Category results for "Industry-Research"

Industry Research

European consumers demand better online video advertising experiences

September 13, 2016 Research Team

Nine out of 10 (92%) European consumers think that changes need to be made to current online video advertising in order to improve the viewer experience, according to a new survey of 4,000 consumers in the UK, France and Germany, which was commissioned by online video solutions provider, Brightcove Inc.

According to the report, The Ad-Verse Consumer: European Video Advertising Tolerances in a Digital Age, when asked to pinpoint their specific objections to video advertising, consumers cited irrelevancy, volume and poor delivery – with 67% choosing to stop watching their selected content as a result of one of these issues.

The majority (82%) of respondents claimed to know what an ad blocker is and more than half of the consumers surveyed (51%) said they have downloaded, used or are currently using an ad blocker, with 23% reporting that they are contemplating using one. The top reasons given by those who had downloaded an ad blocker were that ads are too long (56%), not targeted and irrelevant (45%), and not interactive (20%).

About three-quarters of respondents felt that any online video ad shown on a smartphone or tablet should be no longer than 30 seconds, with this figure edging closer to 45 seconds if the viewing was taking place on a smart TV or laptop.

Other key findings about European consumers’ experience with digital video advertising include:

73% have experienced poor video ad delivery (i.e. buffering, failing to load)
More than half (51%) are frustrated by the number of online video ads
74% have had a negative experience with the content of an online video ad
Over a third (36%) rarely or never see an ad relevant to their personal interests
Two thirds (66%) of surveyed consumers reported that the length of the content that they want to view affects whether they are willing to watch an online ad in order to get it
50% of consumers say that they are not willing to pay for any type of online video content

According to Brightcove’s findings, the good news for publishers is that the majority of consumers said that they understand the necessary trade-off between online ads and free content and — here is the crucial bit — feel that it is fair. This was especially the case in the UK where almost eight in ten consumers (76%) agreed with the ad-supported model.

While this is encouraging, the report points out that “this goodwill will only stretch so far before it snaps,” with many consumers opting to look elsewhere for content rather than tolerate poor ad experiences. Given the growing specter of ad blocking, the findings suggest that publishers need to carefully consider their approach to monetizing online video content or risk losing out on viewers and associated revenue.

Audiences | Industry-Research

Overall magazine audience grows 6.2%

September 7, 2016 DCN

Magazine publications are still growing strong across both print and digital platforms. In fact, in 2015 there were over 7,000 magazines in print, an increase from both five and ten years ago according to the Magazine Media Factbook 2016/17, published by the MPA (The Association of Magazine Media). Just last year, 237 new magazine brands launched. Not only are the number of publications growing but the audience is too. The total gross brand impressions for magazines grew to 1.75 billion across platforms from 1.65 billion in 2014, an increase of 6.2%.

Magazines have a valuable and loyal audience with adults 18+ reading 8.6 magazine issues each month. While the magazine audience skews toward baby boomers and older, the median age at 47.1 years old is similar to users of most traditional media as well as reflective of the U.S. population at 46.8 years old. The digital audience, the core contributor to magazine’s overall multiplatform growth, continues to increase with the total number of adults increasing year-to-year.

Digital magazines have given publishers new ways to experiment with storytelling structures, platforms, formats and revenue streams. Magazines’ digital capabilities are also appealing to a growing audience. Print editions can also be used to offer a unique experience especially for a special edition (e.g. anniversary or a particular event) distinct from what digital magazines can provide. Regardless of platform, magazines must have a distinct brand proposition and identifiable storytelling.

Jens Henneberg Executive Vice President and Editorial Director at Bonnier Publications in the UK comments on the distinct qualities of the print magazine, “Magazines represent the best way to deliver information on paper: they incorporate pictures and graphics in a way that’s more visually engaging than other mediums, while they also use the best printing techniques. This combination of visual and text elements allows magazines to provide the best overview and in-depth knowledge of a topic.” However, the digital platform offers an extension of this format with the ability to include responsive features to interact with the audience and strengthen engagement.

