MediaPost Research Briefs
Mobile Users Are Ad Clickers
by Jack Loechner, 7 hours ago
According to the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, 60% of mobile users click on mobile ads at least one a week. When seeing an ad, half of users indicated that they would play a game, download an application, or visit a Web site after seeing an ad, but only 22% said they would make a purchase, and only 40% would download a coupon.
Tony Nethercutt, General Manager of Mojiva, notes that "... mobile marketing performs well when it lines up the services and products that affect people on an everyday basis ... mobile advertising is part of the conversation for major national brand advertising..."
Some additional findings from Mojiva and InsightExpress in the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide include:
•Over 84% of users deemed ‘normal banner ads,' ‘video ads,' ‘ads that let me interact with them,' or ‘animated banner ads' as the forms of marketing they would likely pay attention to.
•Text ads perform modestly with 13% of users most likely to pay attention; however, only 2% pay attention to expanding screen takeover ads
•Marketing offers related to magazines, social/dating, airlines, traffic and banking had the least effective performance.
With user statistics from InsightExpress, the MAG offers a look into what resonates with users through mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. This month's research shows that marketers need to focus on engaging creative executions that encourage user interaction.
Joy Liuzzo, Senior Director from InsightExpress says "... InsightExpress research continues to demonstrate that mobile consumers are evolving, with new behaviors, attitudes, and demographic segments emerging almost monthly..."
There are opportunities to advertise with mobile ads, says the report, as respondents are frequently clicking on mobile ads. Graphic ads as a whole appear to be successful in grabbing attention. Content and type of ad will impact overall reach:
•More than half indicated they would "play a game", "download a mobile application" or "browse a website" after seeing an ad on their mobile phones.
•Fewer than ¼ of respondents would "purchase a product" after viewing an ad on their mobile phones.
Which Of The Following Would You Do As A Result Of Seeing A Mobile Ad On Your Phone?
Action After Mobile Ad % of Respondents
Play a game 63%
Download a mobile application 52
Browse a website 51
Watch a video 49
Listen to music 49
Redeem or download a coupon 40
Request more information 38
Tap-to-call 17
Purchase a product 22
None of these 13
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
For the most part, graphic ads as a whole were successful in capturing the attention of respondents:
•Over 20% of respondents said that normal banner ads, video ads and ads that let me interact with them are most likely to be paid attention to
•Respondents were least likely to pay attention to expanding screen take-over ads, which may be too aggressive.
Which ONE Of The Following Types Of Mobile Ads Are You Most Likely To Pay Attention To?
Type of Ad % Likely to Pay Attention
Normal banner ads 22%
Video ads 22
Ads that let me interact with them 21
Animated banner ads 19
Text ads 13
Expanding screen take-over ads 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Ads pertaining to retail stores, weather, restaurants or bars and sports are most likely to be clicked on by someone using their mobile phone:
•Respondents tended to gravitate more towards mobile ads that focus on providing information pertaining to everyday life, rather than more specific and direct ads.
From Which Of The Following Types Of Companies, Would You Be Most Likely To Click On A Mobile Ad?
Ad From % of Respondents
Retail stores 18%
Weather 15
Restaurants or bars 13
Sports 12
Music groups 11
Food or drink products 11
Radio stations 6
Social / dating 6
Magazines 3
Airlines 2
Traffic 2
Banks or other financial institutions 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
60% of respondents click on a mobile ad for more information at least once a week. Of those, 19% click on a mobile ad for more information several times a day.
How Often Do You Click On A Mobile Ad To Get More Information About A Product / Service You Saw On Your Phone?
Click Frequency % of Respondents
Several times a day 19%
Around once a day 15
Several times a week 14
Around once a week 12
Several times a month 8
Around oncea month 6
Less than once a month 10
Never 16
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Study Demographics
Category % of Respondents
Age Group
Under 18.5%
18-25 16
26-35 35
36-45 24
46-55 13
Over 55 7
Education
Some high school 10%
Graduate high school 33
Vocational / Technical school 11
Some college 29
Graduated college 12
Some post-graduate work 2
Completed graduate degree or higher 3
Annual HH Income
Under $20,000 30%
$20,000-$29,999 15
$30,000-$39,999 15
$40,000-$49,999 5
$50,000-$74,999 8
$75,000-$99,999 7
$100,000-$149,999 1
$150,000 or higher 0
Prefer not to answer 19
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
TV Audience Ratings: Less And Less Relevant for Advertisers
MediaPostBlogs: TV Board
by John R. Osborn, Friday, May 27, 2011, 4:25 PM
With the National Television Upfront presentations for the 2011/2012 season completed, it's a good time to ask what TV audience ratings really mean for advertisers today. The advertising world is moving bit by bit toward its one-time holy grail of commercial ratings - currently in the form of C3 ratings defined as "the average of a live rating for a (national) commercial minute and up to three days of DVR playback viewing" (check out a great reference site launched this month (May 2011) by the Coalition For Innovative Media Measurement - the CIMM Lexicon. Be sure to use the "find" window at the top for definitions of specific terms.)
