagement Rate of US Opt-In Online Video Ads from
Fortune 500 Brands, by Length, Aug 2012
0-15 seconds 3.52%
16-30 seconds 2.79%
30-60 seconds 4.50%
60-120 seconds 3.51%
2+ minutes 3.72%
Source: Jun Group, "The State of Opt-In Video & Consumer Engagement,"
Sep 27, 2012
145877
The potential implications here are at least threefold:
■■ Ads that were short produced lesser levels of engagement
because there was not enough time for the brand’s creative
to fully connect with the audience.
■■ Ads that were long also had lower engagement because
they demanded too much from the audience.
■■ Giving the audience the chance to opt in is more likely to
raise engagement rates no matter the ad’s length.
Perhaps this is best viewed as the Goldilocks principle, where the
greatest engagement requires that the ad length be just right.
Brand Health Metrics
Just as with TV commercials, digital video ads are often
measured through panel-based brand health metrics. These
metrics, arranged in a funnel pattern, top to bottom, include:
■■ Awareness, both aided and unaided
■■ Familiarity, or message association
■■ Consideration, or favorability
■■ Purchase intent
■■ Loyalty, or preference
Brand lift, or the overall increase among the various brand
health markers, was cited as the video metric that delivered
the highest level of success by the most respondents (54%) in
a 2012 survey from Digiday and Adap.tv.
Video Ad Metrics

% of respondents
Video Metrics that Deliver the Highest Success
According to Brand Advertisers and Agencies in North
America, 2011 & 2012
Brand lift
18%
54%
Completion rate
18%
31%
Clickthrough rate
10%
25%
Click per view
6%
6%
Gross rating points
1%
16%
Targe rating points
1%
13%
2011 2012
Source: Adap.tv and DIGIDAY, "Video State of the Industry Report, Q1
2012," April 16, 2012
139216
And in a BrightRoll poll that asked agency executives to
choose the single most important metric for measuring online
video ad campaign success, 23% said brand lift.
The only metric cited by more respondents was views, the
basic engagement metric that indicates paying attention—
which often leads to brand lift.
% of respondents
Most Important Success Metric for Their Online Video
Campaign According to US Agency Executives,
April 2012
Views
26%
Brand lift
23%
Sales impact
22%
Conversions
15%
Clickthrough rate (CTR)
9%
Gross rating point (GRP)
5%
Note: n=100
Source: BrightRoll, "US Video Advertising Report," June 7, 2012
142076
As with other metrics, several potential variables influence
the results. The “Are All Screens Created Equal?” study from
YuMe and IPG Media Lab found that the devices people use
shape their unaided recall of video ads. Perhaps surprisingly,
computers boosted recall among substantially more
respondents than did traditional TV.
% of respondents
Unaided Recall of Video Ads, by Device, May 2012
PC 43%
Connected TV 38%
Mobile 35%
Linear TV 27%
Note: linear TV n=64; PC n=63; mobile n=71; connected TV n=43
Source:YuMe and IPG Media Lab, "Are All Screens Created Equal?" Sep 17,
2012
145654
Marketers are increasing their consideration of mobile video
ads, partially because they hope to better grab people’s
attention as they use mobile’s more personal devices. But in a
June 2012 survey from Prosper Mobile Insights, only 42.9% of
smartphone and tablet owners said they paid more attention
to video than to standard mobile ads.
Among the group that did pay more attention, the two top
reasons they cited were the ads were more likely to grab their
attention (51.3%) and the video ads were more enjoyable than
standard ones (34.5%).
However, mobile video’s results at this point might have as much
to do with novelty and rarity than with inherent effectiveness.
% of respondents
Reasons that US Smartphone/Tablet Owners Pay
More Attention to Mobile Video Ads vs. Standard
Mobile Ads, June 2012
Source: Prosper Mobile Insights, July 3, 2012
Respondents who are
more likely to pay
attention to a video ad
vs. standard ad
Yes
42.9%No
57.1%
Reasons that they pay
more attention to video ads
on a mobile device
They are more likely to
grab my attention
I have to watch to ﬁnd out
what is being advertised
Many video ads do not let me
click away until I've watched
at least part of the ad
They are similar to ones
I've seen and enjoyed on TV
They are more enjoyable
than standard ads
The content is more relevant to me
Other
51.3%
21.9%
30.4%
23.1%
34.5%
25.2%
0.7%
142458
But even though mobile users may pay more attention to
video ads than other types, perhaps mobile video advertising’s
effects on brand metrics are more powerful than standard
online norms. In research released in February 2012 by
InsightExpress, the average delta lift above the control group
for mobile surpassed that of online for every brand metric.
Video Ad Metrics

Later research from InsightExpress showed that for all but
one brand health metric, tablets surpassed mobile averages.
That’s not surprising, since tablets are clearly a better video
advertising vehicle than small smartphone screens.
average delta* above control
Mobile and Tablet Advertising's Effect on Brand
Metrics in the US, June 2012
Online ad awareness
43%
26%
Purchase intent
24%
11%
Brand favorability
17%
9%
Unaided awareness
14%
9%
Aided awareness
14%
7%
Message association
8%
16%
Tablet campaigns Mobile InsightNorms
Note: *delta deﬁned as point difference in exposed vs. control groups
Source: InsightExpress as cited in company blog, June 13, 2012
141597
However, this research was for digital advertising in general,
not video specifically.
Cross-Platform Metrics
For many brand marketers, digital video advertising and TV
commercials are fused at the hip. But the metrics used to
measure the two sides of video advertising—well, they’re
less fused.
The value of having unified video and TV metrics was cited as
very or most important by 64% of the brand advertisers and
agencies surveyed in April 2012 by Adap.TV and Digiday.
% of total
Level of Importance for Uniﬁed TV and Video Metrics
According to Brand Advertisers and Agencies in
North America, April 2012
Most important
13%
Very important
51%
Somewhat important
28%
Less
important
8%
Source: Adap.tv and DIGIDAY, "Video State of the Industry Report, Q1
2012," April 16, 2012
139215
A good number of marketers consider GRPs—a traditional
TV metric—and its sibling TRPs to be useful cross-platform
metrics. GRPs gauge total audience size using reach times
frequency, expressed as a percentage, while TRPs measure
GRPs times the ratio of the targeted audience to the
total audience.
In an early 2012 poll from the Association of National
Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research, 48% of the
respondents cited either TRPs or GRPs as the future industry
standard for cross-platform audience measurement.
% of respondents
Future Industry Standard for Cross-Platform Audience
Measurement According to US Marketers, 2012
Unique visitors/
watchers
47%
Target rating points
(TRPs)
31%
Gross rating points
(GRPs)
17%
Other
4%
Source: Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research,
“2012 TV & Everything Video Survey,” March 20, 2012
138367
A similar but more digital-focused metric—unique
visitors or watchers—was mentioned by 47% of the ANA
survey’s participants.
In another survey, this from BrightRoll in April 2012, one-third
of agency executives said targeted unique viewers was the
online video audience measurement that their clients valued
the most. In contrast, about one-quarter of that group cited
GRPs or TRPs as the best way to gauge video audience.
Video Ad Metrics

