Comparison of CPM vs CPV in YouTube Shorts Campaigns on DV360: What Works Better?

As a PPC specialist, I often encounter the question of which bidding model is best for YouTube Shorts campaigns in DV360: CPM (Cost Per Mille) or CPV (Cost Per View). After running several tests and analyses, I’ve decided to share my experiences and conclusions to help anyone choosing between these two metrics. In this article, we’ll take a close look at both models, evaluate their pros and cons, and I’ll share the results from my own campaign to find out what really works.

What Are CPM and CPV? Before diving into the comparison, let’s clarify what CPM and CPV actually mean:

• CPM (Cost Per Mille) is a pricing model where the advertiser pays for every 1,000 ad impressions. This model is most common for campaigns focused on brand awareness or broad reach, where it isn’t necessary for users to take any specific action.

• CPV (Cost Per View) is a pricing model where the advertiser pays only when a user actually watches the ad for a certain duration (typically at least 10 seconds). This model is ideal for measuring user engagement, especially if you want viewers to actually watch your content.

Which Is Better for YouTube Shorts? For YouTube Shorts campaigns on DV360, both models can be effective—it depends on your objectives.

CPM – More Reach, Less Engagement

When to Use CPM? If your goal is to boost brand awareness and reach the widest possible audience, CPM is the ideal choice. This model is especially effective if you have highly creative ads that capture users’ attention even if they don’t always interact directly.

Advantages of CPM:

• Maximum Reach: Helps you contact the largest possible audience regardless of their engagement level.

• Budget Control: You can set a target CPM and optimize your campaign according to the desired cost.

• Targeting Flexibility: Allows you to experiment with different demographic groups and geographic regions.

Disadvantages of CPM:

• Less Focus on Specific Actions: Doesn’t help you measure direct impact on interactions or conversions.

• Potentially Lower-Quality Impressions: While you reach a broad audience, some users may simply ignore the ad.

CPV – More Engagement, Better Measurability

When to Use CPV? If you have a clear goal—such as ensuring interactions or a certain level of engagement—CPV is a more effective choice. This model is useful when you want to guarantee that users actually watch your ad and show genuine interest in your products or services.

Advantages of CPV:

• Higher Engagement: You pay only for actual views, meaning the users who watch are more engaged.

• Measurable Effectiveness: You can track how well your ad resonates with your target audience based on view counts.

• Quality Optimization: Ideal for campaigns aimed at users who might take further actions, like clicking or purchasing.

Disadvantages of CPV:

• Higher Costs: If you want high-quality views, CPV can prove more expensive than CPM, especially in competitive markets.

• Lower Reach: You may reach a smaller audience since you pay only for views, not impressions.

Campaign Results

These figures come from a YouTube Shorts campaign for the GrandOptical brand, specifically promoting Ray-Ban sunglasses. The campaign ran on the DV360 platform.

Results Analysis: CPM Campaign:

CPV Campaign:

Comparison Results:

• Reach (Impressions): The CPM campaign generated 40 % more impressions than the CPV campaign, indicating a broader reach with CPM despite a lower view rate.

• Engagement (View Rate): The CPV campaign achieved a 3.9 % view rate—almost double that of the CPM campaign (1.88 %)—showing that CPV attracted more engaged viewers.

• Cost per View (CPV): The CPV campaign had a lower cost per view (0.51 CZK) compared to the CPM campaign (0.74 CZK), meaning each view was cheaper under CPV.

• Clicks and CPC: The CPV campaign drove more clicks (677 vs. 569), indicating better conversion performance. Its cost per click was also lower (14.77 CZK vs. 17.58 CZK), demonstrating more cost-efficient click acquisition.

• Revenue: Total revenue was very similar between the two campaigns, with only a small difference. This suggests that although the CPV campaign had a smaller reach, its higher engagement and better conversion metrics led to comparable overall revenue.

Conclusion: The CPM campaign delivered greater reach but with lower engagement and higher cost per click. The CPV campaign achieved better engagement (higher view rate) and more efficient conversions at a lower cost per click, resulting in similar overall revenue but stronger engagement metrics.Recommendations:

• For campaigns focused on maximizing interaction and conversions, I recommend using CPV. This model delivers higher user engagement and lower cost per click.

• If your primary goal is broad reach and brand awareness, CPM may be more advantageous.

• Generally, for optimal ROI, combine both metrics according to your campaign phase: use CPM to build wide reach initially, then switch to CPV to optimize for engagement and conversions.