[Estimated read time: 9 minutes]
The rise and rise of online video content over recent years is showing no signs of slowing. According to Cisco Forecast, video will represent 69% of all consumer-based Internet traffic by 2017; this is expected to rise to 80% by 2019.
Meanwhile, another study from Business Insider estimates that video advertising will account for 41% of total desktop display-related spending in 2020 in the US.
Looking at these stats, it’s clear that video will continue to be a critical element of successful digital marketing strategies for the foreseeable future. As YouTube and Facebook jostle to be top dog in online video, our team of digital marketing scientists at Wolfgang Digital naturally wanted to run an experiment to determine which platform delivers the best value when promoting video content and, importantly, how much quality watched time you get for your investment on each advertising platform.
Let’s analyze the numbers and try to settle the “Facebook vs YouTube” video battle once and for all!
Setting the scene: Facebook versus YouTube
Here’s how the battle for video has been shaping up over recent years.
- New online video platforms such as Vine, Instagram, and Snapchat have emerged in the last two years.
- Meanwhile, others — like Facebook Video — have grown considerably.
- In April 2015, Facebook got 4 billion daily views. In the space of just 6 months this figure doubled, reaching 8 billion daily views.
- Critics pointed out that the arbitrary metric of "a view" didn't really mean much, since YouTube counts a view after 30 seconds and Facebook counts a view after only 3 seconds.
- In January 2016, Facebook announced that people watch around 100 million hours of video a day.
- In February 2016, Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, reminded investors that YouTube's audience watches hundreds of millions of hours of video every day.
- Since 2012, YouTube has measured its performance in terms of "hours watched," not video views.
- As of 2016, Facebook now also refers to the "hours watched" metric.
So, where can you get the best value for your video advertising budget?
Our experiment ran the numbers — including impressions, overall time watched, and quality time watched — to find out.
Wolfgang’s video experiment
For this experiment, we advertised the same 20-second-long video over the same period of time and with identical budgets via YouTube ads and Facebook Video ads. We also targeted the same type of individuals using demographics and interest-based targeting.
The first hurdle to overcome was that each platform has different methods for counting views and charging for advertising.
How YouTube and Facebook charge for video ads
In YouTube advertising, you're charged per view. A YouTube "view" is counted after 30 seconds (or the full duration of the video, if it's shorter than 30 seconds) or when a user engages with your video.
Facebook, on the other hand, charges by cost per 1,000 impressions (CPM) and a "view" is counted after just 3 seconds. Facebook also displays the Cost Per View by dividing the total spend of the campaign by the views.
Taking this information into account for our experiment, a YouTube video view will be counted when it reaches the full duration of our video (20 seconds) and a Facebook view will be counted after 3 seconds.
How to calculate overall watched time
Despite the fact that both YouTube and Facebook have begun referring to "hours watched" as a statement of their performance, this metric is not easily accessible to advertisers. At the time of posting, neither the AdWords nor the Facebook interface give you a number for the exact amount of time watched.
In the AdWords interface, you can find the “quartile report,” which shows you the percentage of your audience that viewed certain percentage runtimes of your video (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). For instance, in the table below, 91% of total viewers watched up to 25% of the video. In Facebook, you can find a similar report, but instead of showing you percentages it shows you the number of views per percentile. So according to the table below, there were 2,240 views of up to 25% of the video.
What this meant for our experiment was that in order to estimate the overall watched time on each channel, we had to use different techniques based on this table and utilize YouTube Analytics.
It's difficult to estimate total time watched using the AdWords interface, but we've discovered a 5-minute method that doesn't require any complex math work. See the steps outlined below.
Calculating overall watched time: YouTube
1. First of all, forget about the AdWords interface and go to YouTube Analytics.
2. Click "Traffic sources," then select the video you want to measure, the timeline you used when you promoted it, and finally, filter your data by traffic source by selecting "YouTube Advertising."
3. Once you have done that — voilà! You now have overall watched time without having to break out the calculator.
*Please bear in mind that there can be a slight variation between the data in YouTube Analytics and the data in the AdWords interface.
Calculating overall watched time: Facebook
It’s a little bit trickier to measure overall watched time on Facebook, as there's no advanced measurement system in place like in YouTube Analytics.