% of respondents
Online Video Audience Measurement Metrics Valued
Most by the Clients of US Agency Executives,
April 2012
Target uniques
33.3%
Target impressions
25.7%
Gross rating point (GRP) or target rating point (TRP)
24.8%
Uncertain
11.4%
Other
4.8%
Note: n=105
142074
However, tying the effects of digital video advertising to results
offline—another prime cross-channel measurement goal—is
still difficult for many marketers. In the 2012 version of the
BrightRoll study, 28.6% of respondents said they wanted to see
additional research on how digital video advertising affects
offline purchase behavior.
% of respondents
Areas of Online Video Ads for Which US Agency
Executives Would Like to See Additional Research,
2011 & 2012
Performance vs. TV advertising
Change in purchase intent or brand lift
Impact on ofﬂine purchase behavior
Brand effectiveness
Translation of gross rating point (GRP) to
online video buying
Audience proﬁling
2011
28.6%
27.7%
16.1%
12.5%
11.6%
3.6%
2012
22.9%
17.1%
28.6%
7.6%
18.1%
5.7%
Note: 2011 n=112; 2012 n=105; numbers may not add up to 100% due to
rounding
142075
Types of Video Ads
The video category consists of three basic types of ads:
■■ In-stream video ads, which can be pre-roll, mid-roll or
post-roll. These run in the same player as the video content.
■■ In-banner video ads, which are not connected with video
content and therefore could appear on any webpage; they
typically need to be started by the user.
■■ Branded video content, which refers to longer-form
ads sponsored by the marketer. Sometimes the audience
does not even view this branded content as an ad, since
most of the video contains potentially valuable information
or entertainment.
While there are also video overlay ads, which appear over the
content people are viewing, in nearly all cases those overlays are
simply small banners and are not themselves in a video format.
Many brands favor in-stream video ads, since they are
most akin to the TV commercials those marketers are most
familiar with.
Data from the YuMe video ad network showed a prevalence of
pre-roll video ads in both Q1 and Q2 2012.
% of total
Types of Online Video Ads Served to US-Based
Audiences, Q1 & Q2 2012
Note: among 2,000+ publishers in theYuMe network; numbers may not
add up to 100% due to rounding
Source:YuMe, "Q2 2012 Video Advertising Metrics Report," Aug 2012
Q1 2012 Q2 2012
Connected TVs
2% Banner
1%
YuMe pre-roll
84%
YuMe
ads
9%
Mobile
4%
YuMe pre-roll
76%
YuMe
ads
13%
Mobile
7%
Connected TVs
2% Banner
1%
146010
Three things to note here:
■■ The drop in pre-roll’s share from 84% to 76% is not
necessarily meaningful, since it’s a short period of time.
■■ In addition, part of the decreased share was taken up by an
increase in proprietary YuMe ads (which the company has
more incentive to sell) and the other part was taken up by
an increase in mobile (which could also be in-stream ads).
■■ The term “pre-roll” seems to be used here as a synonym for
all in-stream ads.
Video Ad Metrics

Further results from the same study indicate that more than
one-half of pre-roll ads in both Q1 and Q2 2012 were 30 seconds
long.That’s a major jump from Q1 2011,when the video ad
network reported that only 38.7% of pre-rolls were 30-second ads.
The increase in the number of longer ads was likely due to two
main factors:
■■ Marketers realizing the audience will sit through longer ads
■■ More long-form video content available to support longer ads
% of total
US Online Video Pre-Roll Ads Share, by Video Length,
Q1 & Q2 2012
Note: numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding; among 2,000+
publishers in theYuMe network
Source:YuMe, "Q2 2012 Video Advertising Metrics Report," Aug 2012
Q1 2012 Q2 2012
30 seconds
56.0%
30+ seconds
0.7%
15 seconds
43.0%
30 seconds
55.0%
30+ seconds
3.0%
15 seconds
42.0%
146011
Research from the IAB of Canada and BrightRoll shows that
in August 2012, pre-roll video ads were far more common
on the desktop internet (96%) than on either tablets (30%) or
smartphones (26%). Other types of digital video ads were even
less common on tablets and mobile devices.
% of respondents
Types of Digital Video Ads that Advertisers in Canada
Have Used* in Media Plans, by Channel, Aug 2012
Pre-roll
Companion ads
In-banner video (nonexpanding)
User-initiated expand to full-screen
(e.g., adframes, firefly, videobox, pimento)
Overlay video ads
(pre, mid, post-roll clickable)
Mid-roll
Overlay video ads
(transparent text, clickable)
Post-roll
Internet
96%
74%
61%
61%
37%
35%
25%
20%
Tablet
30%
7%
7%
5%
5%
7%
2%
3%
Mobile
26%
6%
9%
9%
4%
4%
4%
1%
Note: *in the past 12 months
Source: BrightRoll and Interactive Advertising Bureau of Canada
(IAB Canada), "Canada Video Advertising Report,” Sep 26, 2012
145846
The relative paucity of non-computer video ads could shift as
mobile and tablet use rise. However, as long as users pay for
data-capped 3G and 4G connections, high-bandwidth video
ads will be somewhat unwelcomed. That could be overcome
by newer technologies to further compress video data,
lessening consumers’ bandwidth and data-limit concerns
about video advertising.
Further insights from the IAB of Canada/BrightRoll
report include:
■■ In-banner ads can be further divided into two types:
expanding and nonexpanding.
■■ In-stream ads also come in two types: clickable and not.
For online TV shows, the main types of video ads in an
early-2012 study from the ANA and Forrester Research were
the three flavors of in-stream (pre-roll, mid-roll and post-roll)
and a mix of both unskippable ads—which is true of most
in-stream ads—and ones that can be skipped. (For more on
noncompulsory video advertising, see the “Abandonment and
Opt-In” section above.)
% of respondents
Types of Ads Used by US Marketers Within
Online TV Shows, 2012
Pre-roll ads
Banner ads around the online
TV show video window
Post-roll ads
Mid-roll
15-second, unskippable ads
in online TV shows
Ads targeted to specific
viewers of online TV shows
30-second, unskippable ads
in online TV shows
30-second spots in online TV
shows that can be skipped
Overlays and screen crawls
Audience-
based
buying
36%
27%
25%
24%
22%
19%
19%
9%
5%
Content-
based
buying
27%
30%
19%
17%
17%
19%
12%
15%
19%
Not
currently
using
16%
23%
26%
28%
31%
32%
38%
43%
38%
Note: n=62
Source: Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research,
“2012 TV & Everything Video Survey”, March 20, 2012
138369
Types of Video Ads