The big problem facing advertisers in 2011 is that the quality of DVR playback measurement for commercials is still incredibly unclear. I learned a new term today: "Trick Play" or "Trick Mode" - a term (according to CIMM's Lexicon) used to describe "the use of DVR time-shifted viewing or On-Demand with a TV Remote Control device. Features include fast forward, rewind and pause." CIMM goes on to note that measurement of this is extremely weak: "DVR metrics need to be decided. According to Kantar these data are not currently available in the U.S. but are available in the U.K. Rentrak says that it depends on the operator and the device. Some operators have trick mode data available in various forms (some more detailed than others)."
As up to $10 billion are committed to U.S. upfront TV deals in the coming months, this very confusion underlines how irrelevant TV program ratings have become for advertisers. This uncertainty puts advertiser dollars in great jeopardy as far as achieving media communication goals. Even C3 ratings only confirm that a TV program is attracting a certain size audience. In no way can that programming performance be projected to consumer attention to advertising.
Program ratings were always just a surrogate for the number of potential impressions an ad could garner within the program, helping set pricing for advertisers in a world of imperfect measurement. This surrogate was developed in a time before audiences had powerful ad-avoidance technologies in their hands, or when set-top boxes could provide click-stream analysis of consumer viewing behavior, or even before commercial loads had hit the levels they are at today. Without a better understanding of DVR usage, advertisers will pay more and more to run spots - especially on successful, high rated programs with the highest commercial loads - all while significant numbers of consumers are increasingly avoiding ads.
Can you imagine advertisers opting in to such a business model if it hadn't already been running this way for years? There has always been ad avoidance such as channel switching, leaving the room, multi-tasking and most frequently using social media & web surfing on other media devices during ad breaks. Buying into C3 or any other program ratings only confuses and further decreases the eroding value of a linear TV ad buy for advertisers everywhere.
The ad-supported media industry doesn't need a better mousetrap. It needs a better way to allow consumers to willingly enable advertising to pay for their premium TV content, thereby justifying the financial contributions paid out by the advertisers themselves.
Kudos and thanks to CIMM for providing such an important language guide and translation tool for this discussion. The very future of ad-supported television is at stake.
by John R. Osborn, Friday, May 27, 2011, 4:25 PM
With the National Television Upfront presentations for the 2011/2012 season completed, it's a good time to ask what TV audience ratings really mean for advertisers today. The advertising world is moving bit by bit toward its one-time holy grail of commercial ratings - currently in the form of C3 ratings defined as "the average of a live rating for a (national) commercial minute and up to three days of DVR playback viewing" (check out a great reference site launched this month (May 2011) by the Coalition For Innovative Media Measurement - the CIMM Lexicon. Be sure to use the "find" window at the top for definitions of specific terms.)
The big problem facing advertisers in 2011 is that the quality of DVR playback measurement for commercials is still incredibly unclear. I learned a new term today: "Trick Play" or "Trick Mode" - a term (according to CIMM's Lexicon) used to describe "the use of DVR time-shifted viewing or On-Demand with a TV Remote Control device. Features include fast forward, rewind and pause." CIMM goes on to note that measurement of this is extremely weak: "DVR metrics need to be decided. According to Kantar these data are not currently available in the U.S. but are available in the U.K. Rentrak says that it depends on the operator and the device. Some operators have trick mode data available in various forms (some more detailed than others)."
As up to $10 billion are committed to U.S. upfront TV deals in the coming months, this very confusion underlines how irrelevant TV program ratings have become for advertisers. This uncertainty puts advertiser dollars in great jeopardy as far as achieving media communication goals. Even C3 ratings only confirm that a TV program is attracting a certain size audience. In no way can that programming performance be projected to consumer attention to advertising.
Program ratings were always just a surrogate for the number of potential impressions an ad could garner within the program, helping set pricing for advertisers in a world of imperfect measurement. This surrogate was developed in a time before audiences had powerful ad-avoidance technologies in their hands, or when set-top boxes could provide click-stream analysis of consumer viewing behavior, or even before commercial loads had hit the levels they are at today. Without a better understanding of DVR usage, advertisers will pay more and more to run spots - especially on successful, high rated programs with the highest commercial loads - all while significant numbers of consumers are increasingly avoiding ads.
Can you imagine advertisers opting in to such a business model if it hadn't already been running this way for years? There has always been ad avoidance such as channel switching, leaving the room, multi-tasking and most frequently using social media & web surfing on other media devices during ad breaks. Buying into C3 or any other program ratings only confuses and further decreases the eroding value of a linear TV ad buy for advertisers everywhere.
The ad-supported media industry doesn't need a better mousetrap. It needs a better way to allow consumers to willingly enable advertising to pay for their premium TV content, thereby justifying the financial contributions paid out by the advertisers themselves.
Kudos and thanks to CIMM for providing such an important language guide and translation tool for this discussion. The very future of ad-supported television is at stake.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Slight Uptick For TV Ad Revs, Station Cash Flow Robust
MediaDailyNews
by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 4:35 PM 5/25/2011
Hey all...here's a special reason to get client stations..or stations you represent..to not depend on low-rate political dollars coming in 2012....to pre-empt your local direct clients needed airtime to combat what might be a continuum of slow revenue generation in their businesses...Local direct is still king!!! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.
