Online video advertisements: how to bridge the gap between skippable and non-skippable?

Article Mark Vroegrijk – Senior Methodologist

Digital advertising, and in particular advertisement through online video, continues to take up a bigger position within the marketing budgets of many companies. In 2020, the projected total spending on this type of advertising was estimated at 61 billion dollars – an increase of more than 35% as opposed to the year before. A common reason is that many marketers see online videos as the perfect way to reach a younger target group. Where it’s predicted that only half of the consumers of 30 years or younger will have a paid TV subscription in 2025, we already see that more than 90% of this group uses YouTube on a regular basis. So, it’s not without reason YouTube manages to reach a larger share than any TV channel among these young consumers.

At the same time, we should mention that a greater reach for online video advertisements doesn’t necessarily translate into a greater degree of attention. After all, various academic studies suggest that – because such advertisements are being shown to the consumer when they were actually focused on a specific goal (watching by his or her chosen content) – they are perceived as relatively intrusive. This perception leads to an increased tendency to avoid this type of advertisement. A previous study conducted by DVJ Insights and the University of Groningen on video advertisements on social media (where the advertisements in the feed technically also formed an interruption – for posts by friends and other relevant channels), revealed that the attention from the consumer for these kinds of advertisements was limited. On average, the advertisements were only viewed for 1.8 seconds, and the stronger the advertisement was perceived as intrusive, the lower this viewing time became.

Given that the attention of viewers in the online video context is limited, an important distinction is made for advertisements via this channel by whether or not to offer the viewer the opportunity to skip them. ‘Skippable’ advertisements (also known as ‘TrueView’) are shown prior to (or during) a content video, where the viewer is offered the possibility to skip it (after a few seconds). For the standard variant of this format, costs are only charged if the viewer watches the advertisement in its entirety (or clicks on the link in the video). ‘Non-skippable’ advertisements are videos where the viewer is forced to watch it in its entirety – and for every impression, an amount will be charged. Although advertisers are guaranteed to get exposure to all elements of the advertisement with non-skippable ads, this format usually entails higher costs.

The question that inevitably follows from this: Are non-skippable advertisements worth the extra investment? DVJ Insights has learned from prior studies that the extent to which an advertisement is capable of realising impact on consumer behaviour is strongly related to the extent to which people recall both the brand and the message after exposure to the advertisement. So, can we, with these aspects in mind, conclude that non-skippable advertisements score better in this area than skippable advertisements?

An international Meta-study

In order to research this, DVJ Insights has recently conducted a study among 10,000 respondents, where 100+ online video advertisements were tested in three countries (Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). At the beginning of this study we let every respondent browse through a few websites on their own time, where on a few websites, a content video was shown. These content videos were preceded by randomly selected advertisement videos, which could or couldn’t be skipped after 5 seconds. If the respondent had the option to skip, and did, we registered – invisible to her or him – the moment where that happened.

Thereafter, sometime after browsing, we asked the respondents the following questions: 1) which brands they remembered seeing an advertisement from, 2) for which advertisements did they understand the message, and 3) which advertisements they recognised. Because we tested the same advertisements in both skippable- and non-skippable formats, we can speak about the extent to which, on average, an uplift in memory effects occurs under the latter format.

Skippable versus non-skippable advertisements: what is remembered?

From the results of our study it is firstly revealed that when the viewer of the advertisement is offered the option to skip it (as is the case with skippable advertisements after a few seconds), this option is frequently used. Figure 1 shows that especially in the first few seconds in which an (average) advertisement can be skipped, there is a significant loss of attention – after only three seconds more than one-third of viewers decided to skip it. Although the loss in viewers decreases in the seconds after, an average online video advertisement is viewed by less than half of the consumers in its entirety.

Figure 1: Number of viewers left per elapsed second

Given the high degree of loss of attention for skippable advertisements, it doesn’t come as a surprise that a switch from skippable to non-skippable format leads to a (statistically significant) increase in the extent to which people remember the advertised brand (+8 percentage points for spontaneous and +10 percentage points for aided recall) and are capable of recalling the ad (+6 percentage points) – as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Average recall scores for skippable versus non-skippable advertisements

When we compare this uplift and the degree of loss of attention for skippable advertisements, the ratio between effect sizes is immediately noticeable. Although more than half of the viewers don’t watch skippable advertisements in their entirety (and therefore, under the standard ‘TrueView’ format, doesn’t constitute costs!), the memory effect drop is of a much smaller order – 10 percentage points or less.

