E marketer digital_video_and_tv_advertising_16_forces_that_will_help_or_hinder_integration

Digital Intelligence Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved.
Integrated Video Advertising: What’s Possible? 2
Forces for Fusion 3
Forces Against Fusion 5
Mixed Messages (Forces that Help and Hinder) 8
Conclusions 15
eMarketer Interviews 16
Related Links 16
About eMarketer 17
June 2012
Executive Summary: Someday, online video will almost certainly become so disruptive that TV advertising
will have to integrate with it. Several forces are in play that will likely fuel that eventual fusion, most notably the
availability of high-quality video content and associated advertising across five increasingly used digital screens—
desktop computers, notebook computers, smartphones, tablets and connected TVs.
140195
But this report focuses on a shorter timeline—about two years.
And in the short term, the fusion of online video ads and TV
commercials into singular campaigns will remain incomplete.
What’s standing in the way? The core factor is a fear of financial
loss within the TV industry—broadcast and cable networks, and
cable providers (which are often also ISPs).Those fears are leading
to tactics such as broadband and mobile data caps, which can
reduce video usage, and the use of authentication protocols to
block cord-cutters from accessing TV content online.
Integration, then, is a question of extent. How far will advertisers
go to blend their TV and digital advertising? This report looks
at the factors that are speeding the process, as well as those
that could impede it. In fact, many of the forces at play could go
either way, helping or hindering the connection of digital video
and TV advertising.
In the meantime, online video’s ad spending growth will far
outstrip TV’s growth through 2016, fueled more by the desires
of brand advertisers than by the actions of media companies
and other established content owners. Brands need to engage
their progressively more fragmented audiences, while media
companies feel they have more to lose in the digital space.
Key Questions
■■ What forces are making the fusion of TV and online video
advertising inevitable?
■■ How powerful are the forces that could block cross-media
video advertising’s growth?
■■ Will strategic factors entice large brand marketers to add
more digital to their TV-focused ad budgets?
% change
US TV Ad Spending Growth vs. Online Video Ad
Spending Growth, 2010-2016
2010
39.6%
9.7%
2011
42.1%
2.8%
2012
54.7%
6.8%
2013
46.0%
1.3%
2014
40.2%
3.3%
2015
22.4%
1.7%
2016
18.9%
4.5%
Online video* TV**
Note: eMarketer benchmarks its US online ad spending projections against
the IAB/PwC data, for which the last full year measured was 2010;
*includes in-banner, in-stream (such as pre-roll and overlays) and in-text
(ads delivered when users mouse-over relevant words); mobile included;
**includes broadcast TV (network, syndication & spot) & cable TV
Source: eMarketer, Jan 2012
140195 www.eMarketer.com
David Hallerman
dhallerman@emarketer.com
Contributors
Lauren Fisher, Tracy Tang, Mitch Winkels
Digital Video and
TV Advertising:
16 Forces that Will Help or
Hinder Integration

Digital Video and TV Advertising: 16 Forces that Will Help or Hinder Integration Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
Integrated Video Advertising:
What’s Possible?
Over the next couple of years, online video advertising
and TV commercials will become increasingly integrated.
But it will be an incomplete blend.
Various players and observers, including this analyst, have
long anticipated digital video becoming a central platform for
brand advertising, but it still hasn’t happened.
This report looks at the different factors that could speed or
slow integration over the next two years. Before considering
those factors, let’s define the kinds of integration involved in
blending digital video and TV:
■■ Blend of content availability
■■ Blend of media buys
■■ Blend of measurement and metrics
■■ Blend of campaign messaging
■■ Blend of audiences
It’s also important to define the screens we are talking about.
There are really six different screens all together, because
along with television, digital or online refers to five possible
delivery platforms, each with pros and cons for marketers:
■■ Desktop computer
■■ Notebook computer
■■ Smartphone
■■ Tablet
■■ Connected TV (CTV)
That TV and video advertising are coming together is clear;
the process less so. “There’s a spectrum,” said Toby Gabriner,
president of Adap.tv, in an April 2012 interview. “There are
those who treat online video as an extension or another form
of display ad units. But there’s also a growing movement that
is starting to look at video and TV paired together.”
One main gauge for the digital video-TV blend is money.
At $64.8 billion, TV will make up 38.2% of total media ad
spending in the US in 2012. In contrast, online video’s
$3.2 billion will contribute a mere 1.8%. That imbalance is
why Dave Morgan, chief executive officer of Simulmedia,
said in an April 2012 interview that digital video advertising
“is more of a compliance buy when the clients say they
want multiscreen.”
Furthermore, even as digital video ad spending grows faster
than TV, more incremental dollars flow to the traditional
screen. In 2012, for example, online video’s 54.7% growth
rate will translate to $1.2 billion additional dollars over 2011’s
outlays. In contrast, TV ad spending’s growth rate of only 6.8%
works out to a $4.1 billion increase.
billions
US TV Ad Spending vs. Online Video Ad Spending,
2010-2016
2010
$59.0
$1.4
2011
$60.7
$2.0
2012
$64.8
$3.2
2013
$65.6
$4.7
2014
$67.8
$6.4
2015
$68.9
$7.8
2016
$72.0
$9.3
TV* Online video**
Note: eMarketer benchmarks its US online ad spending projections against
the IAB/PwC data, for which the last full year measured was 2010;
*includes broadcast TV (network, syndication & spot) & cable TV;
**includes in-banner, in-stream (such as pre-roll and overlays) and in-text
(ads delivered when users mouse-over relevant words); mobile included
Source: eMarketer, Jan 2012
140148

