The 4A’s thanks Committee Chair Jen Soch, MediaVest, for this report.

Since 2005, the Digital Video Innovation Committee of the 4A’s has been issuing a desired set of guidelines that is designed to help advertisers and their agencies judge the effectiveness of ad messaging in an on-demand video environment.

In order to issue these guidelines the committee has met with industry trade groups, video program distributors, cable/satellite/telecom operators, and technology enablers and research intermediaries to discuss their progress in the marketplace as it relates to the guidelines and their adoption.

This document reflects our second revision and review on the progress of the marketplace.

1. Goal of Review

Since its inception, the 4A’s Digital Video Innovation Committee has promoted the adoption of measurement capabilities to help advertisers and their agencies judge the effectiveness of ad messaging in on-demand media environments.

The goal of this review is to evaluate the industry’s progress towards compliance with the guidelines. To agencies and marketers planning to use digital video platforms, the review will help set data expectations by distribution platform. For those involved in the selling of messaging units on digital video platforms, the review will provide insight about how their platform complies with the guidelines versus other platforms.

In 2005, the Digital Video Innovation Committee issued the industry’s first set of guidelines to identify important data collection and reporting requirements for on-demand media. They also set forth the desire to engage the media industry in an iterative process—to promote implementation of the measurement guidelines and constructive comments to reveal the obstacles in meeting the criteria.

In 2007, the committee issued its first progress report of the marketplace. This document served to share our first progress report of the DVI industry. In 2008, we shared our second progress report and rankings; today, we will issue our third progress report and highlight changes and advancements in the marketplace.

Over the last five years, the committee has benefited from (and greatly appreciates) the thoughtful insights offered by industry trade groups, video program distributors, cable/satellite/telecom operators, technology enablers and research intermediaries to the guidelines.

We would like to remind the industry that our guidelines should be used as an industry guide to innovation. We recommend to the community that they use the outlined metrics when discussing advancements in data. To advance today, accountability is needed. To realize the full potential of an advertising message, metrics are needed. It is imperative that we work together to ensure our future campaigns can be measured and verified.

2. Organizing the Evaluation

This progress evaluation considers a range of digital video/on-demand platforms; as the digital video universe has progressed, so has the evaluation set. When the first guidelines were issued in 2005, the focus was primarily upon cable television (MSO) and satellite (DBS) systems. In 2007, the first progress report expanded to include cable television (MSO), satellite (DBS) systems, broadband program distributors, cellular phone service providers, IPTV program providers and DVR companies. In 2010, we will again expand our universe to include video via applications of cell phones and over-the-top solutions.

The criterion used to track compliance to the guidelines is intended to be helpful commentary about the general state of progress of all companies within a distribution sector. It is not our purpose to anoint heroes or skewer laggards. It is more important to set agency and marketer’s expectations about measurement capabilities of certain video platforms. Generally speaking, the characteristics of all companies within a distribution sector are similar, and it is the capabilities of various digital video platforms that vary.

In our meetings with industry trade groups, video program distributors, cable/satellite/telecom operators, technology enablers and research intermediaries about the guidelines, two factors are clear:

1. An understanding by all that the guidelines are fundamental to the development of a robust, revenue-producing advertising platform.
2. The infrastructure, defined as the technological and cost factors in developing and building the means to verify, count, track and report use and viewing, is an expensive and potentially time-consuming endeavor.

Compliance and progress are the primary ingredients to this evaluation. As a result, the evaluation awards stars based on two criteria—compliance to the guidelines and our understanding of progress in achieving the guidelines.

Specifically, the criteria are as follows:

3. The Guidelines

The On-Demand Measurement Guidelines contains six measurement factors, the quick turnaround in data reports and the need for data verification by trusted third parties.

An overarching factor affecting each guideline is the assumption that any data collected and subsequently reported will be held to the highest consumer privacy standards, such as those outlined in the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the individual privacy statement of companies that distribute video content and stand-alone technology providers. The expectation is that any collected and reported data will be anonymous and aggregated form, and not personally identifiable, unless specifically requested by a viewer in an explicit, direct, “opt-in” manner.

The guidelines are:

1. Total gross universe counts by DMA. Actual counts of the following, by designated marketing area (DMA), to facilitate comparative universe bases from most broad to most narrow:

• Total HHs passed
• Total HH subscribers (across all platforms, including mobile)
• Total HH subscribers breakout by analog and digital (cable only)
• Total VOD-enabled HHs
• Total DVR/NDVR-enabled HHs
• Total digital set-top box count and unique set-top box count (e.g., machine address, MAC address, etc.)
• Total HHs for programmers/content providers.
• Total connected Set Top box count.

2. Verification of ad message unit delivery. A total gross count of ad messaging units delivered to set-top box units, where delivery is defined as:

• All frames delivered
• Some frames delivered
• Which specific frames were delivered of the ad messaging unit in both video and audio. This may be supplemented with and/or substituted by other generally accepted verification methodologies such as audio/video “watermark” monitoring that relies on the 4A’s/ANA Ad-ID code. Until separate ad messaging unit insertion is feasible, this gross count is expected to cover an entire video stream where an ad messaging unit may reside, inclusive of any content that may be in the stream. Until verification can be accomplished at the set-top box level, measurement of the most similar phenomena from VOD server logs is acceptable.

