How people read content in their newsfeed.

1. AJ MATHEW, VP RESEARCH, KARGO
FEEDVS. READIMPACTS OF SCROLL VELOCITY

2. ABSTRACT
The digital ecosystem brings speed and convenience to consumers’ lives and enables
advertisers to promote products and services to them across a variety of platforms. The
growing digital, and more specifically mobile, ad industry has to adapt to these new
distribution channels with an eye on how these environments impact ad effectiveness.
Today, advertisers face challenges that were not necessarily issues in the days of traditional
media. For example, in TV or print advertising an advertiser had to worry about their ad
within that one medium, reducing the variables to consider. In the mobile world, advertisers
face many variables—multiple operating systems, platforms and distribution channels—
that can impact the delivery, attention, and effectiveness of their marketing efforts. Add
to those challenges the varying mindsets consumers bring to specific mobile activities
across these environments, and we have to ask—how does it all impact ad performance?
TELEVISION
DESKTOP
DESKTOPTELEVISION FIA ANR AMP SNAPCHAT APP 3 MOBILE SITE APP 2 APP 1
APPLE
WATCH
MOBILETABLET
MOBILE SITE APP 2 APP 1
MOBILE
APP 3
ANDROID IPHONE

3. BACKGROUND
Smartphones are highly task-oriented devices—users engage with them via specific platforms
to pursue specific activities. It’s likely these mobile environments impact ad engagement and
effectiveness. Users’ mindsets and intentions within specific environments can influence whether
an ad was given any attention or remembered. Therefore, behavioral and attitudinal measures
were utilized to determine the level of visibility, attention, and effectiveness of ads within editorial,
social, and search environments to help answer the following:
1. How visible are ads in these different environments?
2. How many ads are actually seen by the human eye in each environment?
3. How well are ads in these environments remembered?
METHODOLOGY
Partnering with Nielsen, 100 smartphone users were recruited to experience premium
editorial, social, and search content in a live in-market test. Each participant was given 10
minutes within each environment to experience the content as they normally would in a
use session. Eye tracking and post-exposure survey tools were used at Nielsen’s Media Lab
facility at Television City in Las Vegas, NV.
Testing/Analysis Summary
Devices: Participants’ personal smartphones: iOS & Android sample representative of the US
mobile population1
Premium Editorial Content: A single publisher’s mobile website (same publisher for all, freedom
to explore at participants’ leisure)
Social: Participant’s own social media feeds
Search: Cued search categories, freedom to explore at participants’ leisure
Analysis: Findings are based on 90% statistical significance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
> Significantly more fully-visible ads appear in long-term reading environments than in
social feeds.
Editorial remains the visibility leader as time progresses. More fully-visible ads remain
on screen over time, while significantly less of them stay on screen in social during
the same time span.
Fully visible ads are visible in editorial content for an average of 44 seconds, compared to
6 seconds in search, and 3 seconds in social.
Overall ad recall is competitive among all tested environments, however brands in editorial
in-article ad units are remembered significantly more than those in social.
Time viewed and ad recall suggest that editorial is the most efficient environment for
media investment on mobile, with ads needing much less view time to be remembered.

4. USAGE ATTENTION
Consumers state that they are using all three environments for expected purposes:
Editorial is used most to catch up on current events and learn about breaking news
Social is used to learn different perspectives on news and to kill time
Search is used to look up information and discover new products
In our results, we saw a notable distinction in how younger and older demographics
use social for seeking out different perspectives on news stories—67% of 18-34 year
olds vs. 33% of 35-54 year olds. That latter percentage aligns more closely with how
all ages use editorial and search for the same purpose.
VISIBILITY
Ad visibility tells us if consumers had the opportunity to see an ad. In this study eye tracking tools
provided the opportunity to measure what was on each smartphone screen and for how long.
ANY VISIBILITY VS. FULL VISIBILITY
All three environments succeeded in displaying at least partially visible ads for at least a
second. This means that only some of the ad is on screen and not necessarily key parts
like messaging and branding. Therefore, our focus remained on “fully visible” ads. An ad
being fully visible on screen assures that a consumer had the ability to see all branding,
imagery and messaging.
When evaluating ads that were 100% visible on screen, differences emerged. Editorial was
more successful in displaying fully-visible ads, with nearly all (96%) ads being 100% on-screen.
Meanwhile almost 4 out of 5 ads on social and 9 out of 10 on search were fully visible.
EDITORIAL (A)
To catch up on current events
SOCIAL (B) SEARCH (C)
70% BC
69% BC
33%
2%
5%
47%
35%
21%
14% A
A
B
32%
To learn about breaking news
To hear different perspectives
on news stories
To look up information
about products or brands
To discover new
products or brands
To kill time when bored
93% AB
67% AB
54%
54%
43%85% AC
50% AC35%
18-34 y.o.
35-54 y.o.
67%
33%

