Upload
ella-fields
View
219
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MRC VIEWABLE IMPRESSION RECONCILIATION PROCESS:
PHASE 3 RESULTS AND MOVING FORWARD
Presented to IAB 3MS Educational Forum
July 8, 2015
AGENDA
Background on the Viewable Impression Standard History of Reconciliation Phases Reconciliation Phase 3: Approach and Findings Moving Forward
Time for questions and discussion…
2
Background on the Standard
3
MRC Mission Statement
To secure for the media industry and related users measurement services that are valid, reliable and effective; we do this by: Setting Standards; and Conducting Audits to Verify Compliance with Standards.
4
Development of the Viewable Impression Standard
Timelines: First viewability measurers emerge circa 2009-2010 3MS project launches in 2010, 3MS “Principles” published
in September 2011 Agency Pilot conducted, Summer 2012 MRC Advisory Period in effect, November 2012-March 2014 Viewable Impression Guidelines Issued, June 2014 Vendor reconciliation phases:
Early 2014, Late 2014-Early 2015, Spring 2015
5
Reconciliation History
6
Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Why It’s Necessary
• Reconciliation Process Always Part of the Plan• Some counting differences were expected
• Similar to Publisher vs. Third Party Ad Servers in Served Impression counting a decade ago
• A critical mass of accredited vendors was necessary prior to beginning a reconciliation effort
• Reasons differences in counting might be observed:• Different measurement orientations
• Ex.: 3rd party vs. ad server vs. publisher• Differences in abilities to measure in all situations• Differences in processes and/or ordering of processes
applied
7
Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Phase 1
Findings issued on 3/31/14 as part of MRC Viewable Impression Advisory Update
Reasons identified for measurement differences included:1. Granularity of Measurements2. Non-rendered served ads3. Order of processing and processes applied4. Ad measurement vs. Ad Container measurement5. Out of Focus conditions6. Human error
8
Provisions to account for each of the above issues were included in the final Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines, issued June 30, 2014.
Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Phase 2 Findings
Issued to Viewability Vendors and Auditors on 4/13/15 Reasons identified for persistence in measurement differences
included:1. Inconsistent application of the optional large pixel threshold2. Inconsistencies in measurement of multi-ad units3. Inconsistencies in the use of the Page Visibility API4. Inconsistencies in the use of the Flash “Throttle” indicator5. Inconsistencies in processes applied by vendors who also provide
“Enhanced NHT” filtration6. Inconsistencies related to calculation of Viewable Rates using Count on
Decision served impression measurements
9
Vendors put on alert to address each issue in near-term, as requirements around each will be included in next update to Viewable Impression Guidelines.
Reconciliation: Phase 3
10
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Background
MRC issued broad call to the industry on January 16, 2015, requesting data for campaigns measured by 2 or more accredited viewability vendors All information provided on strictly confidential basis
In response, we received campaigns from a broad range of publishers, agencies, and marketers Nearly 4 billion served impressions Included display and video ads, covering a wide range of placements
and sites Campaign data included most major viewability vendors
11
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Differences by Campaign
12
37%
63%
Campaigns > 10% differenceCampaigns < 10% difference
Among campaigns with more than 100,000 viewable impressions.
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Topline Findings
Among sizable campaigns* examined, 63% of campaigns had viewable impression measurement differences of less than 10%
The weighted average of these differences was 4.1% Among the 37% of campaigns where differences of 10% or more
were observed, the median difference was 23%, and the weighted average difference was 34% These ranges were higher than seen in prior reconciliations
Smaller campaigns demonstrated more variability But reasons for differences consistent with larger campaigns
13
* = defined as >100,000 viewable impressions
Reconciliation Project: Reasons for Differences Observed
14
54%
28%
13%
2%3%
MobileMulti-Ad UnitsOther Ad ServersAd Verification ProcessesOther
Among all campaigns for which data was received.
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences*
Issue 1:54% of the total difference was a result of differing treatments of mobile viewable impressions.
Differences attributable to mobile viewable impression measurement have grown since our earlier reconciliation work.
• Segregation of mobile counts is highly critical.• No one is currently accredited by MRC for mobile viewable
impression measurement.
15
* Percentages based on data from all campaigns received.
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences
Issue 2:28% of the total differences observed was a result of differing treatments of multi-ad unit situations
This issue was addressed in MRC’s April 2015 reconciliation guidance to vendors, and will be formally introduced into the Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines shortly when that document is formally updated.
16
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences
Issue 3:13% of the total differences observed was a result of differences in whether vendors measured ad traffic in campaigns served by ad servers other than themselves
This was a new finding of Phase 3 of the reconciliation process, and will be addressed in the next update to the Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines document.
17
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences
Issue 4:2% was a result of differences in the application of certain ad verification processes
This issue was addressed in the original Viewability Guidelines release, and reinforced in our April 2015 reconciliation communication to vendors. It will be emphasized again in the next update to the Guidelines document.
18
Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences
Issue 5:The remaining 3% resulted from other causes, such as differing treatments of Large Size display ads; differing applications of invalid traffic filtration; and non-rendered ads included in served impression counts.• This reconciliation provided more evidence that many non-rendered ads are
currently being counted as served impressions, not only with “count on decision” methodologies, but sometimes even when a “count on download” approach is utilized.• While this issue may have a limited impact on viewability metrics, it
still needs to be addressed in the near future.
19
Moving Forward: Key Next Steps
20
MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward
The Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines document will be formally updated within the next 30 days to reflect the reconciliation learnings Accredited vendors will have limited time to achieve
compliance with any new or revised provisions Mobile Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines development is in progress Interim Guidance on Mobile Viewability currently in place
21
MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward
Fact: Viewable impression measurement will never be completely static Recognition that it will evolve and improve over time, as result
of technological and other innovation These changes may have impacts on reconciling vendors’
measurement results
22
MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward
MRC’s Work in this Area Going Forward Audit and accreditation process replaces ad hoc reconciliation
testing as primary means for achieving and maintaining consistency in accredited vendors’ measurements
Issues will be investigated and run to ground as they arise in audits and as special circumstances are brought to our attention
Additional guidance and updates to MRC Viewable Impression Guidelines will be provided as needed
23
MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward
24
A Key Point for All Users of Viewable Impression Data:
Pay Attention to the Issues Identified Through Reconciliation, and Understand
How Your Vendors Address Each
Discussion, Q&A
George Ivie [email protected] Pinelli [email protected] Gunzerath [email protected]
(212) 972-0300
25
Thank You!