3. Ad messaging unit viewing duration and “trick-play” behavior. A breakdown of total gross ad messaging units viewed by time duration and/or mode to ascertain whether ad messaging units were viewed in fast-forward or standard mode, and whether rewinding occurred. Also pause-function behavior, in both live and recorded modes. Until separate ad messaging unit insertion is feasible, this breakdown is expected to cover an entire video stream where an ad messaging unit may reside, inclusive of any content that may be in the stream.

4. Time, day and date identification. Supplemental to gross counts for Guidelines 2 and 3, a breakdown of ad messaging unit delivery, duration and behavior by time-stamp (preferably to the second-by-second level), day and date.

5. Demographic/Geographic/Psychographic identifier behavior. Supplemental to gross counts for Guidelines 2–4, a breakdown of ad messaging unit delivery, duration, and behavior by, at minimum, aggregate ZIP+4 clusters, and preferably by individual household characteristics from direct mail list suppliers and from advertisers’ and retailers’ own customer lists.

6. Video link in/out behavior. Where real-time and recorded telescoping/video linking environments exist, a gross count and breakdown of “click behavior,” including number of clicks, time of clicks, click-stream behavior (source and counts of prior clicks) and the video environments, from which those clicks originated (linear ads, content, etc.). Where virtual-channel or walled-garden “click-to-video” environments exist (e.g., banners, etc.), a gross count and breakdown of click behavior. A breakout of “after-the-click” video behavior is also expected. These source and destination data also subject to Guidelines 2–5.

7. Data reporting turnaround. All data must be reported in as timely a manner as is technologically practicable—preferably within 24 hours.

8. Verification/reporting. All data must be either verified (audited) by and reported through a trusted independent third-party research firm. The auditing and verification should follow industry precedent as stated in the CASIE (Coalition for Advertising Supported Information and Entertainment) Auditing Principles.

9. Key Brand Metrics. Third-party research that includes brand metrics such as recall must be included in performance reporting.

4. Evaluation

Criteria:

5. Comments

The industry continues to progress by developing new infrastructures that take into account the DVI guidelines established in 2005. It is our goal to continue our candid conversations and dialogs with each distributor to improve compliance in the future.  We would like to thank the industry for including us in these frank and open dialogs.

The Cable MSOs continue to move forward with new products and services via Canoe Ventures. We want to acknowledge their efforts to band together to form a more cohesive product set in the marketplace. The Canoe MSOs and independent MSOs continue to actively engage with the guidelines as they move forward. We hope to see greater acceptance in the next 18-24 months.

DVR companies continue to push forward and are working towards the goal of 24 hour, third party reporting and we applaud these efforts. Moving forward  we hope to see a greater push towards is the inclusion of demographics.

Direct Broadcaster Satellite and Telco Program Providers are both making great strides towards the inclusion of third-party data metrics and the release of set-top box data. We wish to acknowledge their pushes in the marketplace and applaud the efforts. We hope to see demographics and shorter timelines also included in the near future.

Broadband video providers continue to work with various industry groups and have again made great strides to include the 4A’s to adopt the guidelines.  As a result, broadband video providers continue to see strong advertising support and growth.

Video via Applications on Cell Phones are adding new metrics as the reach is growing in the marketplace. We are seeing more ad standards available to Application advertising and we believe there is the potential to move the needle in the next 12 months. We hope to see the inclusion of third party metrics and serving as part of the product sets.

While Application Videos are moving quickly, Cellular Phone Video is moving at a slower pace. Our hope is that these providers can partner with Application providers to enable reporting back to advertisers.

Lastly, our committee would like to acknowledge Over-the-Top applications as we see this as an area of anticipated growth. It is a competitive environment and we wish to show our support of their efforts. Today however, we will take a ‘wait and see’ approach before we add a rating to the progress.

During this rough economic climate we would like to acknowledge and thank each category for continuing on the path to compliance. We recognize that adding new metrics takes time and resources internally and we appreciate the efforts of all in the industry.

6. Next Steps

We welcome continued discussions on the guidelines and how we can help frame the industry using these metrics in the future. We believe this is an iterative process and we must all work together to swiftly deliver these metrics so that we can advance the marketplace towards greater adoption.

4A’s Digital Video Innovation Committee

Jen Soch, MediaVest USA (Chair)
Chris Allen, Starcom Worldwide
Michael Bologna, GroupM
Scott Briskman, Agency.com US
Robert Davidman, EarthQuake Media LLC
Ryan Griffin, DIGITAS
Nicole Haygood, DRAFTFCB
Curt Hecht, VivaKi Nerve Center
Adam Kasper, Media Contacts (MPG)
Josh Martin, ID Media
Jeff Minsky, OMD Ignition Factory
Philip Mitchell, Neo@Ogilvy
Mitch Oscar, MPG
Jim Price, Empower MediaMarketing
Tracey Scheppach, SMGX
Chuck Schultz, SMG Detroit
Janice Suter, GSD&M’s Idea City
Brian Wieser, MAGNA
Donna Campbell, 4A’s