Video Ad Spending
Here’s what’s at stake for the most expensive form
of digital advertising—and the one most attractive to
brand marketers. Spending for video advertising, both
desktop and mobile, will rise from $2.93 billion in 2012
to $8.04 billion in 2016.
Four years from now, eMarketer estimates, digital marketers
will spend more on only search and banner ads than on video.
billions
US Digital Ad Spending, by Format, 2010-2016
Search
Display
—Banner ads
—Video
—Rich media
—Sponsorships
Classiﬁeds and
directories
Lead
generation
Mobile
messaging
Email
Total
2010
$12.00
$9.91
$6.23
$1.42
$1.54
$0.72
$2.60
$1.34
$0.25
$0.20
$26.29
2011
$15.10
$12.33
$7.55
$2.00
$1.65
$1.12
$2.58
$1.52
$0.25
$0.21
$31.99
2012
$17.58
$14.98
$8.68
$2.93
$1.82
$1.56
$2.60
$1.71
$0.23
$0.22
$37.31
2013
$19.76
$17.67
$9.60
$4.14
$2.03
$1.90
$2.71
$1.90
$0.23
$0.23
$42.50
2014
$21.73
$20.69
$10.27
$5.75
$2.38
$2.28
$2.81
$2.09
$0.22
$0.24
$47.77
2015
$23.32
$23.13
$10.87
$6.99
$2.69
$2.59
$2.88
$2.17
$0.21
$0.24
$51.95
2016
$24.45
$25.21
$11.29
$8.04
$3.03
$2.86
$2.95
$2.20
$0.20
$0.24
$55.25
Note: includes advertising that appears on desktop and laptop computers
as well as mobile phones and tablets on all formats mentioned; data
through 2011 is derived from IAB/PwC data
Source: eMarketer, Sep 2012
144427
Video’s large spending leaps translate to annual growth rates
ranging as high as 46.5%, faster growth than for any other
digital ad format.
Some perspective is needed here, though. Even with its rapid
spending growth, video will contribute only 7.9% to the overall
US digital spending universe in 2012. However, video’s share of
the total will reach 14.5% in 2016.
While video’s share among all digital ad formats is relatively slim
(largely because search spending is so high by comparison),
video’s share of display advertising is much more significant.
■■ In 2012, about one-in-five display dollars will go to video.
■■ By 2016, almost one-third of display spending will be for video.
■■ Basically, as video’s share grows, banners’ share will shrink.
% of total and billions
US Digital Display Ad Spending Share, by Format,
2010-2016
2010 total spending $9.91
62.9% 14.3% 15.5% 7.2%
61.3% 16.2% 13.4% 9.1%
57.9% 19.6% 12.1% 10.4%
54.3% 23.4% 11.5% 10.8%
49.7% 27.8% 11.5% 11.0%
47.0% 30.2% 11.6% 11.2%
44.8% 31.9% 12.0% 11.4%
Banners Video Rich media Sponsorships
Note: includes advertising that appears on desktop and laptop computers
as well as mobile phones and tablets; data through 2011 is derived from
IAB/PwC data; numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
144448
At this point, the industries spending the most for online
video advertising include consumer packaged goods (CPG),
health/pharma and entertainment, according to Q1 2012 data
from YuMe.
% of total
Leading US Industries, Ranked by Online Video Ad
Spending Share, Q1 2012
Consumer packaged goods 25%
Health/pharma 23%
Entertainment 12%
Consumer electronics8%
Financial services7%
Auto 6%
Retail 6%
Telecom 5%
Travel 5%
Other* 5%
Note: among 2,000+ publishers in theYuMe network; numbers may not
add up to 100% due to rounding; *advertisers that do not belong to a
common industry vertical
Source:YuMe, "2012 Q1 Video Advertising Metrics Report," July 30, 2012
145027
Videology data for the same quarter also shows CPG with
the greatest share of video—in this case, measured by
impressions, not dollars—with a much larger (37.1%) slice. In
further contrast to the YuMe figures, the finance and telecom
industries were the second and third biggest buyers of video