Now enjoy the article below....
Advertising revenue for TV stations slowed down considerably in the first quarter of this year. But much of this was expected.
Fifteen publicly owned U.S. media companies reported revenue growth of 1.2% in the first quarter of 2011 to $1.15 billion compared with Q1 in 2010, according to New York City-based media investment company M.C. Alcamo.
Much of this softness comes as predicted, given this is an "off-year" -- no Olympic programming and less political advertising money fueling station coffers. Years ago, revenue growth zoomed throughout 2010 -- up 20%, and more for many TV station groups.
For the first quarter, "the industry had a respectable revenue growth rate," says Michael Alcamo, president of M.C. Alcamo.
By way of comparison, revenue growth grew 15.3% for broadcasters in the first quarter of 2010 over the same period in 2009. The fourth quarter of 2010 rocketed up 27.1% over the fourth quarter of 2009.
Good news for stations and other media companies is that their cash flow has remained fairly robust. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) slipped just a bit to 31.2% from 33.9%. Sinclair Broadcast Group continued to have the biggest margins among all media companies: 42.2% in the first quarter.
"People expect more profit weakness in the first quarter after a strong political year," says Alcamo. "Also, the first quarter is weakest for retail."
Alcamo says the seven pure-play broadcasters (Belo Corp., Lin Television, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Fisher Communications Group, Nexstar Broadcasting Co, Entravision Communications, and Gray Television) showed first-quarter revenue growth of 2.2% to $645 million.
Eight other "integrated" media groups -- those with magazine, newspaper, radio and other media platforms -- were virtually flat (a 0.1% decline) to $508 million. Those eight include: McGraw-Hill Cos., Media General, Gannett Co., Journal Communications, Saga Communications, E.W. Scripps, and the Washington Post.
Some of the biggest individual revenue gainers included: McGraw-Hill's broadcast group, a revenue improvement of 10.2%; Fisher Communications, up 7.3%; and Sinclair added 7.2%.
More good news for TV stations: TV advertising categories remained steady for the first quarter of this year, says Alcamo. Also benefiting media companies is the growth of "issue political advertising," which is evolving into a year-long ad category. "Issue advertising is going to be part landscape," he says. "It won't be as cyclical."
by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 4:35 PM 5/25/2011
Hey all...here's a special reason to get client stations..or stations you represent..to not depend on low-rate political dollars coming in 2012....to pre-empt your local direct clients needed airtime to combat what might be a continuum of slow revenue generation in their businesses...Local direct is still king!!! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.
Now enjoy the article below....
Advertising revenue for TV stations slowed down considerably in the first quarter of this year. But much of this was expected.
Fifteen publicly owned U.S. media companies reported revenue growth of 1.2% in the first quarter of 2011 to $1.15 billion compared with Q1 in 2010, according to New York City-based media investment company M.C. Alcamo.
Much of this softness comes as predicted, given this is an "off-year" -- no Olympic programming and less political advertising money fueling station coffers. Years ago, revenue growth zoomed throughout 2010 -- up 20%, and more for many TV station groups.
For the first quarter, "the industry had a respectable revenue growth rate," says Michael Alcamo, president of M.C. Alcamo.
By way of comparison, revenue growth grew 15.3% for broadcasters in the first quarter of 2010 over the same period in 2009. The fourth quarter of 2010 rocketed up 27.1% over the fourth quarter of 2009.
Good news for stations and other media companies is that their cash flow has remained fairly robust. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) slipped just a bit to 31.2% from 33.9%. Sinclair Broadcast Group continued to have the biggest margins among all media companies: 42.2% in the first quarter.
"People expect more profit weakness in the first quarter after a strong political year," says Alcamo. "Also, the first quarter is weakest for retail."
Alcamo says the seven pure-play broadcasters (Belo Corp., Lin Television, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Fisher Communications Group, Nexstar Broadcasting Co, Entravision Communications, and Gray Television) showed first-quarter revenue growth of 2.2% to $645 million.
Eight other "integrated" media groups -- those with magazine, newspaper, radio and other media platforms -- were virtually flat (a 0.1% decline) to $508 million. Those eight include: McGraw-Hill Cos., Media General, Gannett Co., Journal Communications, Saga Communications, E.W. Scripps, and the Washington Post.
Some of the biggest individual revenue gainers included: McGraw-Hill's broadcast group, a revenue improvement of 10.2%; Fisher Communications, up 7.3%; and Sinclair added 7.2%.
More good news for TV stations: TV advertising categories remained steady for the first quarter of this year, says Alcamo. Also benefiting media companies is the growth of "issue political advertising," which is evolving into a year-long ad category. "Issue advertising is going to be part landscape," he says. "It won't be as cyclical."
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
TV Trends
Media Post Blogs
by Jack Loechner, Friday, May 6, 2011, 8:15 AM
According to Trends in TV Viewing from the Nielson Company, new and enhanced technologies are fueling the demand for video content. The average American watched 34 hours 39 minutes of TV per week in Q4 2010, a year-over-year increase of two minutes. The heaviest users of traditional TV are adults 65+ (47 hours 33 minutes per week), followed by adults 50-64 (43 hours per week). Trailing all other age groups, teens age 12-17 watch the least amount of TV (23 hours 41 minutes per week).
