The future of Facebook is Lumen (according to Mark Ritson)

festival of marketing Lumen

The star of this year’s Festival of Marketing, like the star of last year’s Festival of Marketing, was Professor Mark Ritson. His conversation with Steve Hatch of Facebook was as entertaining and sweary as we have come to expect. One particular highlight was this exchange (as reported by Marketing Week):
 

"Keeping with the effectiveness theme, Hatch moved the conversation onto viewability and attention, asking for Ritson’s point of view on the future and how best to measure it. The answer to that, it turns out, is Lumen.


Too right. Totally agree. Mark went on:
 

[Lumen] measurements…found that news media garners the best attention, yet no one seems to know about this data because the news media “doesn’t have a f-ing clue what they’re doing in promoting their advertising.”


He's right to highlight how good ads on newsbrands are - and wrong about how good the newsbrands are at promoting themselves. More and more advertisers are coming round to the view that newsbrands are great at gaining and holding attention, and their inventory is undervalued at the moment. So they must be pretty good at getting the story out. 

But the message we want to get out today is this:  Facebook is f-ing good too.

A brief look at our most recent data for Facebook shows that it is an excellent way of getting people to look at ads. All the subsequent data comes from Lumen’s UK-based desktop eye tracking panel, analysis of 176,000 viewable display ad impressions and 23,000 Facebook in-feed ad impressions, 2016-present.

On average, 30% of viewable in-feed ads get looked at, compared to around 20% for display ads in general – this is very good, though as Mark would point out, not as good as newsbrands. Viewable ads on The Times, for example, have a 54% chance of actually getting looked at.

graph viewable seen.png

Where Facebook distinguishes itself is in how long people look at the ads. Whereas most display ads get viewed for around 1.3 seconds, Facebook ads get an average of 2.1 seconds of attention on average. This is an important threshold to get over: we have noticed that people are far more likely to remember a brand if they look at an ad for more than 2 seconds.

graph average dwell.png

What is driving this success? Normally, we would say that attention to advertising is a function of attention to editorial: the longer you stay on a page and can see an ad, the more likely you are to notice an ad. But that isn’t the case for Facebook, where viewable times are significantly less than the display norm. Ads are usually available to be seen for around 20 seconds on most sites we track; on Facebook it’s just 8 seconds. So ads on Facebook have less time than half the time of most display ads to get noticed, but generate nearly twice as much attention.

viewable time graph.png

The answer probably has more to with three separate by complementary factors: video, targeting and site layout.

Since Facebook’s famous ‘pivot to video’, not only the content but the accompanying advertising has become dominated by video.

I don’t know if this is such a good thing for content, but certainly works for ads. People spend far more time engaging with video advertising than static advertising. Not engaging like a Cinema or TV ad, but more than static banners. On average, if a video display ad gets looked at, it will get looked at for 2.5 seconds, almost double the time length for a static ad. Not a great deal of time, but how much do you really need to say about your catfood to remind people about the TV ad they recently saw for the said catfood? And crucially, this time length breaks the 2 second barrier, meaning that if you have branded your ads properly, people should remember the brand of the ad.

graph multiple.png

(Note: ‘player instream’ data excludes YouTube. We have this data, but do you expect us to give all our data away for free?)

The second ingredient is targeting. People are far more likely to notice and spend time with ads that are relevant to them than ads that are not. Catfood advertising is more interesting to cat owners than the rest of us, and Facebook is very good at knowing whether or not you have a cat. At Lumen we do lots of tests for lots of clients to establish how important this targeting is. The effects differ from category to category, and the results are, of course, proprietary to our clients so I can’t share them here, but believe me: they’re big. So, while Bob Hoffman may lament the pernicious effects of hypertargeting on our creative industries and democratic institutions, he’s wrong to say that it doesn’t work. It’s the fact that it does work that makes it a moral and ethical choice whether or not to use or regulate these technologies.

Finally, the key to Facebook’s success may lie in design. Most of the ads on Facebook are in-feed. On Facebook, the reader’s eye doesn’t have to move from what they are really interested in (the content) to notice the ads. The ads are interspersed at regular intervals and sized to be of equal importance to the content. This also means that big enough to be seen.

If you look below, you will see a typical (anonymised) user session on Facebook. Sure, there’s some attention to the ads in the top right hand corner of the page, but it’s easy to see that most of the attention goes to the feed – and that’s where Facebook puts most of the ads, which gives them the best chance of being noticed. And that’s how you make the big bucks.

facebook hm.png

 So what should we all learn from this:

  • Advertisers should understand that Facebook is a jolly good place to advertise, but not totally sui generis. It’s just another website, albeit a very good one for advertisers.

  • Publishers should learn a thing or two from Facebook about how to layout a page and how to give advertising some space to breathe.

  • And Facebook should understand that it doesn’t matter how many impressions you serve – or even how many viewable impressions – but how much attention you create for advertisers that really drives business success. Viewability is table stakes. Attention is the real deal. 