ad impressions, at 12.5% and 10.0%, respectively.
What’s implied here, when industries have a greater share of
impressions than dollars for the same quarter, is the relative
lower cost for video ad inventory for those particular industries.
By contrast, an industry such as healthcare—which had a
substantially higher share of spending (23%) than impressions
(2.5%)—is likely buying more costly video inventory.
The caveat to keep in mind here is that while the data comes
from the same time period, it comes from different sources.
Mobile video ad spending growth is even greater than
that for the overall digital market. That’s not surprising, for
three reasons:
■■ Mobile video spending is coming from a much smaller base.
■■ Mobile’s usage is continuing to rise dramatically.
■■ Marketers are still figuring out how best to use mobile video
in their campaigns.
During every year from 2012 to 2016, the growth rates for
mobile video ad spending will surpass those of other display
formats and of search.
% change
US Mobile Ad Spending Growth, by Format, 2010-2016
Display
—Video
—Rich media
—Banners
Search
SMS/
MMS/P2P
messaging
Total
2010
152.4%
132.3%
2,452.2%
132.0%
204.3%
11.0%
85.0%
2011
108.3%
132.4%
947.0%
11.8%
157.8%
-1.1%
88.5%
2012
102.0%
122.1%
103.0%
95.0%
96.0%
-9.5%
80.0%
2013
79.4%
98.1%
78.1%
74.6%
72.4%
-0.9%
69.0%
2014
55.0%
76.5%
55.5%
46.4%
50.9%
-2.9%
50.0%
2015
44.1%
56.4%
44.2%
38.5%
37.1%
-3.1%
39.0%
2016
33.6%
43.3%
33.7%
28.4%
26.1%
-4.7%
29.0%
144575
Mobile video spending will rise from more than $151 million in
2012 to almost $1.2 billion in 2016. However, even by the later
year, video will represent only 10% of mobile ad outlays. In that
way, mobile video will be like overall digital video spending:
something more than a niche but not dominant.
millions
US Mobile Ad Spending, by Format, 2010-2016
Search
Display
—Rich media
—Banners
—Video
SMS/
MMS/P2P
messaging
Total
$23.3
$209.9
$29.3
2010
$253.2
$262.5
$253.9
$769.6
2011
$652.8
$546.9
$244.2
$234.6
$68.2
$251.0
$1,450.7
2012
$1,279.5
$1,104.6
$495.6
$457.5
$151.5
$227.2
$2,611.3
2013
$2,206.5
$1,981.4
$882.7
$798.6
$300.1
$225.1
$4,413.0
2014
$3,329.6
$3,071.5
$1,372.6
$1,169.3
$529.6
$218.4
$6,619.5
$828.1
2015
$4,563.8
$4,425.7
$1,978.7
$1,618.9
$211.6
$9,201.1
2016
$5,756.7
$5,911.0
$2,645.5
$2,078.6
$1,186.9
$201.8
$11,869.5
Note: numbers may not add up to total due to rounding
144574
Revenues for ad-supported mobile video content will more
than double in 2012. And in 2013 and subsequent years, ad
spending growth will be greater than for either pay-per-view
downloaded or subscription-based mobile video.
% change
US Mobile Video Revenue Growth, by Type, 2010-2016
Pay-per-view
download
Ad-supported
Subscription-
based*
Total
2010
105.4%
116.8%
21.7%
26.0%
2011
150.1%
125.7%
55.6%
62.0%
2012
149.1%
112.3%
24.2%
36.4%
2013
41.4%
95.1%
14.3%
24.9%
2014
37.9%
73.7%
14.4%
26.1%
2015
27.8%
53.9%
8.2%
20.2%
2016
17.2%
41.0%
9.9%
19.2%
Note: *includes subscription services that are exclusive to mobile devices
like SprintTV or T-Mobile TV; excludes services such as Netﬂix or Hulu Plus
that are accessed via multiple platforms
Source: eMarketer, Oct 2012
145497
Note that more recent historic spending data from the Interactive
Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates the
video ad market may be softer than in eMarketer’s September
2012 projections. In the first half of 2012, video spending grew by
“only” 18.2%, according to the IAB/PwC—slightly less than the
growth for paid search, a far larger advertising channel.
Video Ad Spending

millions, % of total and % change
US Digital Ad Revenues, by Format, H1 2011 & H1 2012
Search
Display
—Banner
—Video
—Rich media
—Sponsorship
Mobile
Classiﬁeds
Referrals/lead
generation
Email
Total
H1 2011
$6,843
$5,349
$3,266
$891
$727
$465
$636
$1,235
$800
$79
$14,942
% of total
46%
36%
22%
6%
5%
3%
4%
8%
5%
1%
100.0%
H1 2012
$8,128
$5,586
$3,622
$1,053
$495
$416
$1,242
$1,160
$834
$78
$17,028
% of total
48%
33%
21%
6%
3%
2%
7%
7%
5%
0%
100.0%
% change
18.8%
4.4%
10.9%
18.2%
-31.9%
-10.5%
95.3%
-6.1%
4.3%
-1.3%
14.0%
Note: numbers may not add up to total due to rounding
Source: Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC), "IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report: 2012 First Six Months'
Results;" eMarketer calculations, Oct 11, 2012
146466
eMarketer’s projections for video ad spending growth in 2012
are higher than the IAB/PwC half-year figure because we see
greater uptake due to the following factors:
■■ A sharply increasing audience for digital video, already
more than 70% of internet users and a majority of the total
US population
■■ Marketers’ growing comfort with and expertise using
video advertising
■■ More and more video content online and on mobile devices
that brands feel secure advertising against
However, overall growth of video ad spending, while robust,
could be partially undercut by interest in other forms of digital
advertising. For example, while two-thirds or more of US ad
agencies surveyed by STRATA in Q1 2012 said they used
online display, social media and search marketing, less than
one-quarter cited digital video as a used tactic.
% of respondents
Online Marketing Tactics Used by US Ad Agencies,
Q1 2012
Online display 71.3%
Social media 69.0%
PPC/search/SEM/SEO 65.5%
Mobile 29.9%
Digital video 24.1%
None2.3%
Source: STRATA, "1st Quarter 2012: Agency Forecast Survey," May 3, 2012
139847
The Digital Video Audience
The foundation of digital video advertising’s growth is
a large and still expanding audience. Growth among
the number of users is steady and increases in the
time they spend with video are even more significant
for marketers.
Digital video ad spending will average $23 per viewer in
2013—interestingly, a lower spend per user than social
network advertising.
$ per person and CAGR
US Ad Spending per User, by Venue, 2010-2014
Digital ad spend per
internet user
Social network ad spend
per social network user
Facebook ad spend per
Facebook user
Twitter ad spend per
Twitter user
Digital video ad spend
per digital video viewer
Social game ad spend
per social gamer
Digital radio ad spend per
internet radio listener
Mobile ad spend per
mobile phone user
Mobile internet ad spend
per mobile internet user
Mobile Facebook ad spend
per mobile Facebook user
Mobile video ad spend per
mobile video viewer
2010
$117
$14
$10
$3
$10
$2
$7
$3
$7
$0
$1
2011
$138
$17
$13
$5
$13
$2
$6
$6
$12
$0
$2
2012
$156
$20
$15
$8
$17
$3
$6
$11
$20
$1
$3
2013
$173
$25
$18
$13
$23
$4
$7
$18
$29
$5
$4
2014
$190
$30
$21
$16
$31
$4
$7
$26
$39
$6
$6
CAGR
(2012-
2014)
10.4%
21.8%
17.3%
40.5%
33.1%
25.5%
3.4%
56.2%
41.2%
143.4%
55.9%
144597
Audience Size and Growth
An online video viewership of 178.7 million in the US in 2013
will represent nearly 73% of the country’s internet users
and 56% of the US population. That’s a 5.6% jump from
2012’s figure.
By 2016, almost 77% of internet users—more than 61% of the
US population—will watch digital video content via any device
at least once a month.
Video Ad Spending