Over the 2010-2011 TV season, several trends have emerged in what and how consumers are watching. A fact sheet from The Nielsen Company highlights these trends:
Total Day TV and Peripheral Usage by Race and Origin (Daily Hours: Min)
Legend for below* 1.Total U.S. 2.White 3.African American 4.Hispanic 5. Asian
Total Use of TV
1.5:11
2.5:02
3.7:12
4.4:35
5.3:14
Live TV
1. 4:17
2. 4:05
3. 6:16
4. 3:54
5. 2:34
DVR Playback
1. 0:24
2. 0:27
3. 0:20
4. 0:14
5. 0:17
DVD Playback
1. 0:15
2. 0:15
3. 0:18
4. 0:14
5. 0:12
Source: The Nielsen Company, April 2011
Timeshifting continues to be a significant factor in how consumers watch TV. Overall 38% of TV households in the U.S. have a DVR. In Q4 2010, the heaviest timeshifters were:
•Adults 35-49, watching 3 hours 8 minutes of timeshifted TV a week.
•Teens ranging from age 12-17 watch the least amount of timeshifted TV per week, just 1 hour 31 minutes and the
•Adults age 18-24 are close behind, watching 1 hour 32 minutes of timeshifted TV per week.
As of February 2011, 28.8% of Hispanic TV households owned a DVR, whereas 36% of Asian TV households owned a DVR
In Q4 2010, 301 million Americans used a mobile phone; 24.7 million mobile subscribers watched video on a mobile phone, a 41% increase from last year. The growing popularity of mobile video is due, in part, to the rapid adoption of media-friendly mobile devices, including smartphones, which make up 30% of the marketplace.
Mobile subscribers on average watched 4 hours 20 minutes of mobile video a month (Q4 2010). Younger consumers ages 12-17 are the heaviest mobile video viewers, watching 7 hours 13 minutes of mobile video a month (Q4 2010).
143.9 million Americans viewed video online in January 2011, spending an average of 4 hours 39 minutes viewing video on PCs/laptops. 46% were female and 54% male
Online Video Viewers by Ethnicity:
•77.9% are White
•12.1% Hispanic
•10.6% AfricanAmerican
•7% Other
•3.5% Asian
•1% Native American
In January 2011, 40% of Americans active online (79.5 million consumers) visited TV network and broadcast media sites. During that same time, 49% of Social Networking & Blog Site visitors, also visited TV network and broadcast media sites. Social Networking & Blog Site visitors account for 151.7 million Americans.
Spending on TV grew 8% in 2010. Ad dollars spent in primetime specifically increased 6% from 2009 to $20 billion, accounting for 43% of spending. Ad dollars spent in primetime specifically increased 6% from 2009 to $20 billion, accounting for 43% of spending.
The 30-second commercial remains the television advertising standard in primetime, accounting for 53% of all commercials (2010). However, commercials are getting shorter; the number of commercials 30-seconds or less increased 12%, while the number of commercials 35 seconds or more decreased 6%.
Commercials that air during drama/ adventure shows generate the strongest brand recall, as consumers who are engaged in the programming also remain attentive during the commercials. Reality shows follow, with relatively stronger brand recall than sitcoms. Two exceptions are Asian Americans and younger viewers (ages 13-34), who remember the ads that air during reality shows better than sitcoms.
Summary of highlights:
•Timeshifting continues to be a significant factor in how consumers watch TV.
•Mobile Video viewing has increased 41% from last year
•Video online viewing continues to increase
•The TV audience for sports is expanding
•The audience overlap between visitors to network and broadcast media sites and social networking & blog sites is significant
•Television advertising spend was the largest medium for all ad spending in 2010
by Jack Loechner, Friday, May 6, 2011, 8:15 AM
According to Trends in TV Viewing from the Nielson Company, new and enhanced technologies are fueling the demand for video content. The average American watched 34 hours 39 minutes of TV per week in Q4 2010, a year-over-year increase of two minutes. The heaviest users of traditional TV are adults 65+ (47 hours 33 minutes per week), followed by adults 50-64 (43 hours per week). Trailing all other age groups, teens age 12-17 watch the least amount of TV (23 hours 41 minutes per week).
Over the 2010-2011 TV season, several trends have emerged in what and how consumers are watching. A fact sheet from The Nielsen Company highlights these trends:
Total Day TV and Peripheral Usage by Race and Origin (Daily Hours: Min)
Legend for below* 1.Total U.S. 2.White 3.African American 4.Hispanic 5. Asian
Total Use of TV
1.5:11
2.5:02
3.7:12
4.4:35
5.3:14
Live TV
1. 4:17
2. 4:05
3. 6:16
4. 3:54
5. 2:34
DVR Playback
1. 0:24
2. 0:27
3. 0:20
4. 0:14
5. 0:17
DVD Playback
1. 0:15
2. 0:15
3. 0:18
4. 0:14
5. 0:12
Source: The Nielsen Company, April 2011
Timeshifting continues to be a significant factor in how consumers watch TV. Overall 38% of TV households in the U.S. have a DVR. In Q4 2010, the heaviest timeshifters were:
•Adults 35-49, watching 3 hours 8 minutes of timeshifted TV a week.