Forces for Fusion
Several factors make the blend between online
and TV advertising seem inevitable. A shift in how
people use digital devices, combined with a shift in
how brands look to engage that changing audience,
are creating several strong forces in favor of fusion
between the two video advertising channels.
(1) Connected TVs Combine Strengths
Connected TVs offer two crucial elements that will help blend
advertising across the two media—the big screen of a television
and the digital delivery of the internet. Increasing numbers of US
homes have connected TVs, which makes connected TV a prime
digital channel for video ad growth. More than one-third of US
connected-TV owners now use their TV sets to watch internet-
sourced content at least once a week, according to March 2012
research from Strategy Analytics.
Another study, from the Leichtman Research Group, found
that 38% of US households had at least one TV set connected
to the internet as of February 2012, up from only 24% in 2010.
Increasingly known by its acronym, CTV, connected TV is also
called over-the-top TV, smart TV, internet TV and IPTV. Too
many names can create confusion, but the concept is simple:
A TV set becomes a connected TV when whatever is being
watched is sourced through internet protocol (IP), rather than
through cable or broadcast.
The types of devices that are used to create a CTV
environment include:
■■ Standalone boxes, such as Roku or Apple TV
■■ Game consoles (i.e., Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox 360,
Nintendo Wii)
■■ Internet-enabled TVs
■■ Internet-enabled DVD or Blu-ray players
■■ Digital video recorders (DVRs)
■■ Computers attached to TVs
Of the 32.1 million US households that by the end of 2011
accessed online video through connected TV, the largest
groups used game machines or computers, according to
Forrester Research. But the big growth areas are devices
designed for TV-only purposes, such as Blu-ray players, set-top
boxes and TVs that come ready to connect to the internet.
millions and % change
US Households that Access Online Video on a TV,
by Access Method, 2010 & 2011
2010 % change
Video game console 14.2 29.6%
PC connected to TV 10.9 24.8%
Connectable Blu-ray player 3.4 141.2%
Connected TV 3.1 119.4%
Over-the-top set-top box* 2.5 136.0%
Total unduplicated households 24.8
2011
18.4
13.6
8.2
6.8
5.9
32.1 29.4%
Note: *DVRs included in 2011 but not in 2010
Source: Forrester, "The Fight To Control The TV Becomes A Platform War" as
cited in TechCrunch with eMarketer calculations, May 16, 2012
140401
“Over the next two years, we’re going to see a lot more
integration with the actual main screen in the living room,” said
Tom Penich, media communications manager at BMW of North
America, in a May 2012 interview.“That will probably be the
biggest change in terms of how people are viewing content.The
main TV screen is going to be the hub in the household again and
it will be connected with the mobile devices, with the computer.
Everything will sort of be integrated into that one screen.”
Oftentimes, viewers choose shows or movies to watch using
on-screen apps delivered through the CTV device itself. In
addition to any remotes that come with the connecting devices,
tablets or smartphones can also be used to control those apps.
The growing consumer appeal of CTV is why 28% of brand
advertisers and agencies expect to buy ads on that platform in 2012,
up from 8% in 2011,according to theAdap.tv and DIGIDAY report.
% of respondents in each group
Brand Advertisers and Agencies in North America
Who Spend on Connected TV Ads vs. Publishers Who
Support Connected TV, 2010-2012
2010
8%
11%
2011
8%
17%
2012
28%
26%
Advertisers Publishers
Source: Adap.tv and DIGIDAY, "Video State of the Industry Report, Q1 2012,"
April 16, 2012
139161
Of the five digital screens, connected TV lends itself most to
longer content, and hence to more advertising. While 57% of
the time on a CTV was used for watching videos 10 or more

minutes long, according to an Ooyala study, the shares of time
on the other screens for such content were smaller.
% of total
Share of Time Spent Watching Online Videos
Worldwide, by Video Length and Device, Q4 2011
Desktop
10% 29% 26% 10% 25%
Mobile
6% 30% 23% 12% 29%
Tablet
6% 26% 22% 11% 36%
<1 minute
1-3 minutes
3-6 minutes
6-10 minutes
10+ minutes
Source: Ooyala, "Video Index Report Q4 2011," Feb 15, 2012
Connected TV devices and game consoles
15% 15% 9% 57%4%
137882
“The bigTV is going to continue to dominate the overall video
consumption,certainly in home.But what content is getting to it?”
asked Brian Fuhrer,senior vice president for product leadership
at Nielsen,in anApril 2012 interview.“ConnectedTV is going to
continue to accelerate,because if we have learned anything from
our data,it’s that people really want to use the big screen.”
Rumors suggest thatApple—the dominant company in the tablet
and smartphone space—will be coming out with“some type of
a connectedTV,”saidWill Richmond,editor and publisher of the
VideoNuze site,in anApril 2012 interview.“As we’ve seen with the
iPad,that could be a major game changer....We do know that
Apple brings a ton of momentum and innovation and brand loyalty
to the party,and done right that could really roil the market.”
(2) Tablets Are Game Changers
More than 90% of US tablet owners in 2012 have watched a TV
program or movie on their device, according to QuickPlay Media.
But only 9% of US consumers in 2012 said they watched video on
their tablet weekly, according to Leichtman Research Group.
The first datapoint shows how popular video is among those
who have tablets. The second, though, shows that among a
much larger group—US consumers in general—the share
watching video on tablets is, at this point, still small.
“There’s a lot more hype around the actual penetration levels
of tablets,” said Nielsen’s Fuhrer. “When you look at the
number of computers, laptops and tablets out there, tablets
are still, despite what you might hear, fairly nascent.”
Tablet penetration will need to be higher than it is currently
to push it out of its niche base. But that can shift quickly,
especially when you remember that the iPad was introduced
only two years ago, in April 2010. “It is going to complement a
lot of TV,” said Simulmedia’s Morgan.
eMarketer expects tablet usage to soar from substantially less than
one-third of internet users in 2012 to more than one-half in 2015.
US Tablet Users and Penetration, 2010-2015
Tablet users (millions)
—% change
—% of total population
—% of internet users
2010
13.0
-
4.2%
5.8%
2011
33.7
158.6%
10.8%
14.5%
2012
69.6
106.5%
22.0%
29.1%
2013
99.0
42.3%
31.0%
40.4%
2014
119.3
20.5%
37.0%
47.5%
2015
133.5
11.9%
41.0%
51.9%
Note: individuals of any age who use a tablet at least once per month
Source: eMarketer, June 2012
140848
“Tablets strike a happy medium. They are more of an
entertainment and leisure screen than your typical computer.
Other mobile devices tend to be a mix of entertainment
and utility,” said Colleen Soriano, senior vice president and
managing partner for US integrated investment and digital
innovation at Universal McCann, in an April 2012 interview.
No wonder,then,that 41% of US digital media professionals in a
November 2011 DigiCareers survey said that tablets provided the
best advertising experience.In contrast,only 8% cited smartphones.
% of respondents
Effect of Select Devices on Advertising* According to
US Digital Media Professionals, Nov 2011
Will not be a major factor in advertising
6% 10% 10% 10% 65%
Tablet PC Smartphone TV Game console
Note: numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding; *in 5 years
Source: DigiCareers, March 27, 2012
Provides the best user experience
61% 19% 13% 4%
2%
Provides the best advertising experience
41% 21% 8% 27% 4%
Generates the majority of advertising dollars
8% 17% 25% 48% 3%
138522
Fascinating data from Forrester shows that as of Q3 2011,
more respondents decreased usage of 11 devices or media
due to tablet ownership—including computers, print, MP3
players, mobile phones, TV and ereaders—than increased
their usage. However, for online video, more tablet owners
increased their usage than decreased it.
Perhaps more than any other datapoint, this makes the potential
connection between TV and tablets clear and present.
“Tablets are where the money is actually going to flow,” said
Rick Landsman, senior vice president for engineering at [x+1],
in a May 2012 interview. “On the phone you’re really snacking,
using specific apps to do specific things, and you’re often out
and about. With the tablet, you’re sitting at home and there is
an awful lot going on in integrating video.”
Forces for Fusion

