Addressable TV 6% cheaper than Programmatic display?
For numbers geeks who live to normalize data, apples to apples, we decided to do the math.
What prompted this?
This week, AT&T’s CFO said the company’s “addressable advertising” business continues to grow, now commanding CPMs of up to $40—a figure three times more than what AT&T’s standard advertising business can generate.
To boot, in ground-breaking move, Brian Lesser left GroupM for AT&T to build an automated addressable TV and premium video advertising platform at AT&T.
Finally, HH addressable TV tallies more than 50 million American homes (led by AT&T. Comcast and Spectrum), and now becomes a viable contender versus one-to-one digital prospecting.
So we compared the $40 CPM for HH addressable TV to Programmatic display prospecting.
When applying viewability, in-view seconds, screen size factor, and TV channel zapping factor, on a CPM per second basis, HH addressable TV is 6% cheaper than programmatic.
It’s a straight-forward mathematical equation. Viewability is from C3 Metrics data over the past 5 years which matches closely with comScore’s 69% number in programmatic.
It’s too simplistic to think, like the Flonase commercial that “six is better than one.” Factors need to be applied to normalize CPMs on an apples to apples basis.
“TV was once a shotgun compared to digital’s rifle focus. said C3 Metrics advertising attribution measurement COO Jeff Greenfield. “but now, with HH addressability at scale for TV, it’s challenging digital prospecting. We did the math because advertisers want to know on an equivalent basis, what the costs are.”
Right about now…folks at AT&T and Comcast are likely quoting Mark Wahlberg from Shooter in the war between Programmatic display and TV: “I didn’t start it, but be sure as hell… I mean to see it through.”
Load your weapons.