Magazine publishers still face challenges in the marketplace. Google and Facebook, while they drive traffic to digital magazines, also use the content and audience to increase their own ad revenue model. As magazine publishers evaluate the readers experience across their websites, tablet editions and distributed content, they should also assess their extended reach and visibility and audience engagement of their branded experience.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

The deal with disclosure and the ethics of native advertising

September 6, 2016 DCN

When it comes to native advertising, publishers are walking a fine line between reader trust and new revenue streams. For much of the short history of native advertising, publishers and media watchers have been debating about its transparency—or lack thereof—but in late 2015 the FTC weighed in and laid out a number of guidelines for publishers and advertisers to abide by.

According to the FTC, in general, disclosures should be:

in clear and unambiguous language;
as close as possible to the native ads to which they relate;
in a font and color that’s easy to read;
in a shade that stands out against the background;
for video ads, on the screen long enough to be noticed, read, and understood; and
for audio disclosures, read at a cadence that’s easy for consumers to follow and in words consumers will understand

As recently as April, however, AdWeek reported that 70% of Native Advertising did not comply with the FTC’s recommendations. Now Polar has taken a (slightly different) look at “The State of Disclosure.” The report found that 7.5% of native ads still aren’t using any terms to label their sponsored content. Yet, even with the hold outs, the report concludes, “2015’s FTC Guidelines for Native Advertising have influenced the levels and types of disclosure premium publishers are using on native placements.”

Polar found the most commonly used disclosure term is “Sponsored”—and all of its variants—appearing in over 55% of native ads. “Promoted” comes in next. Terms like “Partner” and “Presented By” are less popular than just not disclosing at all.

“Promoted” however is the best performing term, with a 0.19% CTR, compared to “Sponsored” with a 0.16% CTR. Still, there is more to the story. For desktop audiences, the term “Sponsored” marginally outperformed “Promoted” by approximately 26%. On mobile devices “promoted” dramatically outperformed “sponsored” by 105%.

So why aren’t companies hopping on board with “Promoted” if it delivers more clicks? Carla Johnson, an executive level strategist at Type A Communications, says, “I think this is for a couple of reasons. One is that the term ‘sponsored’ is a more commonly used term than ‘promoted’ and companies want to use terms with which people are familiar. It could also be that many companies don’t know the performance difference between the two. The interesting thing about the statistic is what the performance of both would be if they were used in equal volume.”

“This remains a thorny issue for publishers and advertisers alike—see Jon Oliver’s coverage of the topic on his HBO show for a good laugh—and publishers seem to just prefer the ring of ‘sponsored’ to ‘promoted’, even though the differences are indistinguishable,” according to Tim Bourgeois, Executive Editor of ChiefDigitalOfficer.net, and digital strategist at East Coast Catalyst. “Also, while most marketers and agencies are increasingly embracing data-driven tactics, they are also constantly making trade-offs between performance and aesthetics, and this is an example of where aesthetics is winning out, at least for the short term.”

When it comes to disclosure, it isn’t all about terms. Polar found that over 85% of native ad units contained only one disclosure term, but most incorporated two to three design elements—such as shading, a distinct border, or “info icons.” This is where things get murky. Relying on your audience to understand that a slightly grayed out box, or a different color border means that a post is actually a native ad—and not just a design choice—is less than transparent. For those immersed in the world of digital media and marketing these may seem like clear indicators of native content, but to the average reader, they don’t mean much. If these elements are accompanied by a clear “Sponsored” disclosure they can only serve to further call attention to the nature of that content, but without it, they are virtually meaningless.

Even with clear disclosures, audiences seem to still struggle to identify the difference between native ads and editorial content. MediaPost reported that in a Grady College experiment, “Overall, only 17 out of 242 subjects—under 8%—were able to identify native advertising as a paid marketing message in this experiment.” Experimenters “displayed 12 different versions of the ad, with varying types of disclosure labels (“advertising,” “sponsored by,” “brand voice,” and “presented by”), as well as different positions for the disclosure label including at the top, middle, and bottom of the page.”

With results like that, one has to wonder if the only thing left to do is point a giant neon arrow at sponsored posts. But readers’ inability to separate editorial from advertising content also says something else about native advertising—maybe even something good. If the goal of native advertising—and, more widely, content marketing as a whole—is to provide content that is on par with editorial content, then “Mission Accomplished!”