Facebook displays video views per percentage of the video watched. In order to estimate the overall watched time, you need to:
1. Get the difference between the views in each percentile (to avoid double-counting). A viewer that has watched 100% of the video has watched 75%, as well.
2. Multiply that difference in views by the watched time in that percentile.
3. Also, don’t forget to count the views (more than 3 seconds) that haven’t reached the 25% mark of the video.
The problem with this technique is that you could over- or under-count the time watched, since each percentile varies by almost 5 seconds. For this reason, we are taking the midpoint of each percentile to estimate the overall watched time.
The findings
As we previously mentioned, we compared the results between both channels by focusing on the following metrics: impressions, overall watched time, and quality time watched.
Impressions
When we compared the same promoted video on both platforms, we noticed that the number of impressions on Facebook was 334% higher than on YouTube. This is because the cost per 1,000 impressions (CPM) is considerably cheaper on Facebook. YouTube CPM stands at €4.31 whereas Facebook CPM is €0.98.
When promoting a video on Facebook, you could get 3 times more impressions for your budget. However, since autoplay could be activated on users’ devices, every impression could potentially count as at least 1 or 2 seconds for Facebook’s overall watched time count.
If Facebook counts those autoplay seconds from the impression as a part of their overall watched time, then that could explain why Facebook Video is growing so quickly. By charging a more competitive CPM, Facebook is maximizing its overall reach. As a result, the watched time increases, too.
Key insights
- Facebook CPM is significantly cheaper.
- You can get 3x more impressions for your budget with Facebook.
- Therefore, if you want to put your video in front of as many eyeballs as possible, Facebook may be your best video advertising option.
Overall watched time
So, how did the two platforms fare in terms of overall watched time?
Since neither the Facebook nor the AdWords interface displays an exact time metric, we’ve taken the midpoint of each percentile to estimate the overall watched time.
For example, for our 20-second video, a view in the 25% percentile could include anywhere between the range of 5 to 9.9 seconds. Since there's no way to determine the exact time, the midpoint in this percentile would be 7.45 seconds. We have also taken autoplay into account for both channels.
Our results showed that overall watched time was higher on Facebook (19.9 hours, including autoplay time) than on YouTube (17.7 hours).
We know that YouTube Analytics only shows the watched time from the number of legitimate views for your videos (more than 30 seconds or the full completion of your video if it’s shorter than 30 seconds). In this case, legitimate views would represent around 7 watched hours from the total 17.7 hours.
Does the overall watched time affect the cost? No. In fact, this metric gives you visibility on all the additional watched time you are getting for "free." Since we're only paying for full views on YouTube (7hrs), we could see that there were about 10 hours of watched video coming from non-complete views that we didn’t have to pay for.
The big question is: How is Facebook counting the overall watched time? If it’s considering more than "views" in its calculation, that could represent almost 20 hours of watched time. On the other hand, if it's taking only views (more than 3 seconds) into account, that could cut the watched time in half to 9.6 hours!
So for Facebook, if you're reporting on cost per view, any time watched below 3 seconds is essentially free of charge.
Key insights
- Facebook delivers more watched time than YouTube when taking into account the autoplay part of videos.
- YouTube Analytics only shows the watched time from the number of legitimate views for your videos.
- Overall watched time doesn’t affect the overall cost on either channel.
- This metric helps you to find out the extra time watched that you didn’t have to pay for during the campaign.
Quality watched time
Watched time could be a really impressive metric for these video giants and their epic battle, but digital advertisers and their clients should be more concerned about "quality watched time."
Quality watched time is a relative metric and can vary from video to video. It’s up to you to determine what should be considered quality watched time for your video. A useful way to do this would be to count quality watched time as the point in your video where you’ve delivered your message and call-to-action (CTA). If your video is really short, maybe you’d only count complete views as quality watched time.
Since our video is only 20 seconds long and the CTA is at the end of the video, we considered a complete view as quality watched time.
In our experiment, Facebook video advertising delivered approximately 4.6 hours of quality watched time, at a cost of €5.47 per hour. YouTube delivered approximately 7.3 hours of quality watched time at a cost of €3.44 per hour.
In other words, a full watched minute on Facebook cost €0.09, whereas on YouTube it cost €0.06.
