Examining instream and outstream video ads with Teads

In this interview, we talk to Charlotte Cook-Anderson from Teads about video ads and discuss the advantages of instream over outstream

Video advertising plays a central role in brand storytelling and audience engagement. With the rise of mobile and social platforms, the debate between instream and outstream video ads is more relevant than ever. To shed light on this topic, we’re joined by Charlotte Cook-Anderson, Global Head of Video Solutions at Teads. Charlotte brings unique insights into the differences between instream and outstream ads, their respective benefits, and how brands can leverage them for maximum reach and engagement.

Both instream and outstream video ads can form an effective part of an advertising campaign. Can you explain the differences to us?

A few years ago, the IAB redefined instream and outstream to allow advertisers to clearly distinguish between the two. However, earlier this year, Google AdX was 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 and are typically embedded in text-based content such as articles or news feeds.

These are the formal definitions, but the benefits to the results each format can deliver are different and so there is some consideration as to 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. Outstream, on the other hand, displays content wherever the user is, is often less intrusive, and has the sound turned off unless the user requests it.

While the changes to the IAB definitions are welcome (as is Google’s adoption), confusion has arisen because many outstream solutions have been bundled together. A broad category has been created, but there are clear differences in the way some partners deliver videos outside of video content. The prevailing question revolves around the quality of outstream. Some partners serve substandard ads in substandard environments (most recently exacerbated by the MFA scandal) that don’t deliver the right results for brands. In contrast, high-quality outstream partners who deliver video ads in premium editorial environments through engaging creative formats can deliver incredible results.

Why might certain advertisers want to choose one or the other?

There are a number of reasons why advertisers should consider these different formats. The first is the simplest and why the new definitions are so helpful: Do you want to be next to videos or editorial content?

From there, the questions get more interesting and can have a much more profound impact, not just on your campaign, but on your brand as a whole. For example, instream ads are forced views with sound on by default. This is great for view-through rates, but not so great from a user experience perspective. Research has also shown that choice is one of the most important determinants of attention. Therefore, a video ad that the user interacts with can achieve much better results.

It is also worth considering how the user interacts with the environment in which they find themselves. Is it a passive, fast scrolling experience? Or do they read slowly and focus on the content they are consuming? Additionally, advertisers also want to consider the company they are retaining. Many of my luxury clients want to ensure they are seen in a similar environment to other high-end brands.

Finally it’s reach. Both instream and outstream can provide incredible reach, but reach itself isn’t everything. If you’re targeting a specific market or demographic, reaching them in the right environment is more effective than simply adding extra points. Consider the type of content your audience consumes, the time of day they consume, their mindset and how this complements your campaign.

Is there a clear winner when it comes to user experience?

I would argue that high quality outstream provides a better user experience for two main reasons:

• Selection. In high-quality outstream environments, if the user doesn’t want to interact with an ad, they can simply scroll past and the sound remains off. Not forcing advertising on consumers is not only good for campaign results, but also helps restore trust in advertising.
• optimization. Outstream offers the opportunity for amazing creative possibilities to develop interactive experiences to engage users, unlike Instream which is generally a more standard video experience.

With the proliferation of made-for-advertising (MFA) websites, how important is the quality of the viewing environment for advertisers?

Very much, but the MFA scandal hasn’t changed that. All MFA has done is reinforce the point about outstream vs. instream. MFA or not, programmatic or not… quality partners deliver better results for brands and publishers and better experiences for consumers. MFA has only helped bring the quality of environments and direct care back into the discussion and introduce new checks and balances on the quality of the partners they work with.

This also highlighted some of the issues with metrics like visibility and completion rate. Even though some platforms perform very well on these metrics, that doesn’t mean that the ad was actually seen or interacted with.