With Folio reporting that “Over two-thirds of magazine publishers leverage their own editorial teams to produce native advertisements, according to a study from FIPP and the Native Advertising Institute” it seems only natural that the quality of the content would make it virtually indistinguishable from the editorial. Whether or not you think that’s ethical depends on your outlook.

If you’re a marketer looking to deliver great native advertising, you’re probably thrilled that your audience can’t tell the difference between your copy and editorial. If you’re a reader, you might not be thrilled that you’re being fed advertising in the guise of editorial.

Here’s what it comes down to: If you’re a publisher you need to clearly mark your native advertising with disclosure terms, not just “design elements,” and continue to strive to make the content as compelling and useful as your editorial. From there it’s incumbent upon audiences to be more discerning—to pay more attention to what they are reading or watching—because unless there is a major sea change in the business of digital content (and audiences’ willingness to pay for it) native advertising is here to stay.

By day, I am the editor of EContent, where I cover the world of digital media and marketing. By night I am a reader and writer of books (including Inside Content Marketing), NPR addict, and avid gardener. Find out more at TheresaCramer.com or @TheresaCramer on Twitter.

Industry-Research

Survey finds newsrooms are monitoring metrics, not acting on them

August 29, 2016 DCN

Nearly all newsrooms monitor digital metrics, but many miss out on opportunities to learn from the data they collect, according to a new survey of news editors and directors by the Engaging News Project at The University of Texas at Austin.

Overall, 87% of news organizations monitor website metrics like page views or unique visitors, according to the survey of 525 editors and directors from U.S. newspapers, television and radio stations and news websites.

“Almost everyone is doing monitoring,” said Talia Stroud, director of the Engaging News Project. But in many newsrooms, that’s where analytics work stops.

Few news editors and directors report using the data they collect to actually help solve newsrooms problems — around audience engagement, page design or revenue development, for example. For the most part, that’s a missed opportunity to draw useful lessons from analytics.

“The part to me that was just so interesting, there’s a use of these metrics, but not the second part, testing, learning,” Stroud said.

Measuring And Learning From Audience Engagement
The Engaging News Project survey asked about two common strategies for improving audience engagement: A/B testing and partnering with researchers.

Television stations are the most likely to employ both strategies. The survey found 55% of television stations partnered with researchers, and 24% used A/B testing.

On the opposite end, just 12% of newspapers partnered with researchers and a meager 5% employed A/B testing. They survey allowed respondents to self-identify the medium, such as newspapers, that was the highest priority for their news organization.

From the report:

“For several of these practices, we think that there’s a lost opportunity. For A/B testing in particular, the use of this practice can help to inform newsroom practices based on audience preferences.

Stroud pointed out that a high percentage of survey respondents, including editors and publishers, couldn’t answer whether or not they were using A/B testing. That suggests to her an opportunity as well as a need for further education.

“There’s a lot of work to be done to show what the benefits are,” Stroud said. Newsroom culture and technology both present hurdles.

The study isn’t a representative sample, Stroud cautions, but as a snapshot of newsroom practices, it’s a useful data point for researchers.

Other Ways Audience Metrics Are Being Used
The survey also asked editors and directors about several common audience engagement practices and found that television stations are most likely to reward performance based on metrics, followed by digital outlets:

Between four and six in ten newsrooms has an audience engagement person on staff. The job titles for that role are anything but consistent, reflecting the gray area in which engagement staff often work. The three most common titles — audience development director, engagement editor, and community editor — make up just 46% of the total.

On the other hand, more than one in ten news organizations surveyed — and 17% of newspaper newsrooms — didn’t report monitoring website metrics at all, perhaps a result of the survey sample, more than half of which were newspapers with fewer than 25,000 weekly circulation.

How Newsrooms And Researchers Can Work Together
Researchers from the Engaging News Project have worked with real newsroom data before, from the influence of clickbait headlines to an analysis of 9 million comments from the New York Times.