*Please bear in mind that these are time approximations, since YouTube also counts a view if the user is engaged (e.g. if the user clicks on the video). Moreover, a full view in Facebook is counted not only when your video is viewed to 100% of its length, but also if the user skips to this point.
Key insights
- Completed views are significantly higher on YouTube.
- Cost per quality watched minute is cheaper on YouTube.
- If you want to pay for quality watched time, YouTube may be a better advertising option than Facebook.
Facebook vs YouTube: Who's the winner?
Well, that depends on your KPIs. If you want to put your video in front of as many people as possible, you may opt for using Facebook, whereas if you want to pay for quality watched time, YouTube may be a better option. We highly recommend using both channels in order to expand your reach.
Overall key takeaways
- Facebook beats YouTube for Impressions.
- Facebook delivers more time watched than YouTube when taking into account the autoplay part of videos.
- Without the “unengaged” part of the view, YouTube thunders ahead on quality time watched.
- Completed views are significantly higher on YouTube.
- Cost per quality watched minute is cheaper on YouTube.
- Set your KPIs before starting your video campaign. If you want to put your video in front of as many eyeballs as possible, you may opt for using Facebook. If you want to pay for quality watched time, YouTube is a better option.
*Overall time watched is an approximation. Since there isn’t an exact way to measure watched time. The results may vary depending of the quality of your video, length and target audience.
Do you use both channels? How do you measure video success?
For our business we find YouTube as best but I believe in practicing everywhere whatever the platform it is. Personally say I am in the side of YouTube (online video king). Actually with YouTube I can target my audience easily because if user is looking for a specific content then he can found similar videos related to his choice. And the most important factor that makes YouTube better is that user can found any video without being worried about creating an account and this leads to increase in traffic for different kind of videos.
Nice post Kenia! Well in which side you are?
Hi Shalu,
Thank you!
I am on my client’s side! First, I would consult with them and see what they are hoping to achieve from their video campaign, then I would suggest the best platform based on their needs.
That is like Clints are Queen.
But, how about metacafe? live leak?
just kidding,
Hi Kenia,
I would say, Facebook is nowhere near in terms of giving competition to youtube. There are lot of reasons that FB video impressions are much higher and look cost effective on the surface, however youtube remains the best platform to place your video advertisement and content.
FB is playing aroung with autoplay feature to boost their video views, https://www.businessinsider.com/android-and-ios-ena... , this would not lead to quality views of any sort and might increase their video ad revenue temporarily, but advertisor will be at losing end, since the quality of views will go down further while spending the same or more amount of ad budget.
Youtube on the other hand is coming up with innovative ways to promote their video content, their contextual ad placement has improved and considerably evolved over time.
I hope this helps,
Regards,
Vijay
Hi Kenia,
Interesting article, I use both but the ratio is 70:30 for Facebook and YouTube. I think both have their special visitors and connection with the users. YouTube is more niches friendly and user interests while Facebook is the excellent source for reach and marketing. Both have their individual use so it depends on the publisher, how he publishes and promotes their videos. Instagram is also powerful media for selected countries. Thank you Kenia for insights. :)
Good morning Kenia,
Your comparison is great! In my case I use both platforms but in different way. When I want to transmit something simple to my public I use Facebook. I think that videos in this platform need to be short and really understandable, cause people would get tired and keep looking other stuff in their feed. The videos are usually in between 15 seconds and 1 minut maximum.
On the other side, Youtube can be used to load longer videos that you know FOR SURE that people is going to watch. Since we're a real estate agency, we can use the short ones to inform about some news or a properties compilation (short one), or a brief presentation of some worker maybe. Youtube would be for properties full presentation or some personal interview.
I'd like to hear how other people use these platforms too :D
Grea article. Looks like I need to pursue both Facebook & YouTube.
It's all depends upon your audience choices and preferences. It doesn't really matter who has more view time!
For example selling Toys or Clothing would be more suited to Facebook platform while selling SEO SERVICES or a SOFTWARE might work out better on Youtube. All that matters is your customers penchants and inclination and you that's where you need to focus!
Hi Paulha,
I agree with you, choosing the right channel for your audience will have a massive impact in the performance of your video campaign. Sometimes you will find that there are some audiences that can be easily targeted in both channels and if you have a limited budget you may have to split it or allocate it just to one channel based on your KPIs. I hope this study comes useful in that situation.