•Teens ranging from age 12-17 watch the least amount of timeshifted TV per week, just 1 hour 31 minutes and the
•Adults age 18-24 are close behind, watching 1 hour 32 minutes of timeshifted TV per week.
As of February 2011, 28.8% of Hispanic TV households owned a DVR, whereas 36% of Asian TV households owned a DVR
In Q4 2010, 301 million Americans used a mobile phone; 24.7 million mobile subscribers watched video on a mobile phone, a 41% increase from last year. The growing popularity of mobile video is due, in part, to the rapid adoption of media-friendly mobile devices, including smartphones, which make up 30% of the marketplace.
Mobile subscribers on average watched 4 hours 20 minutes of mobile video a month (Q4 2010). Younger consumers ages 12-17 are the heaviest mobile video viewers, watching 7 hours 13 minutes of mobile video a month (Q4 2010).
143.9 million Americans viewed video online in January 2011, spending an average of 4 hours 39 minutes viewing video on PCs/laptops. 46% were female and 54% male
Online Video Viewers by Ethnicity:
•77.9% are White
•12.1% Hispanic
•10.6% AfricanAmerican
•7% Other
•3.5% Asian
•1% Native American
In January 2011, 40% of Americans active online (79.5 million consumers) visited TV network and broadcast media sites. During that same time, 49% of Social Networking & Blog Site visitors, also visited TV network and broadcast media sites. Social Networking & Blog Site visitors account for 151.7 million Americans.
Spending on TV grew 8% in 2010. Ad dollars spent in primetime specifically increased 6% from 2009 to $20 billion, accounting for 43% of spending. Ad dollars spent in primetime specifically increased 6% from 2009 to $20 billion, accounting for 43% of spending.
The 30-second commercial remains the television advertising standard in primetime, accounting for 53% of all commercials (2010). However, commercials are getting shorter; the number of commercials 30-seconds or less increased 12%, while the number of commercials 35 seconds or more decreased 6%.
Commercials that air during drama/ adventure shows generate the strongest brand recall, as consumers who are engaged in the programming also remain attentive during the commercials. Reality shows follow, with relatively stronger brand recall than sitcoms. Two exceptions are Asian Americans and younger viewers (ages 13-34), who remember the ads that air during reality shows better than sitcoms.
Summary of highlights:
•Timeshifting continues to be a significant factor in how consumers watch TV.
•Mobile Video viewing has increased 41% from last year
•Video online viewing continues to increase
•The TV audience for sports is expanding
•The audience overlap between visitors to network and broadcast media sites and social networking & blog sites is significant
•Television advertising spend was the largest medium for all ad spending in 2010
Personal Data: Most Top Apps Lack Privacy Policies
MEDIAPOST NEWS ONLINE MEDIA DAILY
by Mark Walsh, Friday, May 13, 2011, 12:44 PM
Nearly three-quarters of the most popular mobile apps lack even a basic privacy policy, according to a new survey by the Future of Privacy Forum. The think tank found 22 of the top 30 paid mobile apps across the major mobile platforms including Android, iOS and BlackBerry had no policy governing use of personal data.
The finding comes as the U.S. Senate held a hearing on mobile privacy issues this week following much-publicized reports that iPhones, iPads and Android devices collected detailed information about users' locations. One focus of the inquiry by the Privacy, Technology and Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee was the privacy of personal information collected and used by apps on mobile devices.
Discussion of that topic led to questioning on the lack of privacy policies for apps. An investigation earlier this year by The Wall Street Journal found that 45 of the top 101 iPhone or Android apps analyzed did not provide privacy policies on their sites or inside the apps at the time of testing.
"Without a privacy policy to review, consumers may not have the ability to understand and control the use of their personal data by the Apps," stated a blog post on the Future of Privacy Forum site. "And although privacy policies should not be the only way companies communicate with users about data use, posting a privacy policy is the essential first step for companies to take to be accountable for their practices of collecting and using online data."
The group's own analysis includes looking at the top paid iPhone and Android apps as of May 10, as well as industry standard reporting from mobile analytics firm Distimo. In addition to examining developer Web sites for app privacy policies, it also downloaded a sample of the paid apps to determine whether at any time during the download or installation process a policy was presented to the user.
Out of the sample tested, only one app -- "Angry Birds" on iOS -- had a privacy policy link from within the user interface, suggesting that including such a link will not affect the potential popularity of an app. Other titles in the study included "Doodle God," "Cut the Rope," "Vignette," "WeatherBug Elite" and "Chat for Facebook Pro."
The Future of Policy Forum maintains that developers at a minimum should have privacy policies for all apps."Once a consumer reviews a privacy policy, he or she can choose whether to install or continue using the App, a fundamental part of privacy control," stated its blog post. The nonprofit said it's working with the Center for Democracy and Technology to recommend other ways that developers can improve privacy practices to protect consumers.