Forces Against Fusion
Inertia is a powerful force against change.Advertisers
and agencies often have separate digital and television
departments, a silo approach that slows integration.
In addition, stakeholders with deep pockets—notably cable
companies and TV broadcast and cable networks—are
actively impeding a deeper integration of traditional and digital
advertising for fear of a reduced bottom line.
(3) Fear of Cannibalization
TV executives saw what happened to the music industry in the
digital era and don’t want to follow that same downward spiral.
ManyTV companies have a vested interest in keeping digital
video from undercutting their current revenue streams.CableTV
providers make more money from television than the internet,and
TV networks—broadcast and cable alike—gather more ad dollars
from the tube than from all five digital screens put together.
The TV business is looking at several methods that might
reduce the growth of digital video content, even if the
consequence is a reduction in associated advertising. Two
main tactics are bandwidth metering, also called a data cap,
and authentication.
The elephant in the room that could stomp on digital video is
greater bandwidth metering—in more areas of the country
and to a greater extent than ISPs do now. If consumers
need to think twice before watching another online video,
because that viewing would cost them extra or result in their
ISP slowing down (aka “throttling”) their internet connection,
digital video viewing would likely tumble—and therefore so
would accompanying advertising. In fact, why should ISPs
that are also cable providers want online video to get too big
unless they can get a little extra share out of the pot?
Bandwidth metering is already a fact of life for many mobile
users, especially when their devices are connected via 3G or
4G wireless technologies.
“One of the things that is problematic today in delivery of video
into the mobile space is that in most cases you’re going over
the carrier networks.And in nearly all cases, you have tiered,
high-priced data plans with low caps,” said [x+1]’s Landsman.
“From an advertising perspective, video over the cellular net
to mobile devices is actually being paid out of the data plan of
the user. The advertisers are going to have to figure out a way
of working with carriers to address the bandwidth issues in
the mobile environment.”
Networks and cable operators are also considering requiring
users to prove that they are paying subscribers before allowing
them to access certain content online.As reported by the New
York Post in late April 2012, Hulu is “taking its first steps to change
to a model where viewers will have to prove they are a pay-TV
customer to watch their favorite shows” on its site.
However, since Hulu is the top property on the web for online
video advertising, as reported monthly by comScore, cutting
off a potentially large portion of its audience would most likely
reduce the video ad spending it receives.
In addition to Hulu’s progression toward authentication,
Comcast—the owner of NBC (which owns part of Hulu) and also
a major ISP—is “expected to switch to an authentication model
for this summer’s Olympic Games,” as the Post also reported.
The act of walling off content from certain digital channels means
the larger TV companies are ceding much of the lower-end video
market to more innovative competitors.This strategy could work
in the short- and mid-term, maintaining profit levels for the major
players, although it may fail over the longer term.
(4) Digital Pennies vs. Analog Dollars
Many content owners think that digital viewers are getting a
“free ride” just because they cannot sell enough advertising to
support the content. Therefore, they will limit the ad-supported
video content available online because, in the now-famous
warning from Jeff Zucker, former head of NBC Universal, they
would be “trading analog dollars for digital pennies.”
Comparing current revenue between TV and digital video ads
can be done only indirectly, but it’s still revealing. Using the
typical 22-minute-long primetime TV comedy as an example,
say ABC’s “Modern Family,” here’s how the numbers work out:
Data from Nielsen shows that in Q1 2011, the price of single
30-second primetime TV ad was nearly $97,000.
In contrast, the CPM for an online video ad associated with
premium content, such as on Hulu or a TV network site,
ranged from about $25 to $30 in late 2011, according to
research from DIGIDAY and Adap.tv.

However, while the ad load for “Modern Family” shown on Hulu
was less than 4 minutes, the TV ad load was more like 8 minutes.
Translated to the number of 30-second ads, that was about seven
ads on digital in Q4 2011, according to research from FreeWheel,
compared to about 16 commercial spots on TV.
Online Video Ads per Video Viewed Among US-Based
Audiences, by Content Length, Q1-Q4 2011
Long-form content (20+ minutes)
3.10
2.91
5.02
6.92
Mid-form content (5-20 minutes)
0.75
0.85
1.02
1.22
Short-form content (<5 minutes)
0.46
0.43
0.45
0.54
Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011
Note: ads are served through FreeWheel's online video ad platform
Source: FreeWheel, "Freewheel Video Monetization Report FullYear 2011,"
Feb 16, 2012
137603
Those 16 commercials at an average of about $97,000 each mean
TV ad sales per episode of“Modern Family”of about
$1.5 million.(In fact,the show made $1.6 million per episode in early
2011,according to Forbes,ranking it 16th among allTV shows.)
In contrast, each online episode of that show might get about
$210 per thousand viewers—at the high range for digital
premium content—which means each of those episodes
would have to get nearly 7.4 million online viewers to match
the $1.5 million in TV revenues.
Ain’t gonna happen. (Especially considering Hulu had only
28.2 million unique viewers in April 2012, according to comScore.)
So isn’t the TV business acting logically here, holding back
content when they’re making less money from it?
Not necessarily so, said Richmond of VideoNuze.
“The definition of less is that they make less revenue per, let’s say,
program consumed, but they’re making more on a per-ad basis,”
said Richmond.“So in other words the CPMs—for example on
Hulu—are higher than the CPMs on television. But the problem
is that there are just fewer ads, far fewer ads when you watch a
show via Hulu than if you watch traditional TV.”
(5) Digital Advertising Is Complicated
From the advertiser’s perspective, digital can mean more
dollars—and not in a good way.
“Say your TV group is spending $750 million on advertising,”
said Simulmedia’s Morgan. “You need one-and-a-half people
at the agency to do it. But say your online video budget is
$150 million, you need to have 28 people managing that.”
This reverse problem of scale,where marketers get less reach for
greater cost,is a real sticking point for large-scale video ad growth.
“And here’s the other irony:Those people are really expensive,”
said Morgan.“They have to be sophisticated.They have to be
data analysts.They have to manage a lot of integration.”
Digital innovations are hard enough for digital professionals
to follow. For many traditional, TV-oriented brand marketers,
options like real-time bidding, ad networks and demand-side
platforms (DSPs) are exotic and complex. One-third or fewer
brand advertisers and agencies surveyed by Adap.tv and
DIGIDAY said they are using online-only buying platforms such
as ad exchanges and DSPs in 2012.
% of respondents
Platforms Used by Brand Advertisers and Agencies in
North America to Purchase Online Video Inventory,
2011 & 2012
Direct from publishers
75%
72%
Ad networks
72%
73%
Exchanges
15%
29%
DSPs
15%
32%
Trading desks
27%
2011 2012
Source: Adap.tv and DIGIDAY, "Video State of the Industry Report, Q1
2012," April 16, 2012
139162
“In all of the attempts by digital marketers to differentiate online
advertising and show its value,they just increase the complexity
and make it hard for traditional dollars to move,”saidTod Sacerdoti,
CEO and founder of BrightRoll,in anApril 2012 interview.
(6) The Attraction of Doing Nothing
TV’s power in the marketplace seems permanently established.
Even brand marketers on the digital side understand that.“TV is not
going away anytime soon,”said Neville Manohar,senior marketing
manager for digital at the Chrysler Group,in a May 2012 interview.

