{"id":543,"date":"2024-07-18T13:26:45","date_gmt":"2024-07-18T13:26:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/coolmedia.co\/?p=543"},"modified":"2024-07-18T13:26:45","modified_gmt":"2024-07-18T13:26:45","slug":"comparison-linear-tv-metrics-vs-ctv-metrics-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cool.co\/media-and-attribution\/comparison-linear-tv-metrics-vs-ctv-metrics-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparison: Linear TV Metrics vs. CTV Metrics, Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s a little-known fact for you: Neanderthals and modern human beings lived side-by-side, for thousands of years. Though we tend to think of evolution as a straightforward progression from one phase to the next, the fossil record shows that old and new coexisted, shared \u2014 even interbred. There\u2019s quite literally a little Neanderthal in all of us.<\/span><\/p>\n

The same is true in technology: the old ways don\u2019t disappear overnight. Computers and typewriters co-existed for decades. iPhones and payphones existed at the same time. Combination DVD\/VHS players were a hot-ticket item. And though Connected TV advertising is definitely the next evolution in TV technology, it coexists with traditional \u201clinear\u201d TV and probably will for quite a while yet.<\/span><\/p>\n

Linear TV and Connected TV have a lot in common, but there are a lot of differences happening below the hood that warrant discussion. In this blog, we\u2019ll discuss the similarities, differences, and what might carry over from linear to CTV. Read on:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Table of contents<\/h3>\n
    <\/ol>\n <\/div>\n \n

    Case Study:<\/i><\/b> Attribution 101: What Gets Credit For Your Conversions? <\/span><\/i>Read More.<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

    Linear TV Metrics<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Most of us are familiar with one of the key metrics in linear TV ratings: ratings. Why did <\/span>Star Trek <\/span><\/i>get cancelled? Ratings. What made <\/span>Seinfeld<\/span><\/i> unbeatable for a decade? Ratings. Why are the American people subjected to year after year of <\/span>Young Sheldon?<\/span><\/i> Ratings.<\/span><\/p>\n

    TV ratings are the percentage of households or viewers tuned in to a program at a given time, measured by rating points (which are the percentage of the total viewing audience) and share (the percentage of viewers out of people actively watching TV at the time). Traditionally, linear TV ratings have been tabulated by Nielsen \u2014 back in the first Golden Age of Television, so-called \u201c<\/span>Nielsen Families<\/span><\/a>\u201d would agree to have their viewing habits recorded, forming a large enough sample population that Nielsen could extrapolate from there to showcase who in America was watching what. However, though ratings form a huge bulk of linear TV metrics, they aren\u2019t the only ones.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Reach and Frequency <\/b>refer to the total number of unique households or viewers exposed to an ad within a set timeframe (reach) often based on Nielsen ratings, and how often an ad is shown to the same audience during the campaign (<\/span>frequency<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0 These are very similar to some of the metrics used in CTV advertisements, but different for a few reasons we\u2019ll get into further down.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Gross Rating Points (GRPs)<\/b> quantify the total exposure of an ad campaign by multiplying reach (as a percentage of the target audience) by frequency. For example, if an ad reaches 30% of the target audience with an average frequency of 3, the campaign would achieve 90 GRPs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    CPMs<\/b> are the measure of how much it\u2019s costing to get your ad in front of 1,000 viewers. On linear TV, factors like a show\u2019s ratings, time slot, and audience demographics can factor into your CPMs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    These metrics <\/span>sound<\/span><\/i> similar to the ones we\u2019ll discuss below, because in many ways linear TV metrics were the precursors for the metrics we use in CTV. But when you get under the hood a little more, the differences begin to become more apparent.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    <\/h2>\n

    Connected TV Metrics<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Whereas linear TV metrics are often based around formulas and extrapolation, CTV metrics are collected far more directly. Though we haven\u2019t yet cracked a way to accurately determine whether a viewer was <\/span>paying attention<\/span><\/i> to an ad (though we\u2019re working on it), impression numbers now more-or-less accurately reflect the number of times an ad was shown on an active device.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Connected devices send a lot more actionable data back to advertisers than the one-way broadcasts worked in the past, so even if the metrics seem similar by definition, there\u2019s a different level of trust and certainty involved.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Household Reach and Unique Devices <\/b>collect data on user IP addresses and device IDs. So reach metrics can track both the number of households and individual TV sets, iPads, cellphones, and more, giving a more-complete picture of your impressions and campaign penetration. Cross-referencing these bits of information gradually allows you to assemble profiles of your viewer behaviour.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Completion Rate and Click-Through Rate <\/b>measure the percentage of viewers who watch an entire ad without skipping. Unlike linear TV, CTV ads can also feature <\/span>interactive<\/span><\/a> components like QR codes or clickable links, meaning you can now measure viewer engagement based on how many of them follow your ad directly into the funnel \u2014 something that was only measurable by indirect inferences on linear TV.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Viewability <\/b>shows how visible your ads are on-screen. On most streaming services, ads take up the entire screen, making for a 100% viewable experience at all times. On some apps, like YouTube, the video screen can be positioned by the user slightly out-of-frame, which can cause that number to drop, but it\u2019s rarer.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Ad Fraud Metrics <\/b>are a catch-all term referring to the tools CTV advertisers use to make sure that their ad traffic isn\u2019t being spoofed by unscrupulous publishers, ensuring a greater degree of confidence in our other metrics. Checking for things like invalid traffic, unauthorised placements (like double-layering a second ad invisibly behind the viewable one) prevents <\/span>ad fraud<\/span><\/a> and maintains campaign integrity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Attribution and Performance Analytics <\/b>are where CTV advertising really demonstrates its advantage over linear TV. With CTV advertising, you can directly link ad exposure to a variety of consumer actions, like website visits, app downloads, and purchases. With complex CTV <\/span>attribution<\/span><\/a> models, you can trace a customer journey from their initial impressions on one advice to a purchase on a completely different device. This sort of multi-factor attribution is functionally impossible on a traditional linear campaign, and this is the true source of CTV\u2019s boundless growth for advertisers in recent years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Comparing CTV to Linear<\/span><\/h2>\n

    You\u2019re not here for a glossary, though: you\u2019re here for a direct comparison to how these two media powerhouses ultimately stack up to one another. And though these two viewing methods have very similar-sounding metrics between one another, it\u2019s in the compare\/contrast that the true advantages start to show themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n