BTW, the overall time watched was a metric we used to give you an idea of how much video content you are paying to be delivered vs how much you’re getting for free! :)
Hi Kenia
Thanks for the post. Very interesting. So far we have only used Facebook and results varied depending on what we promoted. We have focused on Facebook because being in a niche market we can control the audience or target group (location, age, interest) and this is good for specific promotions in a location, etc.
With youtube I understand the audience is controlled via the topic of the videos the user will watch but maybe also with user criteria (location, age ?) . I am not sure if this is the case and I´ll research more in the coming days thanks to your post and the interest it generated on this possibility.
If you could elaborate a bit on how targeting happens in you tube that´d be appreciated.
Thanks again
Hi Luis,
Muchas gracias!
You can target your audience in YouTube not only by topic, but also by demographic groups, interests, affinity audiences, in-market audiences, placements and keywords. You can also re-market to viewers based on their past interactions with your videos.
You can find more information about the targeting methods available for TrueView ads here:
https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2454017?...
Great read. Loved it.
Great article..it's interesting to see the data. While Facebook might be better or offer more impressions, more impressions doesn't necessarily mean better ROI from that video. Ultimately we're wanting more conversions and sales, so you have to measure it to see if Facebook or YouTube is better. We've seen some sites' videos do better on YouTube and others fail miserably on YouTube. So, the best thing you can do is test both.
Hi Kenia.
Nice article. I enjoyed reading and like the points you have made. we should encourage and appreciate originality, creativity and innovation.
Both YouTube and Facebook are integral parts of an effective online video strategy. Use the strengths of both platforms to maximize the effectiveness of your video marketing strategy. Reach prospects with YouTube, and create and engage with your community on Facebook.
Thank for nice post dear.
very informative!
Hi Kenia
I knew it took several months it seemed that Facebook was the first platform where the public saw videos, but there was so much difference from Youtube. Should Youtube do something? ¿Post content plus videos? Accept only HD videos?
Thanks for the post!!
Hi Carlos,
Muchas gracias!
Well, Facebook wasn’t the first platform to host organic videos or to do video advertising. I believe my blog post was more focused on what video advertising platform is best for you to promote your videos. There is no need for YouTube to do anything differently. But I know from good sources, cough Google cough, that there will be some new video advertising innovations coming soon…
It's True, we have noticed above stats when we did video campaign to one of our clients.
YouTube is best option for video marketing because these videos rank higher in Google search engine results
Thanks for providing the insight, YouTube for quality watched & user interest, Facebook for Cost per impressions. Really a very interesting article Kenia.
Hi Kenia,
i will go for Youtube. Because there will be a chance get the genuine views from perfect viewers and will reach the content to Customer who is looking for the requirement. For example Eventdex is an app which is proving Event management software.there will be a chance to get the customers for their business for free. i agree if they effort some budget.from facebook also they will get the leads.
Hi Kenia, really interesting article, it's really interesting to see these engagement rates side by side for comparison, definitely something I will bear in mind when running video campaigns.
Something I wanted to ask, you mention that you had a CTA at the end of each video, do you have any data as to which channel returned more results from the CTA's?
Hi Tim,
Thank you!
For this particular video there were more website clicks from YouTube as a result of the CTA but the likes and shares were higher in Facebook.
Ah, thank you Kenia, so for a video looking to convert on-site, Youtube would be the answer.
Better reach and pushing for greater awareness, Facebook.
Very interesting, bookmarking this for any future video advertising :)
I think Video Success should be based on engagement and quality watch time . It's easier & cheaper to accrue impressions via images.
In short, I will go with Youtube due to quality.
Great post by the way!
Nice & useful article Kenia,
Facebook vs Youtube: Which Side of the Video Battle Should You Join? - IMO, i'd go for Youtube.
Great post! This side by side comparison of YouTube and Facebook video ads is definitely something I will be referencing to my boss soon. For us the primary KPI always comes down to revenue. But, brand building is an important secondary KPI. We will spend our ad budget on the tactics that drive the highest ROI.