By a more than 2-to-1 ratio, US ad agencies polled in Q1 2012
by STRATA said their clients were most focused on TV vs.
digital advertising (and much of that digital is likely not video).
% of respondents
Advertising Media on Which Their Clients Are Most
Focused According to US Ad Agencies, Q1 2012
TV*
54%
Internet/digital
24%
Spot radio
9%
Print
7%
Network TV
4%
Out-of-home
2%
Note: *includes spot TV and spot cable
Source: STRATA, "1st Quarter 2012: Agency Forecast Survey," May 3, 2012
139845
Part of that advertiser focus is inertia, and inertia is influential.
“If you stand in the shoes of the people who buy media,
everything there is inclined to a certain amount of inertia
because that’s how the world is, that’s how life is,” said
Simulmedia’s Morgan. “Right now, if you buy television, you
have a place that you can deploy a very significant amount of
your client’s money—or if you’re the client, your money—very
efficiently and very quickly.”
To overcome some of the resistance on the TV side to
digital video advertising, marketers often need first to shift
opinions within a company. When BMW launched a series of
digital ads, success for those placements was measured by
“internal acceptance, which is as important as the consumer
acceptance,” said BMW’s Penich.
Availability of TV-sourced content through online channels is
also limited by existing contracts. “In a lot of cases, there are
very different silos between the traditional TV distribution and
the digital distribution,” said Nielsen’s Fuhrer.
Just as the potential loss of money creates fear, it also
creates inertia. “There are agreements in place right now that
span billions of dollars and nobody wants to compromise
those,” said Richmond. “We’re in a window right now where
everybody is being cautious about how and where to
distribute their content.”
Finally, never underestimate the importance of simple familiarity
in holding back change.As David Carr wrote in the New York
Times in May 2012 about this year’s TV upfront market,“Making a
big television buy is a kind of comfort food, easy and familiar.”
There’s an additional side to familiarity. “A lot of advertising
that’s bought is bought because the person making the
decision appreciates a quality of the program or adjacency,”
said Jason Krebs, senior vice president and chief media officer
at Tremor Video, in an April 2012 interview. “Often ads are
bought on the media that the CMOs at companies use the
most for their own content consumption.”
But consumer familiarity with online video will likely be a major
force that pushes the TV industry to embrace digital.“Over time,
some of that TV caution will start to melt away just because
consumers force it to, out of frustration,” Krebs added.
(7) Measurement Difficulties
Effective cross-platform campaign measurement is, as of yet,
incompletely developed. This difficulty is a major obstacle for
blending TV and digital, since what can’t be measured can’t
be sold.
Brand marketers believe that the creation of unified TV and
video metrics is a major need, with 51% of respondents in the
Adap.tv-DIGIDAY report calling it very important and with an
additional 13% saying it’s most important.
% of total
Level of Importance for Uniﬁed TV and Video Metrics
According to Brand Advertisers and Agencies in
North America, April 2012
Most important
13%
Very important
51%
Somewhat important
28%
Less
important
8%
2012," April 16, 2012
139215
Online video ads are often measured in terms of clickthrough
rates and completion rates. Neither measure translates well to TV
marketing.Traditional TV-oriented metrics such as awareness or
brand lift seem more suited to measurement across platforms.
The larger problem, though, is measuring total audience across
media.“It’s what the clients in the industry that I work in are
asking for,” said Nielsen’s Fuhrer.“From the standpoint of really
understanding their audience, they need to have a total audience
across everything and then be able to break down the parts.”
The difficulty of measuring the cross-media audience inhibits
ad spending by many brands. “When you talk to buyers,
they really complain about not having good metrics,” said
VideoNuze’s Richmond.
To more effectively blend campaigns across media, online needs
the kind of standards that TV has had for years.

“I would standardize on a single measurement company,” said
BrightRoll’s Sacerdoti.“It almost doesn’t matter who it is, because
there are flaws with everybody. It’s either Quantcast, comScore,
Nielsen, one of the data vendors. It’s somebody who is the source
of truth for measurement and, therefore, currency value.”
Among those looking for a fusion of TV and digital advertising,
several say Nielsen would likely be best, since they’re so
entrenched in the television industry.
“We definitely promote Nielsen more because of its TV
credibility,” said Sacerdoti.
Mixed Messages (Forces that Help
and Hinder)
Many of the factors that could influence the potential
integration of digital video and TV advertising are not
clear-cut for or against. Instead, these two-sided trends
might help, hinder or, most likely, do a bit of both.
The three main areas that deliver a mixed message about
helping or hindering are audience, measurement and content.
(8) The Video Audience: Real or Deceptive?
It isn’t clear that the audience for digital video is large enough,
either in number of people or in time spent viewing content, to
lead TV advertisers to spend more on digital screens. What is
clear, though, is:
■■ While there’s little question that the digital video audience
is growing steadily in numbers, not all those people
necessarily represent opportunities for advertisers.
■■ While the online audience watches more and more video,
often that content is still either unsafe for brands or too
short to support substantial advertising.
■■ While the amount of time the audience spends watching
video online is increasing, it is a mere blip compared to how
much time it spends watching TV.
No matter how you measure it, online video consumption is
up. Research from comScore in December 2011 showed high
year-over-year gains for viewers, videos viewed, and number
of videos per viewer.
US Online Video Viewer Metrics, Dec 2010 & Dec 2011
Average daily unique viewers
(millions)
Videos viewed (billions)
Videos per viewer
Dec 2010
73.7
30.1
175.0
Dec 2011
105.1
43.5
239.0
% change
42.6%
44.5%
36.6%
Source: comScore Inc., "US Digital Future in Focus 2012" with eMarketer
calculations, Feb 9, 2012
137681