We can therefore conclude that watching an advertisement in its entirety doesn’t seem to be a necessary prerequisite for realising (sufficient) impact. Figure 3 shows that it is especially important to fascinate the viewer for a few more seconds after he or she (after 5 seconds) has the possibility to skip the advertisement. After all, each of the next few seconds where the advertisement is watched longer ensures a significant catch-up on brand and message recall compared to non-skippable ads. At the same time, we see that from a viewing time of 8 seconds (where the lag in brand and message recall is only 6 percentage points), these improvements start to flatten considerably. The critical turning point seems to lie in being able to hold the viewer for 3 seconds longer after being offered the opportunity to skip.

Figure 3: Difference in recall-scores compared with non-skippable advertisements at different viewing times

Viewing behaviour among different consumer profiles

But what determines to what extent a skippable online video ad is viewed in its entirety? We can make a distinction between external factors (which a marketer cannot directly influence, but can take into account in his or her media planning) and internal factors (which have to do with the creative execution of the advertisement).

Starting with external factors: the skipping behaviour of viewers is firstly determined by the device they are using when they are exposed to the online video advertisement. Figure 4 shows that these differences aren’t necessarily showing between desktop and tablet users, but more compared to smartphone users – who are much more inclined to skip an advertisement (quickly). It’s striking that the relatively larger decline in viewing numbers among smartphone users mainly takes place in the first few seconds after the possibility of skipping – and unfortunately therefore even before the critical 8-second point (on which, on average, almost half of the smartphone viewers have already been lost). After 8 seconds, the decline in viewer numbers is more or less comparable between the different devices.

Figure 4: Number of viewers left per elapsed second for smartphone, tablet and desktop users

Next to that, the socio-demographic profile also has an influence. Although Figure 5 shows that men and women are very similar in their viewing and skipping behaviour, this is definitely not the case when it comes to age groups. Between baby boomers, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z, it is shown that the younger the viewer, the faster the decline in viewing numbers – once again mostly in the three seconds after the first possibility to skip. After eight seconds have passed the differences are immense – where on average just under 80% of baby boomers are still watching, only just over one-third of Generation Z is still watching.

Figure 5: Number of viewers remaining per elapsed second for different demographic groups

Creative strength holds attention!

Aside from the fact that the viewing behaviour of online video advertisements depends on the profile of the viewer, the nature of the advertisement itself is of course also an important factor. After all, a video with a strong creative execution will be better capable of holding the attention of the viewer. Because we have not only registered the viewing behaviour of respondents in this study but have also asked how respondents evaluate the shown creatives on different aspects, we are also able to map out the relation between these two things.

Figure 6 reveals that the stopping power of an advertisement (whether the ad is able to hold the viewer’s attention for at least a few seconds) and the entire watch-until-the-end ratio aren’t necessarily driven by the same aspects of creative strength. Firstly, we see that the degree to which an advertisement is perceived as distinctive exerts a consistent positive influence on watching behaviour – both in the shorter and longer term. At the same time, we do find differences on other aspects. Where the advertisement should be seen as fun and enjoying (but at the same time still be credible) to not let people skip during the first few seconds (while they do already have the option) the advertisement should transfer an even stronger emotional response – a good feeling – to be watched in its entirety, and also provide the viewer with new information.

Figuur 6: Main creative drivers of willingness to partially (≥ 8 sec.) and fully watch online video advertisements

The gap? What gap?!

From our study, we can conclude that, despite the fact that when choosing a skippable online video ad, marketers should take into account that (on average) more than half of viewers drop out prematurely, the decrease in brand and message recall relative to non-skippable ads remains relatively limited. This is of course because skippable ads also force the viewer to watch the video for a few seconds before they can be skipped. However, our study also shows that if the viewer’s attention is retained for only a few seconds longer, the vast majority of the ’gap’ in memory effects between skippable and non-skippable ads is already closed – without having to pay for this exposure! Although we have designated holding attention for at least 8 seconds as a critical tipping point to generate enough impact, this will not go without a hitch for every viewer. When exposed via smartphone and among Generation Z consumers (a target group for which online video is often used), we see a strong increased tendency to skip an advertisement as soon as possible. It is therefore important for these consumers to create a distinctive advertisement that is fun and/ or enjoyable but also credible at the same time – all in order to generate effect among this target group.