A report out of TubeMogul indicates that the completion rate for an online commercial that’s thirty seconds to a minute and thirty seconds in length is 32.2%.
Interestingly enough, the completion rate for click-to-play commercials under thirty seconds in length is only 17%.
In other words, the longer the commercial (up to a minute and thirty seconds in length) the better the completion rate.
Why is this?
My take is either the absence or presence of “story.” A better and more engaging story can be told the more time there is to tell it.
Obviously, there are limits. TubeMogul says completion rates drop to 23.4% for commercials longer than a minute and thirty seconds. But still, that’s substantially higher than the 17% completion rate for those commercials under thirty seconds in length.
What does this all mean? What it means is that it would behoove advertisers to start creating longer, story-based commercials for online viewers. The problem is how to justify such an expense.
After all, the number of viewers who actually click into a commercial to watch it is much smaller than the number that are exposed to it.
To justify production costs by click-to-play numbers is not feasible.
But to make some of the cost of creating and producing the spot dependent on time-spent numbers is feasible. Second-by-second compensation models now make this possible.
With second-by-second compensation, the longer the viewer stays engaged in the commercial, the more the advertiser pays the agency for creating it.
This turns the cost of production into a win/win situation. What’s good for the advertiser becomes good for the agency.
Imagine if your agency constantly delivered 66% average completion rates? Or, even 90%. We know now that they would be way above the industry norm.
Brilliance, as always, should be recognized. Since brilliance can now be measured, how long will it be before advertisers start paying accordingly?