In connection with the Senate hearing, the deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection said in a prepared statement this week that the agency is also investigating mobile privacy, including children's privacy.
by Mark Walsh, Friday, May 13, 2011, 12:44 PM
Nearly three-quarters of the most popular mobile apps lack even a basic privacy policy, according to a new survey by the Future of Privacy Forum. The think tank found 22 of the top 30 paid mobile apps across the major mobile platforms including Android, iOS and BlackBerry had no policy governing use of personal data.
The finding comes as the U.S. Senate held a hearing on mobile privacy issues this week following much-publicized reports that iPhones, iPads and Android devices collected detailed information about users' locations. One focus of the inquiry by the Privacy, Technology and Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee was the privacy of personal information collected and used by apps on mobile devices.
Discussion of that topic led to questioning on the lack of privacy policies for apps. An investigation earlier this year by The Wall Street Journal found that 45 of the top 101 iPhone or Android apps analyzed did not provide privacy policies on their sites or inside the apps at the time of testing.
"Without a privacy policy to review, consumers may not have the ability to understand and control the use of their personal data by the Apps," stated a blog post on the Future of Privacy Forum site. "And although privacy policies should not be the only way companies communicate with users about data use, posting a privacy policy is the essential first step for companies to take to be accountable for their practices of collecting and using online data."
The group's own analysis includes looking at the top paid iPhone and Android apps as of May 10, as well as industry standard reporting from mobile analytics firm Distimo. In addition to examining developer Web sites for app privacy policies, it also downloaded a sample of the paid apps to determine whether at any time during the download or installation process a policy was presented to the user.
Out of the sample tested, only one app -- "Angry Birds" on iOS -- had a privacy policy link from within the user interface, suggesting that including such a link will not affect the potential popularity of an app. Other titles in the study included "Doodle God," "Cut the Rope," "Vignette," "WeatherBug Elite" and "Chat for Facebook Pro."
The Future of Policy Forum maintains that developers at a minimum should have privacy policies for all apps."Once a consumer reviews a privacy policy, he or she can choose whether to install or continue using the App, a fundamental part of privacy control," stated its blog post. The nonprofit said it's working with the Center for Democracy and Technology to recommend other ways that developers can improve privacy practices to protect consumers.
In connection with the Senate hearing, the deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection said in a prepared statement this week that the agency is also investigating mobile privacy, including children's privacy.
Working Harder Doesn't Get You Ahead
bNET The CBS Interactive Business Network
By Tony Schwartz | May 17, 2011
Late last week, I had several different challenging projects on my plate, each with fast-approaching deadlines. Feeling the pressure, I awoke earlier than usual in the morning and got to my desk by 7:00 am.
Four hours later, I was still sitting there, barely having budged from my chair. To my surprise and frustration, I still hadn’t finished my project.
At first, I attributed my failure to the difficulty of the task. But the more I thought about it, the less that made sense.
A Faulty Instinct to Work Harder
Suddenly, it dawned on me. Anxious about all the demands on my plate, I’d defaulted into a way of working that doesn’t work.
I hunkered down, powered through, stayed the course. Along the way, something insidious, inevitable, and mostly unconscious happened.
I started reading emails, and responding to them. I remembered little things from my to-do list, and decided they were actually quite urgent. I made some phone calls. I rewrote my to-do list. Feel familiar?
This isn’t the sort of thing that should happen to me. I run a company called The Energy Project, and we’re in the business of energizing individuals and organizations to be more productive and higher performing by learning to balance work with strategic periods of renewal.
Alas, I’m also human. I violated the very lessons we teach.
Professionals live today in a world of relentless demand. To meet their obligations, their default instinct - including mine, if the pressure gets high enough - is simply to push harder.
The problem is human beings aren’t meant to operate the way computers do: at high speeds, continuously, for long periods of time. To the contrary, people perform best when they pulse rhythmically between spending and renewing energy - not just physically, but also mentally and emotionally.
Unfortunately, rest and renewal get no respect in the organizational world. Most managers view the need for downtime as weakness. The problem is that when their employees work without pause, they very quickly get decreasing incremental returns on each hour invested.
Just as I did, you stop thinking as clearly, creatively, and strategically, and you take more time to get less accomplished.
Though you may not realize it, you’re physiologically designed to operate in cycles of approximately 90 minutes, during which you move from higher to lower alertness. These phases are called “ultradian rhythms.”
Don’t Ignore Your Body’s Signals
When you need a break, your body sends you clear signals, including fidgetiness, hunger, drowsiness and loss of focus. But if you’re like most people, you override them. Instead, you find artificial ways to pump up your energy: caffeine, foods high in sugar and simple carbohydrates, and your body’s own stress hormones - adrenalin, noradrenalin and cortisol.
Relying on these hormones for energy prompts the state we all know as “fight or flight.” It’s great for escaping danger, and terrible for performance. In fight or flight, people become less capable of thinking clearly and reflectively, more emotionally volatile, and burn down their energy at a rapid rate.
The Value of Working in Spurts
The counterintuitive secret to great, sustainable performance is to live like a sprinter. In practice, that means working with the high intensity, uninterrupted, for periods no longer than 90 minutes, and then taking a break to renew and refuel.
For the first several books I wrote, I typically sat at my desk for 10 or even 12 hours at a time. There was no way to stay fully engaged the whole time, so I found ways to distract myself along the way. Each of the books took me at least a year to write.