Stroud’s advice to newsrooms that aren’t yet working with researchers is to simply reach out, especially if there is a university in your market with a journalism or communications programs. And come prepared with questions your newsroom has, she said. Not every newsroom problem will be of interest to researchers and what researchers are interested in may not solve immediate newsroom problems, but there will likely be a sweet spot in the middle.

“What questions does your newsroom have? Bring those to the table, say ‘What do you think?’” Stroud said.

The full Survey of News Editors and Directors can be found on the Engaging News Project website, along with more of the team’s news audience engagement research.

Jason Alcorn (@jasonalcorn) is the Metrics Editor for MediaShift. In addition to his work with MediaShift, he is an analyst with the Media Impact Project and works as a consultant with non-profits and newsrooms.

This article was originally posted on MediaShift, the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. Follow MediaShift on Twitter @mediashiftorg, or check them out on Facebook and subscribe to their email newsletters.

Industry-Research | Video

Buying, renting videos by title is not making the leap to digital

August 26, 2016 DCN

“All-access” subscription services are displacing spending on individual movies. According to a study by GfK, the desire to seek out and purchase content purposefully is giving way to a subscription mindset in a digital world. With so much content now available at will via online and subscription video services, ownership and renting of individual titles is becoming increasingly rare.

However, the report, offered as part of GfK’s The Home Technology Monitor™, shows that many consumers continue to prize their DVDs and other physical media, with their “Director’s Cuts,” audio commentaries, and other special features. They find that members of this viewer segment are less likely to add to their video libraries with intangible digital copies, suggesting that marketers need to be more proactive in understanding and reaching out to videophiles.

According to the study, less than half (46%) of consumers say they have ever purchased or rented a digital-only copy of a TV program or movie, compared with 86% who have ever bought or rented a DVD or Blu-ray disc, and 78% for VHS tapes. Among “digital-never” consumers – those who have never bought or rented a digital program or movie – 70% have bought or rented a DVD or Blu-ray disc, and 68% have done the same with a VHS tape.

In the study, at least two thirds of “digital nevers” mentioned the availability of an SVOD service as an important reason for not buying digital copies of individual titles. Key consumer concerns about digital-only formats include difficulty of use, inability to access all content across all devices, and need for an Internet connection to view.

Among those who do rent digital movies, 33% do so monthly, compared with a 60% frequency for those who rented VHS or disc movies in the past. Not only are consumers reporting fewer overall digital transactions, but also less frequency among those who are buying digital video.

The study also shows that, even though 37% of respondents had purchased DVD or Blu-ray discs that included access to a digital-only version of the video, two-thirds of these buyers have never activated the digital content – mostly because they have “no need” for it or are just “not interested.”

GfK’s report, “Physical versus Digital Video: A Tale of Three Media,” is based on interviews with 1,006 consumers on GfK’s KnowledgePanel®, which combines the capabilities of web-based interviewing with robust probability-based samples.

Industry-Research

What news publishers’ risk in social distribution

August 24, 2016 DCN

Traffic from Facebook to some of the top news publishers declined at double-digit rates in the second quarter this year according to SimilarWeb’s quarterly web analytics report. SimilarWeb found that Facebook visits to some media companies were down by as much as 50% compared with first quarter metrics.

While some dispute SimilarWeb’s data, other analytic and measurement companies also noted declines in Facebook’s traffic to news sites. One explanation for this decline is the consumer shift from desktop usage to mobile. SimilarWeb is based on desktop only measurement and does not capture the approximately 1.4 billion mobile users accessing Facebook from a mobile device.

Another reason for Facebook’s decline in distributed traffic is due to Facebook’s announcement earlier this year that it was going to emphasize more posts from a user’s family and friends and no longer highlight articles from mainstream media sites. Facebook’s Zuckerberg announced, “Facebook was built on the idea of connecting people with their friends and family. That is still the driving principle of News Feed today. Our top priority is keeping you connected to the people, places and things you want to be connected to — starting with the people you are friends with on Facebook.”

Facebook’s change in sites ranking algorithms likely impacted traffic to news publishers. The consequences to the Facebook announcement can be seen in July’s ranker. Clearly Facebook’s key goal is to keep users on its site longer. That does not necessarily align with providing quality content from branded news publishers.