The Scooby Difference

Scooby.jpg

Advertisers spend a lot of money creating brand characters or licencing the rights to use them in ads. But how much is a character worth? And how much should you be paying to have a celeb in your ads?

This was one of the questions that Ipsos set themselves to answer in launching their new Ipsos:Connect digital pre-testing tool. It helps brands optimise their creative to boost attention, recall and sales. And yes, it now includes Lumen eye tracking as standard.  

To help publicise the new product, we have been doing some digging into the extra attention that ads with well known characters receive.  

Take this example for the Halifax. We would expect a DMPU for a finance brand like this to get around 2 seconds attention. In the tests we ran, it got 7.5 seconds attention, almost 4 times the norm.

Scooby 2.png

The difference is down to Scooby-Doo. The character captures people’s attention quickly and easily, triggering people’s memories of the now-famous TV campaign.

Scooby does the business for Halifax too. The character directs the viewer’s gaze to the logo and key product points in the ad, meaning that the ‘emotional’ side of the ad is directly contributing to the ‘rational’ take out. This isn’t just borrowed interest: this is hardworking advertising.

Advertising go BANG!

unnamed.jpg

Do ‘big’ ads amplify the effect of ‘little’ ads? We were speaking at Ad:Tech Londonwith our friends from Inskin on Wednesday to answer exactly this question.  

Inskin make highly engaging digital ad formats that really get noticed. But does the effect stop there, or does it reverberate throughout the rest of the media plan? We conducted an experiment to understand the effect of starting your campaign with a Big Bang (such as an Inskin ‘Pageskin’), and then following it up with more standard ordnance, such as MPUs.

The results are impressive. Not only do you get a lot of bang for your buck with Pageskins (about 15 times more aggregate attention than standard formats) but you also get a multiplier effect on attention to the subsequent MPUs. People were 39% more likely to notice MPUs if they had been preceded by a Pageskin, and 140% more likely to engage with the subsequent ads for more than a second. You can read about the effects in more detail here.

People are more likely to notice a second ad if they have actually looked at the first one. Digital media planners need to take a leaf out of the TV planners’ playbook, where campaigns are often commenced with a barrage of 30 or 60 second ads, and then followed up with 10 or 15 second cut downs, that are designed trigger memories of the initial ‘blockbuster’ execution. Going large with high impact ads doesn’t just create an impression initially but multiplies the effects of subsequent ads.

Just remember, once you have made it go bang, don’t look back.


Want to find out more?

The Weak and Strong in South Africa

We were invited by Spark Media to speak to an audience of 300 media types in South Africa this week, sharing the billing with Dr Virginia Beal, of the Ehrenburg Bass Institute, which is led by the famous Byron Sharp. I met Dr Beal the night before the conference: she had just come back from safari with our hosts and had come up close with a pride of lions.

southafrica.jpg

The next day, Dr Beal was up first, and gave a compelling talk about how advertising really works. Many of us who work in the industry think that our job is to persuade people to buy a product. We want to get in front of our customers and really convince them why our cat food, say, is better than the other guy’s cat food. This is called the ‘Strong’ model of advertising.

This is also nonsense.

In reality, she said, most advertising works as a simple reminder of a brand’s existence. The aim is to build mental availability or ‘top of mind’ awareness, especially amongst infrequent buyers. In comparison with the ‘Strong’ model of advertising, this is has been called the ‘Weak’ model of advertising. But that makes it sound a bit weedy, so now people called it the ‘Salience’ model of advertising.

She went on to show that the Weak model is much stronger than the Strong model, across categories and countries.

Then Lumen got up on stage. And much to everyone’s relief, our data supported her argument neatly.

One of the reasons that the Persuasive model of advertising must be wrong is that people rarely hang around long enough to be persuaded. The average dwell time with advertising is vanishingly short: around 2 seconds for print, mobile and OOH ads, and less than a second for digital display ads. With this sort of ‘attention budget’ it’s very hard to communicate the precise details of an offer or give people a compelling ‘reason to believe’ in why your kitty dinner is better than the other guy’s.

What you can do, however, is remind people that you exist, and trigger an implicit emotional response. And this is pretty much exactly what happens. Most advertising gets looked at rather than read or deeply engaged with. No one really cares that ‘eight out of ten cats prefer Whiskas’, but everyone knows that ‘cats like Felix like Felix’ – and why simple, emotive advertising helped Felix become the number 1 cat food in Britain.


Want to find out more?

Why are advertisers returning to print?

 

Figures released this week show that investment in print advertising rose for the first time in 8 years. Not by much – it’s up 1% - but it’s up. The question is: why?

In part, print’s gain is down to digital’s dodginess. Every days seems to bring a new scandal, and advertisers seem to like the fact that if you spend a pound on a newspaper ad, you get a pound’s worth of ad. The pendulum may being swinging back.

That may be the case. But we think there’s another reason. Smart advertisers know that it’s not about the impressions you buy, but the impression you make. Print ads make more of an impression than digital ads, because people actually look at them – or at least look at them more, and for longer, than digital ads.