For my most recent book, I wrote without interruption for three 90-minute periods in the morning, and then took a break in between each one. I wrote no more than 4 ½ hours a day, and I finished the book in less than six months.
Obviously, it’s not possible for most people in most companies to work in a series of uninterrupted sprints the way I did. Let me challenge you instead to try a smaller experiment.
For the next week, take on your most challenging task first thing in the morning, for 60 to 90 minutes, uninterrupted. Then take a break. You’ll get an amazing amount done - and feel better the rest of the day.
Tony Schwartz is president and CEO of The Energy Project, and author, most recently, of Be Excellent At Anything. You can follow him on Twitter at @TonySchwartz and @energy_project.
By Tony Schwartz | May 17, 2011
Late last week, I had several different challenging projects on my plate, each with fast-approaching deadlines. Feeling the pressure, I awoke earlier than usual in the morning and got to my desk by 7:00 am.
Four hours later, I was still sitting there, barely having budged from my chair. To my surprise and frustration, I still hadn’t finished my project.
At first, I attributed my failure to the difficulty of the task. But the more I thought about it, the less that made sense.
A Faulty Instinct to Work Harder
Suddenly, it dawned on me. Anxious about all the demands on my plate, I’d defaulted into a way of working that doesn’t work.
I hunkered down, powered through, stayed the course. Along the way, something insidious, inevitable, and mostly unconscious happened.
I started reading emails, and responding to them. I remembered little things from my to-do list, and decided they were actually quite urgent. I made some phone calls. I rewrote my to-do list. Feel familiar?
This isn’t the sort of thing that should happen to me. I run a company called The Energy Project, and we’re in the business of energizing individuals and organizations to be more productive and higher performing by learning to balance work with strategic periods of renewal.
Alas, I’m also human. I violated the very lessons we teach.
Professionals live today in a world of relentless demand. To meet their obligations, their default instinct - including mine, if the pressure gets high enough - is simply to push harder.
The problem is human beings aren’t meant to operate the way computers do: at high speeds, continuously, for long periods of time. To the contrary, people perform best when they pulse rhythmically between spending and renewing energy - not just physically, but also mentally and emotionally.
Unfortunately, rest and renewal get no respect in the organizational world. Most managers view the need for downtime as weakness. The problem is that when their employees work without pause, they very quickly get decreasing incremental returns on each hour invested.
Just as I did, you stop thinking as clearly, creatively, and strategically, and you take more time to get less accomplished.
Though you may not realize it, you’re physiologically designed to operate in cycles of approximately 90 minutes, during which you move from higher to lower alertness. These phases are called “ultradian rhythms.”
Don’t Ignore Your Body’s Signals
When you need a break, your body sends you clear signals, including fidgetiness, hunger, drowsiness and loss of focus. But if you’re like most people, you override them. Instead, you find artificial ways to pump up your energy: caffeine, foods high in sugar and simple carbohydrates, and your body’s own stress hormones - adrenalin, noradrenalin and cortisol.
Relying on these hormones for energy prompts the state we all know as “fight or flight.” It’s great for escaping danger, and terrible for performance. In fight or flight, people become less capable of thinking clearly and reflectively, more emotionally volatile, and burn down their energy at a rapid rate.
The Value of Working in Spurts
The counterintuitive secret to great, sustainable performance is to live like a sprinter. In practice, that means working with the high intensity, uninterrupted, for periods no longer than 90 minutes, and then taking a break to renew and refuel.
For the first several books I wrote, I typically sat at my desk for 10 or even 12 hours at a time. There was no way to stay fully engaged the whole time, so I found ways to distract myself along the way. Each of the books took me at least a year to write.
For my most recent book, I wrote without interruption for three 90-minute periods in the morning, and then took a break in between each one. I wrote no more than 4 ½ hours a day, and I finished the book in less than six months.
Obviously, it’s not possible for most people in most companies to work in a series of uninterrupted sprints the way I did. Let me challenge you instead to try a smaller experiment.
For the next week, take on your most challenging task first thing in the morning, for 60 to 90 minutes, uninterrupted. Then take a break. You’ll get an amazing amount done - and feel better the rest of the day.
Tony Schwartz is president and CEO of The Energy Project, and author, most recently, of Be Excellent At Anything. You can follow him on Twitter at @TonySchwartz and @energy_project.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Fox Leads In 18-49s, But Most Nets See Ratings Declines
MediaDailyNews
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, May 13, 2011, 11:22 AM
With just two weeks to go in the regular TV broadcast season -- and right before the upfront TV presentations -- Fox is tracking to take another crown in the still important 18-49 ratings race.
Fox is averaging a Nielsen live-plus-same-day 3.5 rating among 18-49 viewers after 33 weeks of a 35-week season. Fox recovered from its disastrous start -- a fourth-quarter 2010 period where ratings were down 15% or more, due in part to the quick cancellation of "Lone Star" as well as other under-performing shows.
Fox will be down 5.3% from a year ago. It also benefited from airing the Super Bowl -- always a major factor in a network's seasonal performance. Even without the Super Bowl -- and still thanks to "American Idol" -- it would have been ahead.