It's difficult to chose one channel over the other because there is a distinct and valid audience on each channel. If we have the ad dollars, we would need to run ads on both Facebook and YouTube. If we had to choose, Facebook does have really great audience targeting.
Thanks for the detailed article. I found it interesting and informative and it has certainly helped to clarify a few things.
Thanks
Just use both! They can cater to different purposes/ audiences.
The research done here is simply amazing! I have never considered using Video marketing as part of my overall marketing campaign yet but you have given me lots to think about!
It would make things more interesting however, if the company decides to release snippets of an ad or even a full ad (that includes a CTA) but only lasting for a mere 5 to 7 seconds max. This would then open up new contenders to the arena like Instagram and Snapchat. It would be very interesting if the research here was continued to include those platforms as well.
Youtube no doubt will win this battle . It is a video platform that overcomes much to facebook . This will always be so.
I would go with Facebook over YouTube because I have seen lots of people sharing videos to their wall and it makes the video viral. At the same time, even if someone shares a video on YouTube, that will go to their Google Plus profile and I don't think Google Plus is as active as Facebook. Even if they share YouTube video on Facebook or any other social networking sites that mean you are combining 2 different channels. Another thing is, average Cost Per View on Facebook is much cheaper than YouTube so technically you pay less and quality of audience remains the same.
Great article! According to me, YouTube is best due to quality.
This is the wrong question to ask. Rarely for a brand will it be Facebook or YouTube or Snapchat or Twitter for video. Each platform has a role to play. The question should be which platform will help me reach my objective today and which ones should I use in the future. Often times using YouTube and Facebook for video together is a stronger combo as we go on each platform for different reasons and how we can target each person is different.
Hello Kenia,
For my own video production company I prefer to use Vimeo. As a video editor and colorist I think Vimeo is the most respectful video platform with the original color during conversion. But I usually recommend Youtube to my clients... I think for a company this is the best choice.
I prefer youtube, Excellent article, I continue learning more and more in this Seo, thank you very much for your contributions, I will continue investigating on the subject in different places to continue learning and updating, good luck
I really prefer Vimeo for my production company content but always recommend Youtube to my clients.
I like uploading video on Youtube channel as I think that the channel specializes in this field. As for Facebook, it seems to be suited to content and expressing ideas!
Hi Kenia!!
I think the customer who wants to see a video, at least for now, go to Youtube to see because it is the platform with which we associate the concept of watching videos. But we'll see in a few months ....
Of course, Youtube becomes the best place to upload videos. Facebook is just the place we share something simple or post what we think that they are impressive.
YouTube is best source of traffic as well as branding for your business site.
Its good to see all this talk about video advertising. As a pioneer in online video marketing, we have come so far since those "muddy" 3-5 frames per second videos of the mid 90s. You all have it so much easier and the bandwidth costs are not even a factor like it use to be.
Facebook vs YouTube: Who's the winner?
I did not see answer?!? The winner should be the platform that provided the lowest measured CPA or if you have a large budget and you are more into the volume metric which platform provided the most "Action"?
Hi!
As I mention in the blog post setting your KPIs before starting a video campaign, or any other campaign type, is essential in order to measure the success of your video campaign.
For example, in this study we got more website clicks coming from YouTube. So, this could make YouTube a winner if we were measuring website traffic but at the same time we got more shares, likes and bigger reach in Facebook so this could make Facebook a winner if we were measuring engagements or brand awareness. Also, video advertising is more likely to be used as an awareness tool rather than to drive direct conversions. However, it could become a direct conversion tactic when used with remarketing.
If somebody is launching a new product/service, rebranding, testing different types of videos, or wanted to use re-marketing in a later stage, then, impressions, overall time watched and quality watched time, could be great metrics for them.
The winner may vary based on the main objective behind your video campaign and the KPI you’ve set.
The analytics are pretty robust for both FB and YT. I embed the YouTube video here. I haven't tried embedding the Facebook video. At the end of the day, I would rather grow my audience on YouTube...but to get my content seen broadly, I'll use FB as well.
[Link removed by editor.]