5. IMPACTS OF SCROLL VELOCITY
Time is, of course, important for marketers to communicate their message to consumers.
Differences between ads in each environment become more apparent as we evaluate
visibility based on time. Significant differences emerged between fully-visible ads in
each environment that are present for 1+ seconds and 2+ seconds. Fully-visible ads
in editorial maintain visibility, with 92% and 82% of ads being fully visible for 1+ and
2+ seconds, respectively. Ads in social experience a significant visibility drop off, with
only 44% of ads fully visible for 1+ seconds, and less than a third (32%) visible for
2+ seconds. These findings reflect the differences in consumer scroll speeds between
editorial content and social feeds.
TIME IN VIEW
The scroll velocity factor of these environments not only results in different volumes
of full ads on-screen, but also the length of time that ads are visible. Ads in editorial
are at least partially visible for an average of 37 seconds. Ads that are fully visible in
editorial are on screen for an average of 44 seconds. There are significant differences
when compared to ads in social and search.
98%
99%
98%
67%
32%
82%
VISIBLE
1+ SEC
FULLY VISIBLE FULLY VISIBLE
1+ SEC
FULLY VISIBLE
2+ SEC
Statistical difference with editorial at 90% CISEARCHEDITORIAL SOCIAL
EDITORIAL
VISIBILE FULLY VISIBLE
SOCIAL SEARCH
AVERAGESECONDS
EDITORIAL SOCIAL SEARCH
37
10
9
44
3
6

6. AD VIEWS
Once an ad is visible, we must determine if it was seen by human eyes. Eye tracking tools
provided data to demonstrate the varying levels of visual attention that ads received within
the tested environments. There are distinct variables that impact natural visual attention.
People visit editorial sites to consume journalistic content. Ads there are surrounded by the
sought-after content, which occupies visual attention and makes it easier to consciously
ignore them. Contrarily, ads within social feeds are not only blend in with a user’s regular feed,
but they also take up much of the screen space, and in some cases, extend beyond the screen
borders. Therefore, it’s nearly impossible for a user’s eyes to miss the ad. Search is based on
a user actively looking for something, so their eyes will naturally skim through the search
results—and the ads seamlessly integrated within them.
This is clearly observed in the eye-tracking data for ads that were actually viewed. Nearly
three-quarters of ads in editorial were seen, significantly less than ads in social and search.
99%
SOCIAL
72%
EDITORIAL
93%
SEARCH