Similarly, an article from the Columbia Journalism Review, “Facebook is Eating the World,” clearly identifies the publishers’ predicament: “Now the news is filtered through algorithms and platforms which are opaque and unpredictable.” Publishers are losing control of distribution and increasingly reliant on traffic from social platforms which can be fantastic or deadly to their ad sales business. It’s important for news publishers to build additional businesses and revenues away from distributed platforms. It’s essential for publishers to think in terms of audience engagement measurement rather than scale.

Industry-Research

Local publishers meet consumer expectations

August 17, 2016 Lisa Sealey, SVP Marketing – DCN

Newspaper publishers appear certain that consumers still value local newspapers for their quality and trustworthy content. In fact, four in 10 publishers (40%) report overall confidence in the strength of the newspaper industry compared to other news sources according to the recently released 2016 HubCiti Publishers’ Confidence & Technology Report.

At least 33% of newspaper publishers think that the industry is getting better. What’s contributing to this confidence? For publishers it’s most likely the new digital and social products offer strong opportunities to monetize news content. As for consumers, easy access to engaging content at their fingertips is a sure winner.

Moreover, 41% of respondents stated they prefer a digital version of print content compared to 26% that said they like to search for specific content. In addition, 36% of consumer respondents reported that they mainly receive their local news from TV, and 23% said from online news aggregators.

Digital is a popular consumer access point for newspaper content. Consumers of news reported that they are more likely to view news on a mobile app or website than print. Only one in 10 respondents (8%) stated they are tolerant to watch an ad in order to read an article or watch a video, compared to 28% that would not watch an ad at all. Further, close to two-thirds of respondents (60%) said they would not pay for special digital content.

While subscriptions and advertising are still primary revenue sources for publishers, new monetization streams offer healthy opportunities. Not surprisingly, nine in 10 publisher respondents (87%) ranked print ads and classifieds as very important to revenue generation with subscriptions and website revenues ranking second (74%) and third (64%). Publishers also reported that they plan to see a 50% increase in revenue from both website and mobile app activity in the next 12 months. Almost forty percent of publishers plan to hire new employees for digital service implementations, with 54% planning to also hire a third party firm.

Local publishers are clearly ramping up their digital services and seeking third party relationships to meet market and consumer expectations. In doing so, they are also expanding their local offering to reach smaller and active communities. Experimentation for publishers is key to determine news content that is both engaging to consumers and offers opportunities for monetization.

*Important to note this online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Report: http://hubcitiforms.com/appsites/video/con_tech_report.pdf

Industry-Research | Perspectives

Time for marketers to up their emoji game

August 15, 2016 DCN

Giving your audience what they want, when and how they want it has become the first tenet of effective marketing. But your audience also increasingly craves experiences (even preferring it over discounts, coupons and cash)—a development that turns the pressure up on companies to spark emotive, creative and personal communications that strike a chord.

It’s here that emojis—the fun smileys and pictographs that have become the fabric of how we engage and exchange across social networks and messaging—are bridging the gap, driving new levels of engagement delivered with a distinctly personal touch.

Emojis have evolved into a new, visual language, powering campaigns and communications by a wide range of media companies and brands including Disney, NASCAR, VH1and Warner Bros., to name a few. In fact emojis are so popular that Sony Pictures Animation is targeting an August 2017 release of a movie that brings the entire emoji library to life.

Emojis clearly cover the bases to quality as a new communication medium, which is why it’s critical to understand when and how to use them in campaigns and messaging. Miss a cue and customers could begin to experience what Ad Age calls emoji messaging fatigue.

In this vein, Appboy, a company that offers a customer relationship suite for mobile-first marketers, has released new research that delves into the emoji-as-a-medium phenomenon. In addition to quantifying the use and response to emojis in marketing messages, the research also draws on a survey of 500+ consumers in the U.K. and the U.S. to understand people’s perception of emojis in personal communications.

Predictably, respondents ages 14-24—a population well accustomed to using mobile, messaging and the emojis that have been around since the 1990s—use emojis “more often and frequently than users over the age of 45. But younger audiences aren’t just open to using this medium for messaging among themselves; they also have a more positive perception of brands that use emojis to connect with them directly.