Lumen’s print data shows that a viewable print ad (i.e. an ad that you turn the page and can see) has a 79% chance of actually getting looked at. Data from the Lumen digital panel shows that a viewable digital ad currently has 21% chance of getting noticed – up from last year, when it was 18%, but still, much less than your average print ad.

Picture1.png

But print is not just better at getting attention. It’s also better at keeping it. Your average print ad gets 2 seconds of attention. Not much, you might say, but better than 1.3 seconds you get on the average digital display ad.

Picture2.png

People often ask us what the minimum attention threshold for an ad to work is. It’s horses for courses, to be honest: some ads, from some brands, need longer to do the job than others. But it’s a fair assumption that unless you get a second of eye’s-on attention, you’re unlikely to land your message or have your brand remembered.

And it’s here that print advertising really shows its class. Only 6% of digital ads get more than a second of actual attention, compared to 39% of print ads.

Picture3.png

Of course, there is great variation in digital inventory. The best digital publishers can generate massively more attention than the average. There is digital inventory out there to rival print’s numbers. But it is rare. And, ironically, it’s often sold by the newspapers digital sales teams.

Given these numbers, is it any wonder that smart advertisers like Tesco are returning to print? If you want to buy ads that actually get noticed – that actually work - print is a better bet than digital.

Context enhances attention and grows sales

Capture.JPG

Opportunity to see an ad is not enough: consumers have to actually look at an ad for it to work. Crucially, it is the context in which viewability occurs that influences how much an ad gets noticed or engaged with before leading on to possible sales conversion. Advertisers who understand this can find ways to dramatically boost the attention their ads receive, while keeping their ad budgets the same

Capture1.JPG
Capture3.JPG
Capture5.JPG

Brave or stupid?

lemon.jpg

Creative agencies often ask their clients to ‘be brave’: to take a risk or embrace uncertainty or feel the fear and do it anyway.

I can understand why they might want to argue this. Genuinely new ideas are, by their very nature, new – you can’t point to success that other people have had with the idea, because the idea hasn’t been done before.

But I can also understand why the agency argument doesn't always work".  We are risk-averse creatures: a campaign that is likely to work quite well might seem a better bet than one that might go off like a firework - but might fizzle out into nothing.

But perhaps we’ve got it all wrong. The biggest risk for most advertising isn’t that it won’t convince everyone who sees it, but that it won’t get noticed at all. Online, only 22% of the ads that people could see actually get seen – 78% get ignored.

In that context, it’s brave indeed to do boring or run-of-the-mill creative work. Actually, it’s not brave to waste that much of your budget: it’s stupid. Richard Shotton writes a compelling piece about just this in Marketing Week (quoting Lumen data, of course).

You can have the best of both worlds by derisking your creative decisions by doing a quick and painless pre-test to see if people really are noticing your ads. Have a look at some of our work in partnership with Ipsos to learn more, or click here to get in touch.

What’s Belgian for hilarious?

Why can’t data be funny?

Brightfish Head.jpg

Our friends at Brightfish in Belgium have dramatized our attention data into a hilarious commercial. After this, we’re going to have to raise our game in terms of presentations. Check it out here.

News from Newsworks

We were at the Newsworks Effectiveness Summit this week, partnering with Unruly to talk about works when it comes to buying advertising, and then explaining how British Gas are using our data to help identify bargains in the market.

One of our big learnings is that ads on newsbrands seem like a bargain. The same ad, shown to the same sort of audience, is far more likely to get noticed on a newsbrand site than on other premium publisher sites.

NEwsworks 1.jpg

But why is this? In part it is down to the ‘velocity of attention’. People in the study we conducted for Newsworks consumed newsbrand sites slowly, engaging deeply with the article, and the surrounding advertising. In comparison, users they were more likely to skim read the more image-heavy comparison sites, quickly passing over the content – and the accompanying ads. You can download the findings – and see the talk - from the Newsworks website.

Newsworks 2.jpg

Attention matters because attention leads to sales. Patrick Smith of British Gas joined us on stage to talk through the link between attention and sales – and how newsbrands deliver an unfair share of attention and sales. Here’s the link to the data.

Why context really is king

Brands are beginning to wake up to the fact that in a post-GDPR world, they are going to have to find smarter ways of identifying quality inventory. Suddenly, buyers are beginning to take the context in which you see advertising seriously again. But when everyone is claiming to be a ‘premium publisher’, how do you know where to get the good stuff?

At the Mediatel Big Day of Data, we were on stage with Andrew Tenzer of Trinity Mirror to talk about how attention data can help you sort the wheat from the chaff.

Trinity Mirror’s regional site have deeply engaged readers and simple layouts that are designed to maximise attention to advertising. But does this convert to actual engagement, recall and purchase intent?

(Hint: do you think we’d be on stage if it didn’t?)

Lumen Trinity Mirror MediaTel June 2018.jpg

Whether you are a publisher looking to demonstrate your quality or a buyer looking for a bargain, we’d love to help.