Putting a logo at the beginning of every ad – is it actually a good idea?
by Deacon Webster, Walrus CCO
Advertisers often debate whether to put a logo at the front of skippable ads. The rationale for doing so is simple: at minimum, it guarantees some brand exposure for people who don’t complete the ad. But is that actually valuable and is there a downside?
Asking the Right Question
If a logo exposure on its own indeed has value, let’s determine that value in a video context and see if it’s worth it.
In the worst case scenario we have a person determined to get past an ad fast, they’re clicking skip as soon as possible. In that case you have five seconds before the skip button appears. Assuming they skip immediately, they’ve largely seen JUST a logo. Advocates for upfront logo placement say this is better than nothing, but is it?
Scenario 1: 15 Second Video – Logo Up the Whole Time
If there’s so much value in a quick logo exposure, why bother with the rest of the ad? It’s the expensive part. Why don’t we just run ads with a logo sitting in the middle of the screen for 15 seconds?
It’s true that, given a decent media budget, an ad with just a logo would let people know that the brand exists, so a logo-only ad will presumably raise awareness. It works for Nascar, right?
And it would let people know that the brand is spending media money (thus is doing well), which does have some value.
BUT
The viewer receives no information about the brand or the brand proposition beyond the brand name. This could be a real problem for a brand with a cryptic name like, “Kalshi.”
As an ad, it’s not the least bit compelling or enjoyable and a logo-only ad would become annoying if you had to watch it multiple times.
Ultimately, it’s an expensive way to show people a logo.
On top of all that, they may not even remember seeing it. Studies show (see chart) that ads viewed for less than three seconds are not committed to memory. Someone would have to choose to keep staring at the logo for at least three seconds to remember having seen it, otherwise the ad would have no impact whatsoever. If you’re sitting around waiting to skip, you aren’t paying much attention to what’s on screen, especially if it’s just a logo.
Scenario 2: 15 Second Video – Logo for the First 3 Seconds
Now let’s assume that we lead with a logo for three seconds and then we follow it up with a normal ad.
If someone skips at five seconds, they would only have seen a logo and two seconds of something else. Pretty much the same as the previous scenario in terms of brand information conveyed.
For people who watch the whole ad:
They enjoy the entire story arc of the video BUT with 20% less storytelling time due to the repeat logos in the front and back. This scenario is still good for awareness and good for consideration.
But for them the logo upfront has no value – they saw the whole ad.
And we know that leading with a logo increases the odds of a skip, so the logo up-front lowers ad efficiency by reducing completion rates.
For people who skip halfway:
The logo will be remembered because they watched for more than 3 secs – so it’s good for awareness.
But they leave before the story is finished, so they get half a message. In that case, there is very little value in spending the money on a fully produced video – you might as well just run a logo for :15 seconds.
Scenario 3: 15 Second Video – Logo at End
This is a normal ad construction with a narrative arc, ending with a logo. Does it have value?
For Skippers: This ad has the same value as all the other skipping scenarios.
For people who view half of the ad: This version would provide less value than the logo upfront version as there is no logo exposure.
For people who see the whole ad: They enjoy the full narrative arc of the video. Good for awareness, good for consideration.They get the drama and suspense of wondering how the ad plays out. And studies show that people who watch ads in their entirety spend more time on-site and are more likely to buy. We also know that longer ads are better for brand building.
Pulling It Together
An ad with a logo in the first three seconds will generate more awareness than an ad without one for only one group of viewers: people who watch more than three seconds of the ad but do not complete it.
Those are low quality views because they result in incomplete storytelling and there are cheaper ways to expose people to a logo than by doing it via video.
The logo is not harmless, it hurts efficiency.
We buy video because it’s the best vehicle for emotional storytelling, and for driving brand consideration. While ads ARE regularly skipped, we need to resist the urge to make those exposures “count” by sliding a logo in before viewers have time to skip.
Completed views are extremely valuable views, and leading with a logo reduces video completion – a high cost for little gain.
Conclusion
If we go to the trouble to make narrative video with a full story arc that delivers a strategic emotional brand message, and then we spend the money to place it in the most expensive of media channels, we should be optimizing towards completed views, not damage controlling for the people who skip.