It also comes as no surprise that younger audiences, weaned on SMS, are “more open” to emoji messages that arrive via text messaging than emojis that are delivered by email.

Overall, males are more likely that females to have a negative perception of emoji—no matter how they are delivered. This makes sense if we consider that females are also the biggest users of social media and the biggest fans of communication in all its forms and formats.

This is why Appboy suggests companies might be missing out on the opportunity to communicate with female consumers in a way that is more aligned with their preference for emojis. Despite the fact that females use emojis more than males, nearly 40% recall never receiving an emoji message from a brand. Appboy reads this to mean that “there could be an opportunity for brands to up their emoji game as a third of [all] consumers have never received an emoji message from a brand.”

The data around usage and conversion confirms emoji messaging could be more than a missed opportunity. It may also be the most effective way to personalize communications and campaigns.

A review of over 250 apps and 6 billion push notification and messages that were sent via the Appboy platform from June 2015 to June 2016 shows:

Conversion rates are up 135% year-over-year and have hit “an all time high”
Open rates on emoji messages delivered as push notifications reached 4% on Android in June 2016—068% higher than June 2015. Meantime, open rates on Apple’s IOS have been fluctuating between 1-2%—reaching levels in June 2016 that represent up to 209% uplift over June 2015.
Emoji use in email subject lines may lag behind use in push notification, but emails are seeing higher open rates, increasing 15% year-over-year. But while emojis may be eye-catching their presence in the subject head doesn’t appear to influence actual click through rates.

Connect the dots, and there are plenty of good reasons for companies to get more active—and smarter—about how they use emojis in their messaging and marketing. But the meteoric rise of emoji use and its positive perception among a significant percentage of consumers is no reason to ignore best practice. Emojis may liven up the “conversation” but companies still need to ensure they deliver messages people will appreciate, not dismiss as spam.

Peggy Anne Salz is the Content Marketing Strategist and Chief Analyst of Mobile Groove, a top 50 influential technology site providing custom research to the global mobile industry and consulting to tech startups. She is a frequent contributor to Forbes on the topic of mobile marketing, engagement and apps. Her work also regularly appears in a range of publications from Venture Beat to Harvard Business Review. Peggy is a top 30 Mobile Marketing influencer and a nine-time author based in Europe. Follow her @peggyanne.

Advertising | Industry-Research

Publishers increase mobile investment

August 10, 2016 DCN

Mobile is an ever-increasingly important platform in digital publishing as consumers spend more time on their devices. In fact, three-quarter of publishers (75%) stated they will increase their mobile investment in the next 12 months, reported AOL’s 2016 Publisher Outlook Report, which surveyed 300 publishers in the U.S.

Further, nearly half of the publishers plan on increasing their mobile investment up to 25% more and 10% plan on increasing their investment from 50-100% more in the next 12 months. Publishers also anticipate video ad sales to be the top revenue performer of the year.

Ad blockers, quality creative and quality experiences are top challenges publishers face today, while better audience metrics, interactive and engaging ad units, mobile-first video and faster ad loads offer big opportunities.

Publishers rank their biggest mobile opportunities as:

Better audience metrics – 43%
Interactive, engaging ad units – 43%
Mobile-first video (creative and formatting) – 42%
Faster ad loads – 42%
More mobile web-based content – 42%
Cross-screen tracking and measurement – 40%
Customized / personalized creative – 39%
More app offerings – 38%
Mobile commerce – 38%
Gamification of content – 27%

And rank their primary challenges as:

Ad blockers – 49%
Quality of consumer experience – 44%
Quality of content/creative – 42%
App installations – 38%
Measurement deficits – 31%
Platform and service costs – 30%
Off platform monetization – 30%
Off network traffic / audience – 27%
Lagging advertising spend – 27%
Inadequate revenue/ROI – 24%

Distribution platforms for content have also emerged this year. Companies like Facebook, Apple, Twitter and Snapchat are all trying to attract readers to keep using their platforms while consuming publisher’s content. Over 90% of publishers believe distributed media has had a positive effect; 53% report it’s “extremely positive.” By and large, publishers also said that syndication is vital with approximately 25-50% of their traffic coming via syndication referrals.

