In this interview, we chat with Teads' Charlotte Cook-Anderson about video ads, discuss the benefits of instream vs outstream
Video advertising plays a pivotal role in brand storytelling and audience engagement. With the rise of mobile and social platforms, the debate between instream and outstream video ads has become more relevant than ever. To shed light on this topic, we’re joined by Charlotte Cook-Anderson, VP Strategic Accounts at Teads UK. Charlotte brings unique insights into how instream and outstream ads differ, their respective advantages, and how brands can leverage them for maximum reach and engagement.
Both Instream and Outstream video ads can form an effective part of an ad campaign. Can you talk us through the differences?
A couple of years ago, IAB redefined Instream and Outstream to help advertisers clearly differentiate between the two, but earlier this year, Google AdX updated to align with the new industry standard definitions. Instream ads are video ads that play within a video stream. These ads appear before (pre-roll), during (mid-roll), or after (post-roll) video content. Outstream ads are video ads that appear in non-video environments, typically embedded in text-based content, such as articles or news feeds.
Those are the formal definitions, but the benefits to the outcomes each format can deliver are different and so there are some considerations RE how they should fit into different media plans for different clients. Instream gives advertisers the ability to deliver video content where users are already engaging with that content, vs Outstream which surfaces content wherever the user is and is often less intrusive, has its sound off unless the user requests it.
Whilst the changes to the IAB definitions are welcome (as is Google’s adoption), some confusion has arisen where a lot of Outstream has been bundled together. It’s created a broad category, but there are distinct differences between how some partners are delivering video outside of video content. The predominant question is around the quality of Outstream. Some partners deliver low-quality ads in low-quality environments (most recently encapsulated by the MFA scandal), which don’t deliver the right outcomes for brands. Counter to this though, quality Outstream partners who deliver video ads in premium editorial environments through engaging creative formats, can deliver incredible results.
Why may certain advertisers want to opt for one over another?
There are a number of reasons why advertisers would want to consider these different formats. The first is the simplest, and why the new definitions help so much: are you looking to be adjacent to video or editorial content?
From there, the questions get more interesting and can make a much more profound impact, not just on your campaign but your brand overall. For example, Instream ads are forced views with sound on by default. That’s great for view through rates, but less good from a user experience perspective. Research has also shown that choice is one of the key drivers of attention, so having a video ad that the user chooses to engage with can drive much better outcomes.
It’s also worth considering how the user is engaging with the environment they’re in. Is it a passive, fast scrolling, experience? Or are they reading slowly, leaned into the content they’re consuming? Beyond that, advertisers also want to consider the company they keep. A lot of my luxury clients want to ensure they’re seen in similar environments to other, high-end brands.
Finally, it’s reach. Instream and Outstream can both offer incredible reach, but reach itself is not everything. If you’re targeting a certain market / demographic, then reaching them in the right environment is more effective than just adding on incremental points for the sake of it. Consider the type of content your audience consumes, the time of day they consume it, the mindset and how that compliments your campaign.
When it comes to user experience, is there a clear winner?
I would argue that quality Outstream does offer a better user experience for two key reasons:
- Choice. In quality Outstream environments, if the user doesn’t wish to engage with an ad, they can simply scroll past and the sound will remain off. Not forcing ads on consumers is not only good for campaign results but also helps restore trust in advertising.
- Optimisation. Outstream offers the opportunity for amazing creative opportunities to develop interactive experiences to engage users, vs Instream which generally tends to be a more standard video experience.
With made-for-advertising (MFA) sites on the rise, how important is the quality of the display environment for advertisers?
Very, but the MFA scandal hasn’t changed that. All MFA has done is reinforce the point regarding Outstream vs Instream. MFA or not, programmatic or not… quality partners deliver better results for brands and publishers, as well as better experiences for consumers. MFA has only served to put the quality of environments, direct supply back into the discussion and introduce new checks and balances for the calibre of the partners with which they work.
This also highlighted some of the problems with metrics like viewability and completion rate — whilst some platforms deliver highly on these, it doesn’t actually mean the ad has been seen or engaged with.