7. MEMORY
The field of psychology outlines for media researchers how memory works. There are three
mental processes involved—encoding information, storing it and retrieving it. These are
measured through recognition, cued recall and free recall.2
Free recall, or cognitive retrieval, is the strongest measure of memory since it includes all
three processes. It works without any cues to the participant, and is where brands strive
to land—with their messages retrievable by stored information and remembered without
any assistance.
There was an exception, however. In a 2015 study by Kargo and Media Science, adhesion ad
units—those that appear and stay at the bottom of the screen as users scroll down the page—
received significantly lower visual attention compared to in-article units—those that appear
within the flow of editorial content. In addition, in-article ads received the lowest biometric
response among other tested ad units in editorial—indicative of a better user experience.3
RECOGNITION CUED RECALL FREE RECALL
ENCODING STORAGE RETRIEVAL
Overall, significantly more ads in search
were recalled than in editorial or social—an
expected outcome given that ads in search
are delivered based on a user’s explicit
search terms, creating a strong association
between sought-after information and
branded messaging (cognitive storage
phase of memory).
38%
63%
% LOOKED
ADHESION IN-ARTICLE
1.64
3.13
TIME LOOKED (SEC)
2.67
4.17
# OF FIXATIONS
3.45
4.23
# OF REVISITS
EDITORIAL (A) SOCIAL (B) SEARCH (C)
3%
2%
5% AB
OVERALL AD RECALL
Letters indicate significant difference at 90% confidence
ADHESION IN-ARTICLE ADHESION IN-ARTICLE ADHESION IN-ARTICLE

8. When isolating editorial in-article units
for recall in the current study analysis,
there was significantly higher recall for
ads in social, and alignment with recall
for ads in search.
EFFICIENCY
Previous research shows that viewers spend roughly 3 seconds viewing an ad.4
By analyzing
both the time an ad was viewed, and its ability to be remembered, we can evaluate the
level of efficiency of different environments. The editorial environment proves to be very
efficient compared to social and search, requiring much less time to pass a message to
users. Editorial averaged 1.6 seconds for ads that were successfully recalled, compared to
nearly 11 seconds for social and 2.8 seconds for search.
EDITORIAL
IN-ARTICLE(A)
SOCIAL (B) SEARCH (C)
6%
2%
5%
AD RECALL (EDITORIAL IN-ARTICLE)
Letters indicate significant difference at 90% confidence
ADVERTISING PERCEPTIONS
Environments effect the perceptions of brands that advertise within them. In this study,
brands that advertise in editorial environments are perceived as reliable, high quality,
intelligent, and trustworthy. Meanwhile, brands advertising in social are associated with
being fun, youthful and cool.
ADRECALL(EDITORIALIN-ARTICLE)
10.7sSOCIAL
2.8sSEARCH
1.6sEDITORIAL

9. CONCLUSION
Editorial ad environments provide an exceptional value to marketers. As seen in comScore’s
2016 study on the halo effect of premium publishers, “the overall effectiveness of an ad is the
combined effect of its increased likelihood of being seen and the value of its surrounding
context…ads appearing on premium publishers were significantly more effective in driving
brand lift. While some of this effect was due to higher ad viewability on premium sites, the
more significant driver was the halo effect of appearing on these sites.”5
The visibility, or average length of time on screen, for ads in editorial helps brands
communicate their message. These premium environments prove to deliver not only longer
visibility times, but also the greatest efficiency when it comes to recall. It takes consumers
less view time to remember ads delivered in editorial than it does in social or search.
Millward Brown Digital’s research showing that viewers spend roughly 3 seconds
viewing an ad (Millward Brown Digital Eye Tracking Norms, 2012), aligns with findings
from research by Kargo and MediaScience (Captivate vs. Aggravate, 2016). With Feed
vs. Read, we have learned that editorial has a higher percentages of ads being fully
visible for over 2 seconds after inception and that it takes less than 2 seconds of view
time to recall ads in that environment—all substantiating the value of advertising in
premium editorial.
1
comScore: Mobile Metrix, 2016
2
MediaScience, 2008
3
Kargo MediaScience: Captivate vs. Aggravate, 2016
4 Millward Brown Digital: Eye Tracking Norms, 2012
5 comScore: “The Halo Effect: How Advertising on Premium Publishers Drives Higher Ad Effectiveness,” 2016
EDITORIAL (A)
Reliable
SOCIAL (B) SEARCH (C)
Intelligent
Trustworthy
High Quality
Fun
Youthful
Cool
52% BC
46%
46%
BC
BC
37%
5%
6%
4%
4%
9%
2%
7%
48%
56%
62% AC
AC
AC
B
B
B
18%
12%
6%
15%
21%
2%
10%

10. FOR SMALL SCREENS
BIG IDEAS