However impressive that growth, online video consumption
remains dwarfed by TV consumption; US consumers spent 94.5%
of their monthly video time in Q4 2011 watching television.
% of total
Share of Monthly Time US Consumers Spent Watching
Video, by Device, Q4 2011
TV
94.5%
Internet
2.8%
Mobile
2.7%
Note: based on total users of each medium
Source: Nielsen, "State of the Media: The Cross-Platform Report Q4 2011,"
May 3, 2012
140169
Similarly, an April 2012 study from Arbitron and Edison
Research showed online video viewers watched 4 hours and
20 minutes weekly, on average—but even heavy internet
users spent nearly 29 hours per week watching TV.
hrs:mins
Time Spent per Week with TV and Online Video
According to US Internet Users, 2012
Heavy TV users with TV 57:10
Heavy internet users with TV 28:49
Heavy radio users with TV 25:19
Online video viewers with video 4:20
Note: ages 12+; heavy users for each medium were deﬁned by
self-reported daily time spent, representing approximately the top quartile
of all respondents
Source: Arbitron and Edison Research, "The Inﬁnite Dial 2012: Navigating
Digital Platforms," April 10, 2012
140143
And even with online video consumption growing, the online
audience may not add much to a TV advertiser’s reach.“People
that watch web video also tend to watch a lot of TV,” said Morgan.
Furthermore, while some hope that the huge popularity of
smartphones will create a key video advertising audience,
several datapoints indicate that tablets trump smartphones
when it comes to watching video—especially the sort of
longer-form video that best supports advertising.
As of 2012, one-half of smartphone owners—or a bit less
than one-fifth of the US population—will view mobile video,
according to eMarketer.
However, in February 2012, when Prosper Mobile Insights
asked smartphone users “What is the one function of your
smartphone that you cannot live without?” less than 1% said
watching videos or TV.
The implication,then,is that mobile—like all of digital—is a
particular label that actually encompasses great variations of video
usage.And the tablet audience will be more of a force forTV-digital
advertising fusion than will those watching on smartphones.
However, a large portion of mobile video advertising may not
depend on video content.
“Don’t discount the importance of apps that are not video,
such as Pandora, Scrabble, Words With Friends,” said
BrightRoll’s Sacerdoti. “Those will be the major video ad
recipients in mobile for at least the next 12 to 24 months.”
(9) An Active or Inattentive Audience
Today’s digital viewers are often not just passively sitting and
watching—they’re sharing, talking, clicking, testing. All that
activity can be a turnoff to traditional advertisers, who want
viewers’ full attention—or at least the more passive attention
they typically exhibit in front of a TV set.
An active audience differs across the five digital screens.Connected
TVs are typically still lean-back devices in the living room,more
so than,say,tablets and certainly more so than computers and
smartphones.And that more inactive state in front of the big screen
might attract greater advertiser attention than other digital screens.
Simultaneous media usage is not new, but increasing usage
of digital, especially mobile, is accelerating the trend. Nielsen
found that 45% of tablet owners used their devices while
watching TV at least once a day.
Mixed Messages (Forces that Help and Hinder)

Whether this simultaneous usage adds or detracts from
marketers’ goals is not clear. Much of the concurrent behavior
seems to be focused on the TV content, as noted in a study
from Accenture in which only 19% of respondents said they
had participated in something of a commercial nature—
contests or sweepstakes—related to a TV program.
% of respondents
Simultaneous Media Activities of US Internet Users
While Watching TV, March 2012
Reading more information about the TV program
27%
Learning more about the characters or actors in the TV
program
26%
Interacting with friends via social media who are also
watching the same TV program
20%
Finding additional videos related to the TV content (e.g.,
ﬁnding prior episodes, setting your DVR for new episodes)
19%
Participating in contests/sweepstakes related to the TV
program
19%
Signing up to receive information (e.g., via email or social
media) about the TV program in the future
13%
Interacting with other people you may not know via social
media about the TV program
12%
Any of the activities
51%
Note: performed on another device, e.g., computer, mobile phone,
tablet/iPad
Source: Accenture, "Social Media on TV Survey," April 16, 2012
139079
Regarding this multimedia trend, some might say, as Brian
Fuhrer did, “If you think about it, people are using that
television to its maximum. They’re also using a laptop or a
tablet while they’re watching TV.”
Or you might believe that simultaneous TV-digital usage will have
a relatively small influence because of TV’s essential nature.
“Most people don’t use video on a lean-forward basis,” said Dave
Morgan.“It’s a lean-back medium, it’s an escape.And that’s why
we have 5 hours of TV consumption per person per day.”
(10) Social Media: Attract or Distract
The widespread popularity of social media has led more brand
marketers to look for ways to deploy video ads on social sites.
The appeal is clear enough: Many people spend many
hours on social media sites. Furthermore, the intense buzz
surrounding that channel gives it a mindshare in the ad
industry that can influence decision-making among traditional
marketers who might believe that they’re missing something if
they fail to add social to their TV-focused mix.
How people use social media while they watch TV points to
ways advertisers might integrate their video campaigns across
channels. For example, 43% of respondents to the Accenture
survey who said they interacted with social media symbols
while watching TV did so to get more information. Translated
to a blend of video advertising across media, that could mean
the digital part of any video ad campaign could do well to
expand on the message shown on TV.
% of respondents
Reasons US Internet Users Interact with* Social
Media Symbols While Watching TV, March 2012
To get more information about the show, about a
product/service, etc.
43%
To get coupons/promotional codes
32%
To enter a contest/sweepstakes
31%
To watch another video
26%
To register/sign up for something
26%
To interact about the show, product, etc. on social
media
26%
To connect with others with similar interests
21%
To share/recommend the video/program to others
20%
To make a purchase
16%
Note: n=338 who have interacted with social media symbols seen on TV;
*by scanning the QR code, searching for the hashtag on Twitter, scanning
the Shazam symbol, "liking" the TV program on Facebook, going to the
website/url on their computer, mobile phone or tablet/iPad
Source: Accenture, "Social Media on TV Survey," April 16, 2012
139082
However, among the Accenture respondents who had ever
seen a social media symbol on TV—such as a Facebook “like”
button or a QR code—as of March 2012, only 20% or fewer
had ever actually interacted with them, such as by using their
mobile device to go to the marketer’s website.
In fact, while some marketers might hope that multitasking
adds an extra layer to their audience engagement, it can often
also distract an audience from the marketer’s message. For
example, 49% of moms with children up to age 7 surveyed
by BabyCenter said they used social media while watching
TV, and 41% said they went online with a mobile device—and
mothers of young children tend to be distracted enough
anyway. Therefore, this simultaneous social/TV usage might
not be good news for marketers.
Some marketers are more optimistic about the connection
between TV and social.