US Digital Video Viewers, 2010-2016
Digital video
viewers (millions)
—% change
—% of population
—% of internet users
2010
145.6
11.3%
46.9%
65.0%
2011
158.1
8.6%
50.5%
68.2%
2012
169.3
7.1%
53.5%
70.8%
2013
178.7
5.6%
56.0%
72.9%
2014
187.6
5.0%
58.2%
74.7%
2015
195.5
4.2%
60.1%
76.0%
2016
201.4
3.0%
61.3%
76.9%
Note: CAGR (2010-2016)=5.6%; internet users who watch video content
online via any device at least once per month
137375
Of the 178.7 million digital video viewers in 2013, 110.4 million—
or nearly 62%—will also be digital TV viewers. By 2016, the share
of video viewers who watch TV digitally should reach 66.5%.
These TV viewer figures are extremely important, because
TV is still the main content type that attracts digital
video advertising.
US Digital TV Viewers, 2010-2016
Digital TV viewers
(millions)
—% change
—% of online video
viewers
—% of internet users
—% of population
2010
69.6
16.6%
47.8%
31.1%
22.4%
2011
83.3
19.7%
52.7%
35.9%
26.6%
2012
97.8
17.5%
57.8%
40.9%
30.9%
2013
110.4
12.8%
61.8%
45.0%
34.6%
2014
120.8
9.4%
64.4%
48.1%
37.5%
2015
128.8
6.7%
65.9%
50.1%
39.6%
2016
133.9
3.9%
66.5%
51.1%
40.7%
Note: CAGR (2010-2016)=11.5%; internet users who watch TV shows online
via any device at least once per month
137385
While the mobile video viewer population is smaller than
the number of digital video viewers overall, its growth rate is
substantially higher.
■■ The 73.3 million mobile video viewers forecast for 2013 will
be nearly 30% of all mobile phone users.
■■ The same 73.3 million will represent 41% of all digital
video viewers.
■■ The number of mobile video viewers in 2013 will be nearly
20% higher than in 2012.
■■ As might be expected, almost all mobile video viewers use
smartphones—nearly 97% of the total in 2013.
millions, % of population and % of mobile phone users
US Mobile Video Viewers, 2010-2016
2010
29.0
12.5%
9.4%
2011
45.2
19.0%
14.4%
2012
61.2
25.2%
19.3%
2013
73.3
29.6%
22.9%
2014
88.0
34.9%
27.3%
2015
100.2
39.1%
30.8%
2016
110.1
42.4%
33.5%
Mobile video viewers
% of mobile phone users
% of population
Note: mobile phone users of any age who watch video content on mobile
phones through a mobile browser, subscriptions, downloads or applications
at least once per month
Source: eMarketer, April 2012; conﬁrmed and republished, Aug 2012
138214
Audience Age Data
At 18.9%, the largest share of the 178.7 million digital video
viewers in 2013 will be ages 25 to 34.This age group was also the
largest segment in the three years prior to 2013, and eMarketer
projects it to remain the same in the three years following.
However, while some might get the impression that the digital
video audience tilts extremely young, about 50% of viewers in
each year of eMarketer’s forecast period will be between ages
25 and 54.
% of total
US Digital Video Viewer Share, by Age, 2010-2016
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0-11 7.2% 7.5% 8.0% 8.4% 8.8% 9.2% 9.3%
12-17 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 12.1% 11.9% 11.7% 11.6%
18-24 15.9% 15.7% 15.3% 14.8% 14.3% 13.9% 13.5%
25-34 19.9% 19.5% 19.2% 18.9% 18.6% 18.4% 18.5%
35-44 16.8% 16.7% 16.4% 16.3% 16.2% 16.1% 16.0%
45-54 16.1% 15.7% 15.5% 15.2% 14.9% 14.8% 14.8%
55-64 8.0% 8.7% 9.2% 9.6% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3%
65+ 3.2% 3.7% 4.1% 4.6% 5.1% 5.6% 6.0%
once per month; numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
137382
In fact, the largest growth among video viewers in 2013—with
double-digit increases—will be among the youngest and
oldest viewers.

