Marketers should not pay for unviewed ads from 2018, says AANA
Advertisers should not pay for any ads that are not viewable from January 2018, according to a discussion paper released today by the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA).
And in the meantime, marketers should expect 70% of the ads they buy to be in view. Any less and the “advertiser should seek recompense”, the AANA said.
The recommendations were contained in a paper designed to spark “industry-wide discussion” on viewability and to provide marketers with a guidance on how to address viewability issues.
“Ad viewability was identified as a key issue for AANA members, their ambition to have a clear understanding of what is driving outcomes in digital campaigns,” said Anneliese Douglass, AANA chair of the media reference group and Unilever’s ANZ head of media and PR. “This paper also seeks to inform marketers about viewability and to equip them to take forward a conversation with their media partners.”
The paper sets out a timetable that in 14 months time, advertisers should only pay for ads that are viewable.
So, the AANA suggest that marketers not pay for non-viewable ads while the IAB are still writing white-papers to clarify what viewability means to the industry.
Hooray for digital industry leadership.
It would be good to see this paper. Is that 70% of all MRC standard impressions or is that all impressions? Who says 70% is the right number? With differing technologies and methodologies across the 3rd party vendors whose viewable % should the market accept?.
No doubt we should be having this discussion and good on them and the iab for getting started.
I have read it. It reads less like a discussion paper by well informed digital execs and more like a sentimental plea from people well out of their depth.
I hope the advertisers who penned this cute little paper are prepared to pay many times more than now for high viewability.
With a current Australian average of 49.3% viewability, inventory volumes above 70% viewability even is extremely low let alone 100% in-view. Reducing the supply of inventory available by decreeing to only purchase guaranteed in-view will dramatically drive up rates for everyone.
Nice in theory, but likely to have a lot of unintended consequences. This will make CPM ad sales pretty unattractive for many publishers.
If you want to get paid, you will need to ensure your audience can’t scroll past ads before minimum viewability time occurs.
Given that mobile is already more than 50% of audience traffic for many publisher sites, a lot of publishers will be likely to respond with obnoxious uncloseable popup interstitial ad positions for mobile readers.
I would happily prefer to pay 50% lower rates for 75% viewable. It’s more efficient.
so many factors here that make it unworkable
are clients going to create super lean ads that load immediately on mobile?
are publishers going to go back to using pagination to jam ads on screen that load before content?
Are publishers going to limit external server calls so as not to slow ad loading.
will everyone be happy using less trackers?
can we create a system that will load lighter ads in limited mobile reception that is actually robust.
this seems more of a punishment rather than trying to solve the problem. If marketers want 100% viewability I guess they can throw more money in newspapers and outdoor but are they in the audience influencing business or the viewability one (and yes I know an ad must be seen to have impact)
“in an ideal world all ads would be viewable” I don’t agree with this.
In an ideal world all print ads would be full page adverts?
The definition is opportunity to see. Inventory is priced accordingly.
Ever heard of a bottom leader board?
Dirt cheap, less likely to be seen. People are happy to buy it.
Steve, your headline is misleading.
“Marketers should not pay for UNVIEWED ads from 2018, says AANA.”
I think you will find that they were referring to UNVIEWABLE ads. There is a world of difference between the two, as people like Ricky Bobby understand.
If an ad is unviewed then (typically) it is a creative (or brand) problem.