“As TV ratings continue to decline, the volume and sentiment of
social discussion around programming gives us an indicator of
how engaged that viewership is,” said Colleen Soriano,“which
starts to define value more by impact and behavior than reach
alone.The implication there is that social media can help us start
to evaluate TV more like we evaluate digital video.”
(11) GRPs—Or Not
Many ad industry executives say that because gross rating
points (GRPs) are a central currency for buying TV ad inventory,
they need an online equivalent. Having a common language
in the form of GRPs can help brands and agencies better
compare digital apples to TV apples.
“If you don’t have measurement that ties back to the way
advertising has always been bought, you’ve introduced friction,”
said VideoNuze’s Richmond,“because the buyers don’t know
what something’s worth on its own and they don’t know what
something’s worth relative to what they’ve been buying.”
But the detractors say GRPs dumb down digital, failing to
measure engagement and interaction. “The downside of the
online GRP is that it gets you back into valuing the medium on
TV’s standards—reach and frequency—whereas this digital
medium has so much more to offer,” said Richmond.
GRPs are a tool for combining reach and frequency, calculated
by taking the percentage of the target audience that views an
ad and multiplying that figure by how often it sees the ad in a
given campaign.Therefore, if a TV commercial reaches 25% of
the target audience and is shown 10 times, it has a GRP of 250.
However, if the same commercial reaches 50% of the target
audience and is shown only 5 times, it also has a GRP of 250.
You can see the problem there: the same GRPs. Yet with twice
the number of ads, the first example could cost more than the
second—all other pricing matters being equal.
Despite the general shortcomings and the digital naysayers,
more and more online companies are grafting GRPs onto the
online video advertising process.
“The objective is to utilize some of the strengths of the digital
side and combine it with the existing television approach
(GRPs), without having to make major changes in that side of
it,” said Nielsen’s Fuhrer.
Recent digital GRP endeavors include:
■■ September 2011. Nielsen announced that its Nielsen
Online Campaign Ratings (NOCR) measurement system,
which provides the equivalent of GRPs for online video ads,
was accredited by the Media Rating Council (MRC).
■■ December 2011. Nielsen announced a deal with Tremor
Video’s VideoHub unit that lets the latter company’s clients
access the measurement firm’s GRPs to give further insight
into the audience’s demographics.
■■ January 2012. comScore announced the launch of its
vGRPs (validated gross rating points), which look to layer
behavior onto reach and frequency.
■■ March 2012. TubeMogul announced that it was bringing
Nielsen’s GRP system to its real-time bidding (RTB) buying
platform for digital video ads.
■■ April 2012. Google announced its Active GRP metric that
integrates into DoubleClick’s ad serving tools.
■■ April 2012. AOL announced it would sell video ads using
GRPs provided by Nielsen.
All those efforts to establish an online GRP sound hopeful, but
there’s a problem built into the multiplicity—a lack of standards.
If the purpose of GRPs is to make buying digital video ads both
easier and comparable to TV, competing versions of the same
metric could complicate matters.
That sticking point is one reason why several industry
executives interviewed for this report look most to Nielsen for
establishing online GRPs.
“You can criticize Nielsen all day long, but the reality is that
they’re bringing an important service, which is sellers and
buyers are agreeing that this is the metric that we’re going to
use and here is a currency,” said Adap.tv’s Gabriner.
Despite the attempts to institute digital GRPs, some data
indicates it may not matter. The Association of National
Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research asked advertisers
about single cross-platform measurement systems and which
they thought would be the eventual industry standard.
While 48% of the respondents cited GRPs and its related
measurement method, target rating points (TRPs), a nearly
equal number of marketers mentioned unique visitors.
% of respondents
Future Industry Standard for Cross-Platform Audience
Measurement According to US Marketers, 2012
Unique visitors/
watchers
47%
Target rating points
(TRPs)
31%
Gross rating points
(GRPs)
17%
Other
4%
Note: n=70; numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Source: Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research,
“2012 TV & Everything Video Survey,” March 20, 2012
138367
“GRPs are just the tip of the iceberg from a digital video
standpoint,” said Universal McCann’s Soriano. “A lot of times
we get caught up in the debate around GRPs, giving them
much more importance than they may be worth.”

But GRPs might be essential to draw more TV brand
advertisers to include more digital video in their campaigns.
“GRPs are a necessary evil,” said Tremor Video’s Krebs. “Table
stakes, in order to get someone to pay attention to you. You
can’t prove that you have something better until you have
someone already trying you. And that’s where the digital
industry is right now when it comes to video and GRPs.”
(12) Targeting vs. Reach
Online video offers a degree of targeting not generally available
with TV advertising. But targeting reduces reach. Most brand
advertisers look to video—that is,TV—for greater reach.
“Part of the friction point right now is that when you’re buying on
targeting and reach, you can get below certain thresholds and
there isn’t enough scale there to keep a brand interested,” said
Richmond.“We’re still in that early phase of the market where it’s
hard to accomplish both objectives, reach and targeting.”
However,some think that when you look at the amount of time
people spend watchingTV vs.how little they spend watching digital
video,online video advertising won’t do much to increase reach.
“There isn’t incremental reach available in web video that’s not
already being bought on TV,” said Simulmedia’s Morgan.“That is,
if you buy TV, you’re already a significant TV advertiser.You can’t
extend your reach more than about two [points], because there
aren’t that many people who have really cut the cord.”
The resolution of the targeting/reach equation may not be
solved over the next couple of years. However, the continued
growth of audience viewing across the five digital screens,
combined with a rising amount of content to support brand
advertising, could resolve the paradox over time.
“Thinking about how the iPad universe is expanding and how
connectedTV is expanding,what happens is that the high-quality
inventory that’s available just gets bigger and bigger and bigger and
both targeting and reach objectives end up getting addressed,”
said Richmond.
(13) Extra Costs vs. Unique Creative
Making ad creative just for online video is often too costly.
Hence, most digital video ads are simply repurposed TV
commercials. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Extended
reach with engaging video ads can help boost brand
performance at relatively low cost. But repurposed TV ads
can’t take advantage of digital’s interactive capabilities.
“With the holistic buy, you want a single message across
mobile, online and TV. It makes the most sense to shoot
one portfolio of commercials for those three media,” said
Sacerdoti. “What I see is 90%-plus repurposed television ads.
Given the percentage of spend that digital video receives
relative to television, that seems rational.”
The paucity of unique creative for digital may not be only
about extra costs.
“Economics is one thing, and speed is another,” said agency
executive Soriano. “It takes time to concept these out, to
produce them and get them in the can. We’re not equipped
right now as an industry to iterate as efficiently as we
would like.”
Perhaps the use of TV commercials for online placements
is shifting. A study from VINDICO found that of the 30 billion
video ad impressions the company delivered in 2011, TV
creative was used for 90% of them—down from 98% in 2010.
% of total
Types of Digital Video Ads Served to US-Based
Audiences, 2010 & 2011
TV creative
98%
90%
Custom video environment*
1%
6%
Interactive video
1%
2%
Mobile
2%
2010 2011
Note: digital video ad impressions served over the ad server VINDICO;
mobile video ads are also repurposed TV creative ads; *include overlays,
billboards and tiles but are not digital video ads
Source: VINDICO, "Year in Review," April 11, 2012
138956
Brands at the leading edge of video advertising are seeing
cross-media advantages in making ad creative specifically for
the digital space.
For example, when BMW of North America launched its
revamped 3 Series, the campaign began with a traditional TV
buy and then the company “extended that into Hulu,ABC.com,
NBC.com and YouTube,” said Penich at BMW.
And while “there was overlap in some of the creative,” he said,
“we took the opportunity to create something that we call
digital shorts. So these were 15 seconds, really quick concepts
highlighting different features of the 3 Series.”
What made these digital-only ads effective for BMW was that they
built recognition for the 15-second concept ads by connecting the
creative to the mainTV portion of the campaign.In this instance,
the creative went two ways.“There was so much excitement
around these pieces that were created for digital content that they
actually made their way into traditionalTV,”said Penich.
When you consider that about one-third of all TV commercials
in 2011 were 15-second spots, according to Nielsen, that