% change
US Digital Video Viewer Growth, by Age, 2010-2016
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0-11 12.9% 13.3% 14.3% 11.0% 9.9% 8.4% 3.9%
12-17 20.9% 6.5% 5.6% 4.3% 3.2% 2.2% 1.7%
18-24 7.4% 6.9% 4.4% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0%
25-34 9.4% 6.6% 5.2% 4.0% 3.0% 3.4% 3.3%
35-44 7.5% 7.8% 4.9% 5.4% 4.1% 3.6% 2.5%
45-54 8.3% 5.5% 6.0% 3.0% 3.3% 3.6% 2.8%
55-64 19.4% 17.9% 13.0% 10.3% 10.5% 4.7% 4.5%
65+ 23.7% 23.4% 19.0% 18.8% 17.1% 14.6% 10.0%
Total 11.3% 8.6% 7.1% 5.6% 5.0% 4.2% 3.0%
once per month
137379
Marketers would do well to realize that by sheer numbers, the
online video audience does not skew particularly young. In
fact, according to ongoing research from Nielsen, exactly 50%
of internet video viewers in Q1 2012 were between the ages of
35 and 65, with an additional 10% over 65.
That demographic breakdown is useful when deciding which
products to advertise with video online and what kind of
creative might work best for online video advertising.
However, the mobile video audience does range younger, with
53% between 18 and 34, and an additional 12% ages 12 to 17.
% of total
US Video Audience Composition, by Age, Q1 2012
12-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-65
On traditional TV 5% 7% 12% 21% 25%
On the internet 6% 9% 17% 27% 23%
On mobile phones
2-11
10%
7%
- 12% 23% 30% 24% 10%
65+
19%
10%
2%
Note: based on total users for each medium; numbers may not add up to
100% due to rounding; *ages 13+
Source: Nielsen, "State of the Media: The Cross-Platform Report Q1 2012,"
Sep 11, 2012
145608
Therefore, marketers would also do well not to conflate the
online and mobile portions of their digital video campaigns,
since the audiences often differ.
Audience Time Data
Even though online video viewers may not be as young as
common wisdom would tell you, younger viewers do spend
more time with video. Ongoing research from Nielsen found
that in Q1 2012, the average internet viewer spent 5 hours and
24 minutes per month watching videos on the internet.
However, only the 18-to-24 and 25-to-34 age groups watched
substantially more online video than average, at 9:38 and 7:09
per month, respectively.
Mobile viewers skewed even younger, with only the 13-to-17 and
18-to-24 age groups watching more video than the 5 hours and
1 minute per month average.
hrs:mins
Monthly Time Spent Using Select TV/Video Media or
the Internet Among US Consumers, by Age, Q1 2012
2-11
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Total
-
7:47***
7:35
4:53
4:41
4:27
3:28
5:01
Note: based on total users for each medium; *only homes with DVRs;
**all TV homes; ***ages 13+
Sep 11, 2012
Traditional TV
Using the internet on a computer
Watching timeshifted TV*
Watching timeshifted TV**
Watching video on internet
Mobile subscribers
watching video on a
mobile phone
110:23
101:06
117:44
136:28
159:03
195:08
220:22
155:46
5:21
10:21
31:31
37:07
36:08
34:41
25:08
30:05
17:53
15:32
18:27
30:46
31:19
32:16
25:59
26:24
8:57
7:14
7:44
15:18
15:58
14:48
8:42
12:09
2:07
3:30
9:38
7:09
5:49
4:39
2:41
5:24
145598
It’s essential to note, though, that overall in Q1 2012, US
consumers spent about 15 times as many hours per month
watching traditional TV than watching video on the internet
and mobile combined. In another study, in January 2012 from
Horowitz Associates, the audience spent nearly 24 times as
many hours watching broadcast and cable TV than they did
watching video on a computer or handheld device.
Nevertheless, the year-over-year growth rate for internet video
viewing jumped by 18.68%, while traditional TV viewing time
dropped by 1.9% in the Nielsen study. While that doesn’t mean
digital video time will outpace TV time anytime soon, it does
point to a narrowing time gap between the channels.
hrs:mins and % change
Monthly Time US Consumers Used Select Media,
Q1 2011, Q4 2011 & Q1 2012
On traditional TV
Using the internet on
a computer
Watching timeshifted TV*
Watching timeshifted TV**
Watching video on internet
Mobile subscribers
watching video on a
mobile phone***
Q1
2011
158:47
25:33
26:14
10:46
4:33
4:50
Q4
2011
153:19
28:55
26:10
11:44
5:15
4:54
Q1
2012
155:46
30:05
26:24
12:09
5:24
5:01
% change
vs. prior
quarter
1.60%
4.03%
0.89%
3.55%
2.86%
2.38%
% change
vs. same
period of
prior year
-1.90%
17.74%
0.64%
12.85%
18.68%
3.79%
Note: based on total users for each medium; ages 2+; *only homes with
DVRs; **all TV homes; ***ages 13+
Sep 11, 2012
147126
Further time-spent data for Q1 2012 from the Nielsen study found:
■■ On average, males spent 5:58 watching video on the
internet per month vs. females at 4:54.

■■ For any given age group, males watched more than females.
■■ Mobile video was another story, with females watching 5:21
per month vs. 4:44 for males.
■■ At 9:58 per month, Asians watched more online than blacks
(7:05), Hispanics (6:22) or whites (4:47).
■■ However, the four race/ethnicity groups all watched video for
about the same amount of time on mobile phones, ranging
from 4:51 per month for whites to 5:17 for Hispanics.
The reasons ad-supported online video echoes TV advertising
can be seen in audience habits and what they’ll put up with
over time. For online video in general, only 1.5% of the time
was spent watching advertising in March 2012. But when the
online video was long-form TV content, the audience spent
7.9% of their time watching ads.
% of total
Share of Time Spent Watching Online Video Content
vs. Ads by US Online Video Viewers, March 2012
Note: read chart as 98.5% of total time spent watching online video was
spent watching content and 1.5% watching ads
Source: comScore Inc., "Surviving the Upfronts in a Cross-Media World:
An Actionable Guide for Success," June 5, 2012
Online video Long-form video programming
Content
98.5%
Ads
1.5%
TV content
92.1%
Ads
7.9%
141480
Frequency is another way of looking at time and video.Using
self-reported data only,AYTM Market Research found that 50.5%
of US internet users said in October 2012 that they watched online
videos a few times per week (23.3%) or more often (27.5%).
% of respondents
Frequency with Which US Internet Users Watch
Online Videos, Oct 2012
Every day
27.5%
A few times
per week
23.3%
About
once
per week
9.8%
A few times
per month
9.5%
Rarely
20.8%
Never
9.3%
Source: AYTM Market Research as cited in company blog, Oct 12, 2012
146471
Of course, many of these videos may not be generally useful
for marketers, either because they’re too short or because of
the nature or unknown qualities of their content.
Two others sources show different video usage patterns for
mobile than the AYTM data focused on online in general.
■■ In a March 2012 study from Google, 46% of smartphone
owners said they watched videos either weekly or daily.
■■ Among US tablet users, 28.4% of users in April 2012
viewed video at least once each week, according to
comScore MobiLens.
■■ Among smartphone users in the comScore study, only
9.6% reported a once-or-more-per-week frequency for
video viewing.
Popular Viewing Destinations
Just as about 75% of net search ad spending flows to Google,
approximately 75% of visitors to video destinations go to
Google’s YouTube division. In contrast, according to September
2012 data from Experian Hitwise, other video websites had
minuscule shares of visits.
Top 10 Video Multimedia Websites Among US Internet
Users, Ranked by Market Share of Visits, Sep 2012
1. YouTube
76.8%
2. AOL Video
3.4%
3. Bing Videos
3.2%
4. Hulu
1.8%
5. Yahoo! Screen
1.5%
6. Yahoo! Video
1.2%
7. Apple iPod and iTunes
0.9%
8. Dailymotion
0.8%
9. GodVine
0.6%
10. Vimeo
0.4%
Source: Experian Hitwise as cited by MarketingCharts, Oct 4, 2012
146247
YouTube’s dominance as a video destination is not just in
number of viewers, but also in videos streamed and average
time per viewer, as exemplified in this September 2012 data
from comScore:

Top 10 Online Video Properties Among US Internet
Users, Ranked by Unique Viewers, Sep 2012
1. Google sites
2. Yahoo! sites
3. AOL
4. VEVO
5. Facebook
6. Grab Media, Inc.
7. Viacom Digital
8. NDN
9. Microsoft sites
10. Amazon sites
Total
Unique
viewers
(millions)
150.3
57.4
53.8
50.3
46.4
41.0
40.9
40.5
36.7
31.2
181.4
Videos*
(millions)
13,123.2
498.5
741.3
569.8
233.2
267.1
362.1
422.9
376.5
106.8
39,355.9
Average time
per viewer
(minutes)
419.1
49.1
39.4
38.7
13.6
44.2
44.1
75.1
42.0
12.8
1,399.0
Note: home and work locations; content videos only; for long-form content
(e.g., TV episodes with ads in the middle) each segment is counted as a
distinct video stream; video views are inclusive of both user-initiated and
auto-played videos that are viewed for longer than 3 seconds; *a video is
defined as any streamed segment of audiovisual content (both progressive
downloads and live streams)
Source: comScore Video Metrix as cited in press release, Oct 29, 2012
147152
However,YouTube’s preeminence does not extend to advertising,
where further comScore data for the same period shows Hulu at
51.0 ads per viewer, vs. only 19.6 for YouTube.Those figures point
to how the majority of video advertisers—mainly major brands—
still prefer TV-originated content for their campaigns.
Top 10 Online Video Properties Among US Internet
Users, Ranked by Ads Viewed, Sep 2012
1. Google sites
2. BrightRoll*
3. Hulu
4. LIVERAIL.com*
5. Adap.tv**
6. Specific Media*
7. Tremor Video*
8. Auditude*
9. TubeMogul Video
Ad Platform*
10. SpotXchange Video
Ad Marketplace**
Total
Video ads
(millions)
1,760.6
1,354.4
1,170.0
1,153.9
1,036.9
787.0
758.6
744.1
539.3
528.3
9,436.2
Total ad
minutes
(millions)
142
681
456
552
530
326
360
190
244
287
3,377
Ads per
viewer
19.6
10.2
51.0
12.3
10.8
6.8
11.8
13.1
7.4
9.5
60.2
%
reach
29.2%
43.2%
7.5%
30.6%
31.3%
37.7%
20.9%
18.5%
23.8%
18.0%
51.0%
Note: home and work locations; includes streaming video advertising only;
excludes other types of monetization such as overlays, branded players,
matching banner ads, etc.; *video ad network; **video ad exchange
Source: comScore Video Metrix as cited in press release, Oct 29, 2012
147153
Netflix is another key video destination. However, the video
audience’s increased viewing of TV content on Netflix challenges
digital ad-supported video.A Nielsen study reported that TV’s
share of Netflix streaming rose from 11% to 19% between 2011
and 2012.
% of respondents
Type of Online Video US Netflix Users Stream Most
Often on Netflix, 2011 & 2012
2011
53% 11% 36%
2012
47% 19% 35%
Movies TV Movies and TV equally
Note: read as saying 19% of Netflix users said they view TV shows more
often while streaming content via Netflix; numbers may not add up to
100% due to rounding
Source: Nielsen as cited in company blog, July 12, 2012
142880
For more about over-the-top video and other elements of
connected TV, stay tuned for an upcoming eMarketer report.
Devices Used To Watch Video
Depending on how viewing is defined,today’s video audience
watches content on anywhere from three to six screens.From the
three-screen perspective,that’s simplyTV,computer and mobile.
However, it’s more accurate for marketers to work with clearer
distinctions among six screens, since each device affects
who the audience is, how they react and, therefore, which
advertising might be most effective. The screens are:
■■ Traditional TV, including broadcast and cable
■■ Connected TV, on a big screen but internet-sourced
■■ Desktop computer
■■ Laptop computer
■■ Smartphone
■■ Tablet
Research from the Consumer Electronics Association, which
combines traditional and connected TV (even though the sources
for content differ), found that while the largest share of internet
users (66%) in March 2012 watched video on HDTVs, nearly as
many watched on laptops.As might be expected because of their
small screens (smartphones) and relatively low adoption rate
(tablets), mobile devices were the least used.

