The IAB Europe has published a white paper laying down further guidelines on viewable ad impressions to stakeholders in the digital advertising sector across the continent. However leading figures in the publishing industry are making the case to advance the conversations by applying unique metrics to different ad formats.

The white paper, based on a survey of over 700 industry stakeholders, found that over three-quarter of respondents (84%), and brand advertisers in particular, are urging a move towards using 'viewable impressions' rather than 'served impressions', as a key performance indicator for campaign performance.

The document provides advice on viewable impressions, and also offers guidance on how to assess viewability within the context of a wider metrics portfolio, with perspectives from different stakeholders groups within the digital advertising ecosystem.

In addition, it attempts to clarify definitions on some of the terminology within the field in an attempt to bolster investment in digital advertising from brand advertisers in particular.

Karim Attia, IAB Europe, brand advertising committee and nugg.ad, CEO, said: “This white paper aims to address the area of viewable impressions measurement specifically and will be followed with market consultations.

"During the year other initiatives such as the IAB Europe Measurement Blueprint and wider Quality topics including environment and delivery will be developed within the brand advertising committee.”

Bjorn Kaspring, BVDW / IAB Germany member, and head of premium display, Interactive Media, added: “IAB Europe's white paper is an important step in increasing the understanding of viewable impressions and how they fit into the overall metrics landscape.”

A full copy of the report can be downloaded here.

Measurement
The paper urges consistency of measurement when it comes to viewable ad impressions, adding that most companies measuring viewable impressions work within the 3MS / Media Rating Council (MRC) Viewable Impression Measurement Guideline (which requires 50% of pixels viewable by a web user for one continuous second), but sources consulted by ExchangeWire bemoan notable discrepancies in the results they are seeing.

Fabien Magalon, La Place Media, managing director, said discrepancy rates he observed in a recent audit of the publishing co-op members' of sites were unacceptable.

He added: "The companies that measure the viewability – in our experience – tend to score viewability on similar placements very differently. In fact, it's quite surprising at just how differently they measure them sometimes.

"In France there are four-or-five viewability companies we have been working with to audit viewability with our members, and they don't provide the same numbers on each of our placements."

This demonstrates the scale of the challenges still facing the industry, and La Place Media has resorted to labour-intensive methods of measuring viewability in the absence of a more acceptable industry-wide approach to resolving reporting discrepancies.

Magalon added: "At La Place Media, we will use the same measurement tool as the advertiser [to achieve more consistent results] so that we have the same numbers as the publishers. It makes things more complicated, and it's not ideal."

Consensus needed
The measurement companies, need to partner and work together with MRC, so the [discrepancies with the] results end up within 5% of each other, according to Magalon.

The IAB Europe white paper goes on to back this sentiment, and further notes the urgency for more aligned methods of measurement given the emergence of mobile media usage, and mobile internet users' increased likelihood to use apps, as opposed to web browsers.

It reads: "As an industry it is important to align on the method used to measure to ensure consistency. As viewable impression measures increase in their adoption across the industry robust training of campaign implementation is also crucial to ensure consistent and reliable results.

"Viewable impression results to date have highlighted a gap between advertiser expectations and the norms across campaigns. Much of this discrepancy can be attributed to what is actually measurable and the MRC is quite specific in its guideline that only in-browser activity can and should be measured.

"This is an area on which the industry can collaborate on and find common solutions. As we see more audience and advertising in mobile, app, gaming and smart TV platforms viewability will need to evolve to measure these ad platforms."

Further complications

Sources approached by ExchangeWire, have made the case that more advanced methods of assessing whether or not ads were viewable are needed, particularly as different ad formats come on to the market.

The latest IAB update on viewable ad impressions recommended a renewed approach for measuring on differing ad formats, but not all are happy with this, with one noting that they were simply not "smart enough".

The latest IAB guidance reads: "For large format ads, defined as 242,500 pixels or over, a viewable impression is counted if 30% of the pixels of the ad are viewable for a minimum of one continuous second, as noted in the MRC Viewable Ad Impression Measurement Guidelines.”

La Place Media's Magalon, argues this effectively means publishers cannot assess larger ad formats in the same way as they do with smaller ones, further adding to the difficulties experienced by publishers.

He further maintained that under the current status quo ad formats sized 300x600 pixels are "measured against too strict a metric", while some ad formats (468x60 pixels and 120x240 pixels) "are being measured against metrics that are too soft."

He added: "This is a fascinating evolution, which basically claims that we can’t apply to larger sizes, the same standard that is applied to smaller sizes, and it makes complete sense.

"However it's not enough, the industry is using the same standard (50% of an ad viewed for one second) for every single ad size, except the 970x250 format.

"I strongly believe IAB Standard need to evolve to take into account the diversity of ad sizes. It seems common sense to measure viewability against number of pixels of the ad."

Evolution, not revolution
Steve Chester, IAB, UK, head of data and industry programmes, acknowledges there is scope for a more progressive metrics, but added that flooding the market with a plethora of measurement metrics at such a nascent stage of its development could prove counterproductive.

He added: "We definitely take on board the case for further metrics [on viewability], but it's important to note that the latest guidelines were agreed by various parties within the digital advertising sector, such as the IPA [the media agency trade body], and the AOP [the UK body that represents premium publishers.

"That's not to say that things won't change going forward, but in the first instance, we didn't want to confuse the market."
Chester pointed to the US where there is many as three different ways of measuring viewability, and that introducing further methods overnight, could add to confusion in the market.

Although, he did note that individual advertisers and publishers are always at liberty to agree different methods of agreeing how to measure if an ad was viewed between themselves.

Tim Cain, AOP, managing director, added: “Establishing initial metrics that were honed from MRC research in the US was always an important first step in creating viewability measurements, we would inevitably expect them to develop over time to reflect the diversity of ad formats that will continue to evolve."