My experience in podcast advertising has shown me over and over again that the tone, alignment and contextual fit of ad creative with the podcast content has an impact on adeffectiveness. I believe that’s one reason why a preference for host-read ads persists. It’s hard to think of a better way to ensure there’s a match between ad and show. But it’s not the only way.
Put simply, it’s increasingly clear that the job of a podcast ad is to keep the listener’s attention. Anything that breaks the bond formed between the content and the listener risks undermining the ad. This is different than ads in other channels, such as radio or out-of-home, where the background nature of the environment means ads need to grab a consumer’s attention. But there are analogs to the podcast experience, too.
That’s why I was intrigued by the Integrated Ad Science (IAS) report, “The Mind on the Stream, a neuro-investigation into the human brain and CTV advertising.” Although the study is focused on CTV, there’s a lot that audio can learn by looking at other channels. Moreover, there are strong similarities between CTV and podcasting. Compared to radio, CTV is more leaned in, and attention is key.
Study: Creative Alignment = Stronger Impact
The key finding from the IAS study couldn’t be more applicable to podcasts: “ads that align with the video content being seen have a stronger impact with viewers, increasing ad memorability, brand impact, and other metrics.” Replace the verb “seen” with “heard,” and you could very well be talking about podcasts.
This was a rigorous, in-lab study, with 137 participants viewing 20 ads from five industry verticals, all within one piece of program content. (Talk about ad load! When was the last time you heard 20 ads in one podcast episode? I hope, never.)
They tested both how ads matched the tone of the content – like a funny ad in a funny show, or a dramatic ad in a dramatic show – and context matching – such when the ad and show both focus on basketball content or when the ad promotes a specific brand of beverage that was also featured in the show.
When the tone of the ad matched the tone of the show, IAS found a 14% increase in brand impact, while a contextual match drove a 39% increase. When both tone and context aligned the increase in brand impact was 49%.
Creative Mis-Alignment = Weaker Impact
Even more interesting is what happens when there’s a mismatch. Per IAS: “Unrelated ads break viewers’ neuro-state, causing them to pay less attention and see the ads as an interruption.” The result is lower ad memorability and brand impact.
Think back to the last time you heard a podcast ad that didn’t match the show. Maybe it was louder and more raucous than the podcast, more sedate, or for a product that seemed incongruous. If you can remember one (or more), that fact alone speaks to the negative impact of that interruption.
Returning to the idea that host-read podcast ads represent the ideal for fit and alignment, it’s important to note that, by and large, hosts aren’t part of the equation for CTV. That’s evidence that host-read ads aren’t nearly the only way to achieve alignment.
Finding Alignment Beyond the Host-Read
For example, the Talent-Read study we conducted with Gumball and Art19 found that an ad voiced by a host from a different show, but in a similar category, performed nearly as well as the ad on the host’s own podcast. In this case the host (Tom Bilyeu) has a podcast in the business category (Impact Theory), and it performed well in another business show (The Accidental Creative). But when we tested it in a comedy show (Factually!), the results trailed a more generic announcer read.
When I listen to the ads, I can hear how Tom Bilyeu’s approach and cadence just naturally match that of The Accidental Creative. It’s clear to me that even if an Accidental Creative listener is unfamiliar with Tom, they can tell he comes from the same place.
On the other hand, the mismatch with Factually! is just as obvious. Host Adam Conover is far more lively, outspoken, and, of course, funny. The announcer-read sort of splits the difference, as the voice talent is a little more upbeat and faster paced than Tom. My description may make these seem like subtle differences, but the brand impact was not.
This is not to advocate against host-read ads. But the reality is that host-reads often are not scalable or available for every campaign. The response shouldn’t be to use just any available audio creative, but rather to think creatively about how an announcer-read or pre-produced ad can be made to better fit the podcasts where they’ll be heard. Advances in ad tech, contextual targeting and generative AI are opening up opportunities to accomplish this with scale and ease that was unimaginable just five years ago.
We look forward to seeing all the ways publishers, agencies and brands tackle the challenge of achieving the right creative fit for their podcast ad campaigns. And we’re eager to test them. Drop us a line if you want to prove out how your contextual alignment strategy works.