More and more publishers are increasingly assessing new and alternative monetization strategies beyond advertising. For now, more than 75% of publishers pursue subscription and ad supported business models. Of those focused on subscriptions, over 75% expect to grow their subscription choices in the next 12 months.

While publishers are still very dependent on advertising revenue, the way of doing business has changed. Seven in 10 publishers (71%) sell inventory via programmatic with many using a private marketplace. Private marketplaces allow publishers to offer their own inventory to buyers in a more transparent and controlled environment. More than half of publishers (56%) depend on at least one private marketplace and 28% use multiple PMPs.

Publishers continue to evolve with the times, building new technologies, developing new revenue sources and even creating internal agencies to develop new creative. Publishers must continue to re-think how people are consuming content, how to deliver it, how it lives across platform and how to monetize it beyond advertising dollars.

Industry-Research | Video

Streaming dominates video content piracy

August 3, 2016 DCN

At least since the Sony Betamax case, content creators and the law have struggled to keep up with the technological advances in piracy. Just this year, HBO hired anti-piracy partner, IP-Echelon, which sent out thousands of copyright warnings for alleged piracy of its popular series “Game of Thrones” to internet service providers. The warnings contained the IP addresses of users suspected of sharing “Thrones” episodes. HBO’s and IP Echelon are still monitoring this situation and consider it critical to their business.

It turns out that online video streaming is now the primary means of pirating video content. In contrast, a decade ago peer-to-peer file sharing via torrent websites was the top method to download pirated video files. New data from the MUSO’s Global Film & TV Piracy Market Insight Report 2016 provides data showing pirate streaming sites had more than 57 billion visits last year. Out of the total 78 billion film and television piracy site visits, 74% of all visits to piracy sites were to those that stream content illegally.

MUSO’s analysis reports on over 14,000 visits to the main global piracy websites from 226 countries. Overall, MUSO tracked 141 billion visits to pirate sites last year. The U.S. tops the list of video pirate visits, representing 12% of total traffic, almost 10 billion visits. France, Germany and the UK are all included in the top 10 countries globally based on total piracy visits.

Torrent site traffic has shown gradual decline for illegal video content consumption. Approximately 17% of the piracy traffic went to torrent sites and direct download sites accounted for 8% of video piracy visits. Users predominately use desktops on both streaming pirate sites and torrent sites, 72% and 77%, respectively. Therefore, mobile piracy remains comparatively small. Interestingly, mobile download registered a slight increase (5%) in visits from the first 6 months to the visits from the last 6 months in 2015. However, the usage of downloads was still relatively low, compared to torrents and streaming traffic. Overall, the piracy environment is engaging in streaming consumption versus content downloading or sharing. However, piracy tactics have not transitioned to mobile at the same pace as other content consumption habits.

Advertising | Industry-Research

Marketers increasingly favor viewability and third-party verification

August 2, 2016 Research Team

The majority of advertisers chose viewabilty as their campaign objective, followed by click thru rate and view thru rate according to a study by data software company Videology. Of all campaigns that ran on the Videology platform in Q2 2016, 43% used viewable rate as an objective KPI. Of those campaigns, 89% chose to measure viewability using the MRC standard (50% of pixels on screen for at least two consecutive seconds) while the additional 11% chose to use their own custom standard for determining if an ad was viewable.

Advertisers continue to emphasize demographic, geographical and behavioral data to target their campaigns. Over half of all campaigns Videology analyzed used behavioral targeting, while TV Viewing accounted for 14%, with advertisers looking to add incremental reach to their TV buys. It is interesting to note that more marketers are emphasizing the need for in-demo delivery of campaigns, a metric originating from the traditional methods of non-programmatic TV buying; Videology has seen a 115% year-over-year increase in the number of campaigns using Nielsen or comScore to measure in-demo targeting success.

Cross-screen advertising saw a 20% year-over-year increase (compared to Q2 2015), with the bulk of the activity consisting of combined PC, mobile, and connected TV placements. Campaigns using PC alone made up just 12%, a fraction of where this was one year ago when they made up a quarter of all placements.