All screens are not created equal. Put the same video ad on different screens with differing consumption behaviours (on a mobile device, in a cinema, co-viewed etc.), shown next to different types of content (long form/short form, highly produced, UGC etc.) and you will observe different effects and business outcomes.

How and when an ad is consumed is directly correlated to its efficacy. This is clearly an oversimplification, but the broad principles of ‘content’ and ‘context’ still hold true. The right context can increase ad recall by 6.3X¹, whilst being aligned with professional content not only increases trustworthiness by 44 per cent¹ but can also boost ROI.

The importance of content and context is often overlooked amidst the complexity of cross-screen planning. In the relentless pursuit of reach and cost efficiency, there are so many ‘wrong’ comparisons and classifications happening that hinder screen/video effectiveness.
 

TV and YouTube: Different contexts and content

TV and YouTube are classic examples of this cross screen oversimplification. TV (broadcaster produced content being consumed on the main living room screen) offers high quality, co-viewed, long form, 100 per cent viewable, live and on demand content. YouTube, by contrast is short form, consumed on smaller devices, has a longer tail of content and is typically on demand. The different contexts and content create very different outcomes.

Co-viewing (watching a screen with others) is an often overlooked contextual variable. When we see ads we often discuss them. This in turn impacts the brain's ability to recall and retain information. Co-viewing is proven to increase ad recall by 23 per cent¹. Attention also varies by context. TV attention on Nine is 41 per cent² higher versus YouTube. The longer someone spends with an ad, the greater the chance it has to influence mental availability and impact brand associations. Context impacts brand building. According to Kantar, TV contributes up to 5X³ more branded effects (consideration/preference/intent etc.) versus YouTube.

Despite these clear differences, 'cross-screen’ approaches/calculators, as well as “bundled” buying models, will combine these very different viewing moments into the same screen buy. In a fairer scenario, non-skippable YouTube bought on a CTV and aligned to premium long form content, would have significantly lower inventory/reach. While inventory would decrease, the costs would increase, resulting in a CPM broadly inline with existing costs for other BVOD/SVOD platforms.
 

BVOD: One platform with two different viewing behaviours

Another example of cross screen inequality is the perception of Broadcast Video on Demand. For many marketers BVOD is still pigeonholed into “catchup” and bought like other digital video inventory. The reality couldn't be further from the truth, with 91 per cent of LIVE 9Now viewing being streamed on CTVs.

BVOD actually combines two different viewing behaviours. Live viewing – the same content as the linear broadcast but just consumed digitally (NRL MAFS etc.), and On Demand viewing – the same lean-in viewing occasion as SVOD platforms. Live viewing is incredibly powerful when it comes to advertising effectiveness; it offers advertisers the opportunity to get closer to heightened emotional moments, whether that's The Block Final or State of Origin. Our own research has found that putting brands around high action live moments can increase emotional encoding by 16 per cent⁴, boosting brand message agreement by 23 per cent⁴.

Despite these very clear contextual differences, ‘BVOD’ is often planned and bought the same way as many online video assets. If live CTV BVOD offers the same content/context as linear, should we be frequency capping it in the same way as online video? Should we be evaluating all ‘on-demand’ content (regardless of SVOD/BVOD delineation) the same? At Nine we are actively working with clients to understand the contextual power of live BVOD and its impact on brand outcomes.
 

Invest in the right screens

Combining and comparing different screens is undermining effectiveness. It leads to underinvestment and misallocation. According to the recent Profit Ability 2 work from ThinkBoxTV, Total TV generates 45 per cent⁵ greater profit ROI vs digital video

While the level of Total TV (BVOD+Linear) investment is dependent on category dynamics, based on the profit ROI analysis in the report, in this market we could be underinvesting in Total TV by as much as 30 per cent⁶.  This would equate to an overall investment discrepancy of $2.6bn⁶. Using the same profit ROI that equates to a staggering $12bn⁵ of advertiser profit left on the table purely through not investing enough behind Total TV.
 

Cross-screen planning: what is the solution?

While there are some brilliant agency solutions in the market at the moment that attempt to tackle some of this cross-screen complexity, it is important to not be complacent and continue to challenge our models and preconceptions. There is no silver bullet and no-one has it 100 per cent right. Here are a couple of things marketers should think about when building a cross-screen approach.
 

1. Start with the viewer behaviours/experience
   Compare the screens that offer similar content/consumed in similar ways. Cinema is as close to linear TV, as BVOD is to social video. Try cluster screens that offer similar experiences and add buy perimeters that help to make different screens genuinely comparable.
    
2. Plan for outcomes not just reach
   The recent work from Oxford’s Saïd Business School, together with Kantar, challenges some of the established wisdoms around universal reach-based planning, advocating that different channel mixes should be used depending on brand-specific outcomes. This holds true for cross-screen planning. Reach is an important lever, but context and content have an equally important role for delivering specific brand metrics like consideration and preference.
    
3. Find the right comparative data
   Be dubious of data from the US. The US is a very different streaming environment to Australia. According to data from OzTam, Australia has over half the streaming viewing and 21 per cent more FTA viewing than the US. When comparing screens from a reach/costs perspective make sure that the right content/context perimeters are applied. If you want the same media effects as TV, apply buying perimeters to digital platforms that replicate similar experiences and are directly comparable to Australia.
    
4. Test, experiment and refine
   Brands need to understand how different screen effects impact different business outcomes, specifically for their business. Broad cross-screen tools are a great start but they are no substitute for a robust understanding of screens specific to a brand and a category.

Context and content are critical variables that need to be reintroduced to cross-screen planning. Broadcast TV, consumed via an aerial or digital, co-viewed in the living room is the most effective screen in Australia. It delivers the best ROI, the highest attention, the best opportunity for memory encoding and the best brand outcomes. Nine does all this with unrivalled scale, reaching 88 per cent of Australians every single month and offering advertisers the opportunity to access premium, popular content in effective contexts.

We are committed to working with advertisers to unpick some of these nuances to truly understand cross-screen effectiveness. Projects like ‘the growth project’ – our commitment to working with clients to prove the power of Nine using market mixed modelling alongside our in effectiveness research, help our clients refine their screen strategies and maximise business outcomes.
 

^Sources:

^{*Context Effects, Map The Territory & Tapestry Research, 2024}

^{** Nine & Amplified Intelligence 2022}

^{***Kantar, ThinkTV The benchmark series}

^{**** Nine, Gemba & Neuroinsights 2024}

^{***** Profit Ability report, Thinkbox 2024}

^{****** 2024 SMI data}