Ever looked at a video campaign report and thought, “Wait…is this good?”
We get it. Most marketers are fluent in search metrics. We know what a strong CTR looks like. We can spot a bloated CPC from a mile away.
Video, however, plays by a different set of rules, and that’s where things get unique.
Video isn’t just another ad format. It has its own success signals, benchmarks, and quirks. So if you’re judging video the same way you judge search or display, you’re probably underestimating what’s working (or overreacting to what isn’t).
To make it even trickier, performance shifts depending on where your ad shows up and how it’s delivered:
All of those variables change how users behave and how your metrics should be interpreted.
We ran into this exact challenge while trying to report on YouTube performance more effectively. Once we started digging into how the metrics really worked by format and placement, the story became much clearer, and the optimization opportunities got a lot more obvious, too.
If you feel like you’re guessing your way through video reporting or quietly hoping no one asks too many follow-up questions, this one’s for you. We're here to break down which video metrics matter most so you know if your video ads are working or not.
Search and display have trained us to think in very specific ways. Someone searches, they click, they convert (ideally). If performance dips, you tweak bids, keywords, or creative, and move on with your day.
Video doesn’t work like that. It likes to be ~different~.
Most people aren’t watching a YouTube ad because they’re actively shopping or ready to buy. They’re watching because they’re zoning out, learning something, or killing time before their next meeting. The intent is different, and so is the role your ad plays in that moment.
Video is about:
Which means if you judge video the same way you judge search or display, things get messy fast.
We see a few common traps:
None of that means video shouldn’t be accountable. It absolutely should. But the way you measure success has to match the job video is doing in the funnel.
In short: same ad account, very different rules of engagement.
One of the biggest reasons video performance feels confusing is because there are a lot of metrics. Views, view rate, CPV, watch time, skips, impressions, CPMs. It’s easy to open a report and immediately feel like you need a snack and a nap.
Fortunately, you don’t need to track everything. You just need to know which signals tell you something useful.
Think about video performance in three buckets: attention, efficiency, and downstream impact.
These tell you whether your creative is earning someone’s time.
Key signals to watch:
If these numbers are strong, your creative is doing its job. If they’re weak, no amount of bidding magic will save them.
These tell you how efficiently you’re buying that attention.
Key signals to watch:
Lower CPV isn’t always better if view quality drops, but it’s a strong directional signal when paired with engagement metrics.
These tell you whether video is influencing real business outcomes, even if it’s not getting direct analytics credit.
Key signals to watch:
Video rarely closes the deal on the first touch, but it often sets the table for everything that happens next.
Remember: No single metric tells the whole story. Video performance shows up in patterns across multiple signals. When these three trains all move in the right direction, you can be confident your video ads are doing their job.
Gonna drop a quick truth bomb on you when it comes to video reporting: There is no such thing as a universal “good” benchmark.
A view rate that looks amazing in one placement might be totally average in another. A CPV that feels high in one format could actually be a bargain somewhere else. And if you’re lumping all video performance together, you’re almost guaranteed to misread what’s happening.
That's because how people interact with video ads changes dramatically depending on where the ads show up and how they're served.
In-Stream ads appear before, during, or after long-form video content. Users are already settled in and ready to watch something. Even skippable formats tend to get more attention because the viewer has committed to the content experience.
What that usually means:
Views here tend to carry more weight because users are watching, not just glancing.
In-Feed placements live alongside organic content in a browsing experience. Users are scrolling and deciding what’s worth their time in seconds.
What that usually means:
Performance here is heavily influenced by how compelling your first frame and headline are.
Shorts live in a rapid-fire, swipe-heavy environment where users move fast and expectations are different. Creative has milliseconds to earn attention.
What that usually means:
Shorts can be incredibly valuable for scale and frequency, but they shouldn’t be judged by the same benchmarks as long-form placements.
Key takeaway: Benchmarks only make sense when they’re tied to the placement. Comparing In-Stream to Shorts without context is like comparing a billboard to a TikTok. Both can work, but they’re doing very different jobs.
Not all views are created equal, and skippable versus non-skippable formats are a big reason why.
On the surface, it’s tempting to compare these formats directly. One has higher view rates. The other has lower CPVs. But the way a view is counted (and how users interact with each format) changes what those numbers mean.
Here’s the key difference:
In-feed and Shorts placements typically count a view after roughly 10 seconds of watch time.
That means a 15% view rate on a skippable In-Stream ad can represent stronger engagement than a 40% view rate in a feed placement. The bar for earning a “view” is simply much higher.
A lot of teams get tripped up here. CPV comparisons across formats can be misleading if you don’t factor in how that view was earned.
The smarter way to look at it:
Focus on how each format contributes to attention quality and downstream performance.
Warning: If you Google “average video ad benchmarks,” your chances of regretting it are high. One article says your view rate should be 20%. Another says 35%. A third one references a study from three platforms ago. Helpful? Not really.
Industry benchmarks can be directionally useful, but they’re rarely specific enough to guide real optimization. Your creative, audience, budget, and placement mix will always influence performance more than a generic average.
Instead of chasing external benchmarks, build benchmarks that reflect your reality.
A few ways to keep it simple and effective:
The goal isn’t to hit a magic number but to understand what “healthy” looks like for your account and recognize when something meaningfully shifts.
Video performance doesn’t have to feel mysterious or subjective. Once you understand how formats behave and how benchmarks shift by placement, the noise starts to fade, and the patterns get easier to spot.
And if you ever want a second set of eyes on your video performance or help building a paid media strategy that connects the dots, BFO’s here. We love this stuff (yes, even the spreadsheets), and we’re always happy to help turn data into direction.
Guessing is stressful. Understanding is way more fun. Send us a message today to get started!