length might be prime for creating greater connections
between digital and TV.
“The key thing the research shows is that the message needs to
be the same across the different platforms, not necessarily that
the creative is the same,” said Justin Evans, senior vice president
for emerging media at Collective, in a May 2012 interview.
(14) Digital Content New Fronts
Over a two-week period in April 2012, several of the largest
video sites banded together to offer ad buyers the kind of
upfront market long-established in television. The event—
called Digital Content New Fronts (New Fronts, for short) and
organized by Digitas—should help ease the siloed process of
buying media space for video advertising.
The video ad sellers involved in the New Fronts included
Google/YouTube, Yahoo!, AOL, Microsoft and Hulu. Each
company took a day or so to present advertisers and agencies
with marketing opportunities and information about future
video programming.
By looking to emulate TV’s upfront sales model with a
combined effort, these large online media companies hope to
persuade marketers to buy digital video advertising early and,
overall, to increase spending in this space.
“The New Fronts are a great strategy for the video companies in
adopting the upfront model,”said BMW’s Penich,“in the sense that
Hulu andYouTube,for example,are trying to change the perception
of how they are viewed.Right now they are very much viewed as
a website that’s part of a digital buy and they want to change that
perception.This is a step in the right direction.”
However,there’s some question whether theTV model of upfronts
can work in the digital space to overcome other ongoing concerns.
“For monies to transfer,you need a consistent measurement.
And we don’t have that,”said Rino Scanzoni,GroupM’s chief
investment officer,in anApril 2012 article inAdWeek.
The piece noted that Scanzoni didn’t see the need for an
online video upfront. “It’s kind of absurd,” he said. “With TV,
there’s scarcity, and you can wrap your arms around the
market.” But on the web, there’s a seemingly infinite supply of
video advertising inventory.
Some data seems to back up the perception that an online video
upfront market, while good in theory, won’t necessarily draw
together digital video and TV advertising. For example, while 44%
of brand advertisers said in 2011 that they looked to TV upfronts
for their online video buys, only 20% said the same in 2012.
% of respondents
Brand Advertisers and Agencies in North America
Who Look to TV Upfronts for Video, 2011 & 2012
Brand advertisers
44%
20%
Agencies
17%
21%
2011 2012
Note: upfronts account for <10% of overall video buy
2012," April 16, 2012
139217
(15) Online-Only vs. TV Content
Major digital media players are creating online-only video
content to attract ad dollars. Those efforts were both a central
aspect of the New Fronts and are also part of a larger ongoing
effort. The large companies making high-quality, brand-
safe, original online video content—typically episodic, and
often comedy-based—include Amazon (not a New Fronts
participant), AOL, Hulu, Netflix, Yahoo! and YouTube.
“Nothing happens overnight in terms of adoption and quality,”
said Richmond, “but there’s a lot of money that’s going toward
developing online-only originals, and some of that stuff is
going to stack up very well compared to some of the stuff
that’s currently available—at least on cable.”
That entertainment is the emphasis of original online content
makes sense when you consider that more than 55% of digital
video ad impressions served by Videology in Q1 2012 were on
entertainment sites.
% of total
Digital Video Ad Impressions Served to US-Based
Audiences, by Publisher Site, Q1 2012
Entertainment
55.6%
Portals
17.5%
Gaming
7.3%
News
3.6%
Tech
3.5%
Women
2.8%
Sports
1.5%
Note: read chart as saying 55.6% of video ad impressions served were
placed on sites classiﬁed as entertainment-oriented; less than 3% of
impressions are from mobile impressions
Source: Videology, "US Video Market At-A-Glance Q1 2012," May 3, 2012
139884