Hello @Kenia,
A very insightful post on the video marketing! As per my opinion and agreeing with you on the statement you have given that ultimately Facebook in the winner. To make this statement logical and prove it I can say that through Facebook video marketing you can target the audience on the broader level. You will get all the demographics of the end users and hence you can target the right audience at the right time. Also, the reach of the video marketing on Facebook would be far better than the youtube as Facebook is itself a social media. Whereas if we talk about Youtube then you will not get that momentum of social sharing which you will get on the Facebook. However, that is true that in both platforms the marketing tactics will be varied at a huge stage.
So per my knowledge and experience, I agree with you that Facebook will be the winner in terms of video marketing. view and thoughts of other readers are appreciated.
Hi Pranav,
I am glad that you like the blog post! As you have mentioned, Facebook has great targeting options and is great for social response such as likes and shares but I don’t feel like I have made a statement saying that “ultimately Facebook is the winner” but neither YouTube.
Both platforms have strong and very different benefits. The key is to be aware of them and use them in your favour.
Hello Pranav,
I tend to disagree with you here. Youtube has the reach which facebook can never match in near future. Moreover, there is an audience on Youtube that has been there much longer than facebook. Facebook is trying to do everything and doesn't specialize in a single niche like Youtube does and as such facebook is trying to play a catch up here in the video segment.
Granted, Facebook has a audience that can never be challenged by any other social network as of now or anytime soon but the video metrics on facebook are flawed at best. They have rigged the numbers and will go to any lengths to prove they are doing better. But in reality, if you see a 3 second video is clearly ridiculous to be considered as a view because they auto play in your feed and that is the minimum amount of time they will play automatically before you stop them. A 30 second window is more realistic and gives a clearer view of what is a better metric. So as of now, Youtube is the place to be. When facebook plays fair and can be measured in terms of video on the same levels as Youtube I would agree facebook is ACTUALLY catching up.
Also, there is an informative video explaining this and some great links in the description. I hope you guys reconsider your stance in the light of this new information.
Hi,
I agree with you that video views are not a fair metric to use as a comparison between these two channels. That’s why in this experiment we focused on watched time and not video views.
In January 2016, Facebook announced that people watch 100 million hours of video a day. It was the first time that Facebook used hours watched as a metric. So, Facebook is catching up but as you mentioned is not quite yet as big as YouTube.
Our study is only based on paid video advertising not organic video. We wanted to know where you can get the best value for your video advertising budget in terms of impressions and watched time.
So at the end of the day. As advertisers, it doesn’t really matter which platform is bigger but which one gives us the best value for our advertising budget.
"Critics pointed out that the arbitrary metric of "a view" didn't really mean much, since YouTube counts a view after 30 seconds and Facebook counts a view after only 3 seconds."
This is not true. I have many videos that are less than 30 seconds in total length, so on this basis, they would never earn any views. It's a percentage of the video viewed, not "30 seconds". That statement comes from the fact that a pre-roll advertisement must be viewed for 30 seconds for it to count as a monetised view, and for the advertiser to be charged for that advertisement. I see this statement all of the time, and it's frustrating.
Hi Ashley,
A YouTube "view" is counted after 30 seconds (or the full duration of the video, if it's shorter than 30 seconds) or when a user engages with your video, for example if the user click on the video.
Therefore, if your video is less than 30 seconds in total length it's still capable to "earn views". In fact, the video used in this study was about 20 secs long.
So what about a video that is 40 seconds long?
It's not less than 30 seconds long, so do you think YouTube still counts a view only if someone watches 30 seconds of it? That's 75% viewed.
I doubt it.
Hi,
Yes, it will count it as a view after the first 30 secs or if the user interacts with the video.
You can find more info about it here: https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/6381008
Best Regards,
Kenia G.
We bet more on youtube for the quality and variety of its content :)
Hi Kenia, I would like to go with youtube first, because through this i am getting accurate leads. i will give try for facebook also. [Link removed by editor.]
On the other side, Youtube can be used to load longer videos that you know FOR SURE that people is going to watch. Since we're a real estate agency, we can use the short ones to inform about some news or a properties compilation (short one), or a brief presentation of some worker maybe. Youtube would be for properties full presentation or some personal interview. [Link removed by editor.]
I prefer youtube, i think the embebed video has more impact and more shares.
Well, I guess that your videos on Youtube will have more exposure than on Facebook or any other social networks. After all, viewers may share them right from youtube in a bunch of social websites like Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Very nice and informative article.
Thats it use both, great post!