% of respondents
Devices US Internet Users Use to Watch Video,
March 2012
HDTV 66%
Laptop 62%
Desktop 55%
Smartphone 33%
Tablet 17%
Source: Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), "The Evolving Video
Landscape" as cited in press release, May 14, 2012
140405
Smartphones also lend themselves to shorter online video
content than, say, desktop computers or connected TV. Note
the following details in a Q1 2012 report from Ooyala, a
cross-channel video analytics and publishing company:
■■ The largest shares of short videos, 1 to 3 minutes long, were
viewed on smartphones (28.6%) and tablets (24.4%).
■■ Long videos, 10 or more minutes in length, were mainly
viewed on connected TVs (88.5%) and, to a lesser extent,
desktop computers (53.9%).
■■ Each of the four screens had much lower shares for extremely
short videos less than 1 minute long and mid-length videos
6 to 10 minutes long. In both cases, that’s likely because videos
of that length are far less common than short (1 to 3 minutes)
or long videos.
% of total
Share of Time Spent Watching Online Videos
Worldwide, by Video Length and Device, Q1 2012
<1 minute
1-3 minutes
3-6 minutes
6-10 minutes
10+ minutes
Note: numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Ooyala, "Global Video Index Report Q1 2012," May 30, 2012
Desktop
4.4% 19.4% 53.9%15.2% 7.1%
Mobile
28.6% 17.7%4.1% 8.4% 41.1%
Tablet
46.0%4.1% 24.4% 16.9% 8.5%
Connected-TV devices and game consoles
0.3%
5.1% 88.5%
2.6% 3.4%
141138
Much digital video, most especially ad-supported content,
still comes from the television industry. A June 2012 survey
from Interpret, commissioned by Discovery Communications,
found that:
■■ Content coming through a cable or satellite box viewed on a
television was still how 79% of internet users watched TV.
■■ Slightly more internet users streamed TV content to their
TVs through some kind of internet-connected device (48%)
than through a network website on their computer (42%).
■■ Only 29% of respondents streamed TV content through a
mobile device, with 16% doing so on a tablet and 14% on
a smartphone.
% of respondents
Methods Used by US Internet Users to Watch
TV Content, June 2012
Through a cable/satellite box 79%
Through your cable box 72%
Through your cable provider's video on demand service 43%
Streaming through a computer 56%
Through a network's website on your laptop or desktop computer 42%
Through an aggregate streaming website on your laptop or
desktop computer
36%
Streaming through an internet-connected device 48%
Through a streaming service app on your gaming console
connected to your TV
30%
Through a streaming service app on your internet-enabled
set-top box or Blu-ray disc player connected to your TV
19%
Through a streaming service app on your internet-enabled TV 12%
Streaming through mobile device 29%
Through a streaming service app on your tablet computer 16%
Through a streaming service app on your smartphone 14%
Note: n=1,170 TV owners ages 18-49 who own at least one other device
capable of streaming TV content; in the past month
Source: Interpret, "The Evolution of TV Everywhere" commissioned by
Discovery Communications, Oct 3, 2012
146239
While there is still a tendency to lump together smartphones
and tablets as mobile devices, people use them very
differently for video consumption. In a study from the IAB
released in July 2012, only 8% of mobile users said they
preferred smartphones for watching TV and video, vs. 68%
who expressed the same preference with tablets.
But for marketers—especially brands looking to reach large
audiences with video advertising—further perspective is
needed. Research from MAGNAGLOBAL found that in 2012,
US consumers own 337.1 million mobile phones, while only
37.2 million own tablets. And while some of these millions of
mobile phones might be basic devices, likely the vast majority
when used for video consumption are smartphones.

Conclusions
When creating digital campaigns, marketers do better
when they start with a comprehensive overview of the
four basic benchmarks of video advertising: ad metrics,
types of ads, spending trends and audience size.
To analyze the value of the various video ad metrics,
remember this: The results aggregated from a range of
other campaigns are imperfect yardsticks, guidelines but not
absolute rules. Too many variables influence metrics to make
others’ results a clean takeaway. Take clickthrough rates, for
example, where several other factors, such as the advertising
creative, will also influence whether or not the audience clicks.
Of the three main types of video advertising,
advertisers will use in-stream video ads the most. Brand
marketers, in particular, prefer in-stream ads—pre-roll, mid-roll
and post-roll—since they are analogous to TV commercials.
Furthermore, most of the ad inventory available within online
TV shows is in-stream. However, in-banner ads, which do not
require video content to run, can be a useful supplement for a
brand’s larger efforts.
Even though video ad spending growth is higher
than for any other digital format, it still represents a
relatively small portion of overall interactive spending.
Note, though, that even as mobile video advertising becomes
more important, spending on computer-based video
advertising will still dominate for years to come.
The audience for video content is increasing steadily—
both in number of viewers and in the amount of
time they spend watching digital video. Two seemingly
opposite trends to note: The age of the video audience
does not skew to the young only, as first impressions might
have you believe. So video advertising should also address
the audience ages 35 to 65. However, when the audience
is measured by time spent watching video, the younger
demographic watches considerably more video than average.
Related Links
Adap.TV
AdoTube
Association of National Advertisers
AYTM Market Research
BrightRoll
comScore
Consumer Electronics Association
Digiday
Discovery Communications
Experian Hitwise
FreeWheel
InsightExpress
Interpret
MAGNAGLOBAL
MediaBrix
Nielsen
Ooyala
Prosper Mobile Insights
STRATA
VideoHub
Videology
Vindico
YuMe
Editorial and
Production Contributors
Nicole Perrin Associate Editorial Director
Cliff Annicelli Senior Copy Editor
Emily Adler Copy Editor
Dana Hill Director of Production
Joanne DiCamillo Senior Production Artist
Stephanie Gehrsitz Production Artist
Allie Smith Director of Charts

The world’s go-to source for information on
digital marketing, media and commerce.
In the fast-paced digital world, it is neither prudent nor professional to
make business decisions based solely on a single source. eMarketer helps
companies minimize risk and maximize opportunity by providing…
COLLECTIVE WISDOM
COVERAGE
See all aspects of what is happening today in digital marketing, media
and commerce.
COLLECTION
Information is gathered from thousands of research sources around the globe
and hundreds of interviews with industry professionals a month.
CURATION
eMarketer sifts through the clutter, vets data for accuracy and distills information
to its essential intelligence – to save you time.
COMPARISON
Side-by-side source comparison charts display all relevant information on a
topic in one place.
CONTEXT
Focused, clear and concise, eMarketer reports provide a quick, complete picture
of fast-changing digital trends to make sense of complex issues.
CONVENIENCE
The information you need is accessible 24/7 from your PC, laptop, tablet or
smartphone—and downloadable in PDF, Excel, JPEG or PowerPoint formats.
CONFIDENCE
For 15 years, eMarketer has been recognized as the standard for media coverage
of the digital world—cited more than 4,000 times in the New York Times and
Wall Street Journal alone—and relied on by major brands and advertising
agencies around the globe.
COMPETITIVENESS
No one in business wants to be surprised, so see the trends coming and make
certain your organization always has the latest, most accurate and comprehensive
digital information available—with an eMarketer Corporate Subscription.
To schedule a conversation or customized
demonstration, go to eMarketer.com or call 212-763-6010

E marketer video_advertising_benchmarks-key_data_trends_and_metrics

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (11)

Destaque

Destaque (13)

Semelhante a E marketer video_advertising_benchmarks-key_data_trends_and_metrics

Semelhante a E marketer video_advertising_benchmarks-key_data_trends_and_metrics (20)

Mais de AdCMO

Mais de AdCMO (20)

E marketer video_advertising_benchmarks-key_data_trends_and_metrics