Their focus on creating video series available only online
could—if the original content draws large enough audiences—
help bring together advertising across the two media.
“It doesn’t necessarily have to be a TV show streaming on
Hulu or ABC or NBC. It has been up until this point, but I’m
seeing the amount of quality content that YouTube is starting
to produce, that Hulu is starting to produce … and I certainly
see the potential for us integrating into that content as well,”
said BMW’s Penich.
Some say original online video entertainment might not be all
it’s cracked up to be, at least when viewed by how much the
major companies are spending to create that content.
“Google’s making some investments in online original
content,” said Morgan. “And it’s funny that they can spend
hundreds of millions of dollars for YouTube content. But they
are investing no more than probably NBC is going to be losing
this fall on the first two shows they cancel.”
Even as there is an increasing amount of original, professional
video available online, the studios and TV networks are looking
to protect their assets by limiting how much content they’ll
distribute through digital.
Whether the TV industry’s holding back will affect the success
of the blend between digital and television is debatable. As
digital continues to disrupt traditional video media models, the
quality of the content—as represented by dollars spent—may
not entirely matter.
“Content should not be a factor at all,” said Tremor Video’s
Krebs, “but in this case, humans are making emotional
decisions about their ad spend, so some people will allow
it to become a factor. Now all of the data that we have
suggests that the relative success of a piece of content is
completely random, and so whether that delivers a positive
effect on the advertising associated with that content is
completely random.”
(16) Paid Content, No Ads
The growth of subscription-based online video content, such
as programming accessed via Netflix or Amazon, may impede
a fuller TV-digital fusion.
“There’s certainly a precedent for Netflix’s business model,
which is HBO, Showtime, Starz,” said Richmond. “So there
have been commercial-free incremental cable channels to
subscribe to for decades.”
Research from Chadwick Martin Bailey in December 2011
found that 24% of US internet users had watched TV shows
online through Netflix in the past week. Only TV network
websites—prime avenues for integrating digital and TV
advertising—had more users.
% of respondents
Services or Sites that US Internet Users Have Used to
Watch TV Shows Online, Dec 2011
A network website (ABC.com, NBC.com, etc.)
27%
Netflix online
24%
Other online services (Hulu, Hulu Plus, etc.)
18%
Pay-TV provider's website (Xfinity, Fios, etc.)
12%
Note: in the past week
Source: Chadwick Martin Bailey, "The New Age of Television: How
consumers make choices in a new era of entertainment options," Feb 15,
2012
138054
But Netflix seemed to get the bulk of the audience’s attention.
Data from Nielsen for December 2011 showed that while Netflix
ranked sixth for total video streams, at 251.8 million, it far and
away ranked first in average time per video viewer, at 10-plus
hours. In contrast, Hulu ranked second, at 3-plus hours.
The number of Netflix subscribers in the US will rise from
28.8 million in 2012 to 40.7 million in 2014, according to
Barclays Capital. Subscribers often represent a household of
several individuals, so those figures describe a large audience
potentially lost to advertisers.
In addition, Netflix’s streaming customers are highly active
digital video viewers. More than three-quarters of them watch
the company’s Watch Instantly offerings at least weekly,
according to Leichtman Research Group.
% of each group
Video Consumption Patterns Among US Adults, 2012
Netflix Watch Instantly customers who watch movies/TV
shows on a TV set weekly
79%
Households that have at least one TV set connected
to the internet*
38%
Mobile phone owners who watch on phones weekly 19%
Adults who watch full-length TV shows online at least weekly 16%
Adults who use Netflix's Watch Instantly feature 16%
Adults who watch internet video via connected device
at least weekly
13%
Adults who watch video on iPad or other tablet weekly 9%
Note: ages 18+; *connected via a video game system, a Blu-ray player, an
Apple TV or Roku set-top box and/or the TV set itself
Source: Leichtman Research Group, "Emerging Video Services VI" as cited
in press release, April 9, 2012
140162
Tablets are another channel for ad-free video viewing. As
personal TVs, tablets lend themselves to video purchases. And
research from Nielsen found that 41% of US tablet owners
bought at least one TV show in Q4 2011.
However, all of this subscription-based and paid content video
viewing may not mean lost opportunity for advertisers.

The large volume of video watching shows a growing audience
for digital video.And it is quite possible that Netflix could move
to a hybrid fee/advertising mix, much as cable TV did.That would
help create a further integration between the two media.
And some indicate that paid content may not even matter for
the ultimate blend of TV and online video advertising.“Some
say if these subscription services choose not to serve ads, it
will hurt the highly valued premium supply in the digital video
category,” said Sacerdoti.“But my premise is that most analysts
overestimate the importance of television content being online in
order for TV and digital video buying to be in sync.”
Conclusions
Clearly, there is no straightforward path to integrating
TV and digital video advertising.
Fear of the unknown—new audience measures, unfamiliar
programming choices, and complex buying systems—has
held back many advertisers. But an entirely different fear could
actually drive increased digital advertising. That’s the fear of
ad skipping.
A 2012 study from Arbitron and Edison Research found that
81% of DVR owners skipped commercials almost every time
they came on. And consumers are being given more tools
for ad skipping. For example, in May 2012, Dish Network, the
satellite-TV company, unveiled a feature called “Auto Hop” that
lets viewers automatically skip past commercials on shows
recorded on the company’s DVRs.
Ad skipping doesn’t exist with online video content—at least
not yet.
But many advertisers may be reluctant to shift to digital simply
because they are still quite happy with TV.
It’s going to take years for digital video advertising to blend
more fully with TV advertising, but time is on digital’s side. The
five digital screens are where audiences increasingly watch
TV and other video content, and brands need to reach them
anytime and everywhere.
In general, TV marketers see balance as the most effective
way to blend digital video into their messaging—a way to
reach audiences they might not have touched otherwise, a
way to engage their target customers in ways that TV doesn’t
allow, a way to make their spending more cost-effective.
“We work with Fortune 100 brands and TV, for the foreseeable
future, is going to be the centerpiece of those brands’
marketing campaigns,” said Collective’s Evans. “But they can
make that very sizeable spend more effective by strategically
complementing it with digital.”

eMarketer Interviews
Justin Evans
Senior Vice President, Emerging Media
Collective
Interview conducted on April 24, 2012
Brian Fuhrer
Senior Vice President, Product Leadership
Nielsen
Jason Krebs
Senior Vice President, Chief Media Officer
Tremor Video
Will Richmond
Editor/Publisher
VideoNuze
Tod Sacerdoti
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
BrightRoll
Colleen Soriano
Senior Vice President and Managing Partner, US
Integrated Investment and Digital Innovation
Universal McCann
Toby Gabriner
President
Adap.tv
Rick Landsman
Senior Vice President, Engineering
[x+1]
Interview conducted on May 4, 2012
Neville Manohar
Senior Marketing Manager, Digital Marketing
Chrysler Group
Dave Morgan
Chief Executive Officer
Simulmedia
Tom Penich
Media Communications Manager
BMW of North America
Related Links
Adap.tv
BrightRoll
Collective
Nielsen
Ooyala
Simulmedia
Tremor Video
Universal McCann
Videology
VideoNuze
VINDICO
[x+1]
YuMe

About eMarketer
eMarketer publishes data, analysis and insights
on digital marketing, media and commerce. We do
this by gathering information from many sources,
filtering it, and putting it into perspective. For more
than a decade, leading companies have trusted this
approach, and have relied on eMarketer to help
them make better business decisions.
Benefits
Companies rely on eMarketer to:
■■ Save time and resources by getting the right
information, quickly.
■■ Validate media decisions with reliable data to ensure
productive investments.
■■ Educate teams and senior executives on the latest
digital marketing topics.
■■ Evaluate emerging trends instantly and maintain
competitive advantage.
■■ Deliver impactful presentations with facts, figures and
charts in a variety of downloadable formats.
Editorial and
Production Contributors
Nicole Perrin Associate Editorial Director
Cliff Annicelli Senior Copy Editor
Emily Adler Copy Editor
Dana Hill Director of Production
Joanne DiCamillo Senior Production Artist
Stephanie Gehrsitz Production Artist
Allie Smith Director of Charts

E marketer digital_video_and_tv_advertising_16_forces_that_will_help_or_hinder_integration

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (17)

Similaire à E marketer digital_video_and_tv_advertising_16_forces_that_will_help_or_hinder_integration

Similaire à E marketer digital_video_and_tv_advertising_16_forces_that_will_help_or_hinder_integration (20)

Plus de AdCMO

Plus de AdCMO (20)

E marketer digital_video_and_tv_advertising_16_forces_that_will_help_or_hinder_integration