CBS is tracking for a second-spot placement with a Nielsen 2.9 rating among 18-49 viewers, down 8.2% versus a year ago. CBS has been strong in most media buyers/' eyes, just looking at regularly scheduled entertainment programs. For most of the season, leaving out its airing of last year's Super Bowl, CBS was actually up in 18-49 viewers -- a rare occurrence for most TV broadcast networks.
ABC will decline around the same amount as CBS -- 8.5% now with two weeks to go. It's currently at a 2.4 average rating among 18-49 viewers.
NBC will sink by massive double-digit percentages. Right now, it is down 14.4% to a 2.3 rating number -- but the decrease is not being blamed on NBC's usual entertainment series woes. It was up against last season's big numbers, which included much higher prime ratings for a two-week period in February from the Vancouver Winter Olympics.
The only broadcast net to show gains is Spanish-language Univision, which is up 8.6% to a 1.5 rating. Lastly, CW is down 5.2% so far to a 0.9 rating in 18-49 viewers. While this is not its primary demographic -- it is more narrowly targeted to women 18-34 -- it has also had mediocre results this year.
When looking at the overall 18-49 rating average, the five English-language broadcast networks are down around 9% year-to-year so far -- again faring against the higher ratings of the Winter Olympics of last season. Without the Olympics, the numbers are off around 5%.
As usual, CBS will grab the top spot among total viewers -- now running at 11.7 million viewers. Fox is at 9.7 million viewers; ABC is at 8.4 million; NBC has 7.10 million; Univision is at 3.71 million; and The CW claims 2.01 million viewers.
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, May 13, 2011, 11:22 AM
With just two weeks to go in the regular TV broadcast season -- and right before the upfront TV presentations -- Fox is tracking to take another crown in the still important 18-49 ratings race.
Fox is averaging a Nielsen live-plus-same-day 3.5 rating among 18-49 viewers after 33 weeks of a 35-week season. Fox recovered from its disastrous start -- a fourth-quarter 2010 period where ratings were down 15% or more, due in part to the quick cancellation of "Lone Star" as well as other under-performing shows.
Fox will be down 5.3% from a year ago. It also benefited from airing the Super Bowl -- always a major factor in a network's seasonal performance. Even without the Super Bowl -- and still thanks to "American Idol" -- it would have been ahead.
CBS is tracking for a second-spot placement with a Nielsen 2.9 rating among 18-49 viewers, down 8.2% versus a year ago. CBS has been strong in most media buyers/' eyes, just looking at regularly scheduled entertainment programs. For most of the season, leaving out its airing of last year's Super Bowl, CBS was actually up in 18-49 viewers -- a rare occurrence for most TV broadcast networks.
ABC will decline around the same amount as CBS -- 8.5% now with two weeks to go. It's currently at a 2.4 average rating among 18-49 viewers.
NBC will sink by massive double-digit percentages. Right now, it is down 14.4% to a 2.3 rating number -- but the decrease is not being blamed on NBC's usual entertainment series woes. It was up against last season's big numbers, which included much higher prime ratings for a two-week period in February from the Vancouver Winter Olympics.
The only broadcast net to show gains is Spanish-language Univision, which is up 8.6% to a 1.5 rating. Lastly, CW is down 5.2% so far to a 0.9 rating in 18-49 viewers. While this is not its primary demographic -- it is more narrowly targeted to women 18-34 -- it has also had mediocre results this year.
When looking at the overall 18-49 rating average, the five English-language broadcast networks are down around 9% year-to-year so far -- again faring against the higher ratings of the Winter Olympics of last season. Without the Olympics, the numbers are off around 5%.
As usual, CBS will grab the top spot among total viewers -- now running at 11.7 million viewers. Fox is at 9.7 million viewers; ABC is at 8.4 million; NBC has 7.10 million; Univision is at 3.71 million; and The CW claims 2.01 million viewers.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
2011 Forecast: Local TV Ad Revs Drop 10%, Digital Climbs
MediaDailyNews
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, April 29, 2011, 10:37 AM
The absence of big Olympics and political advertising will pull down local TV advertising revenue almost 10% in 2011.
Local media research firm BIA/Kelsey is estimating that local TV advertising revenues will sink 9.8% to $17.4 billion, down from $19.4 billion in 2010. But online/digital revenues for local TV stations will climb 22% to $550 million.
2010 was the first year since 2006 that witnessed year-over-year gains -- improving 23.2% over 2009's deep recession-scarred performance, which pushed down local advertising revenues to $15.8 billion.
For the better part of two decades, TV stations have been subjected to two-year cycles: soaring gains from Olympics and political advertising dollars in one year, followed by declines with their absence the following year.
True to form, BIA/Kelsey estimates the local TV advertising market will recoup virtually all its 2011 declines in 2012, rising to $19.3 billion. Local TV-connected digital advertising will continue to gain strength -- a 15.8% hike to $638 million.
However, research suggests that TV stations will not top the big $20 billion totals in recent years -- 2005 to 2008 -- before the recession hit anytime soon. The 2006 year was at an all-time high of $22.8 billion. By 2015, BIA/Kelsey projects local TV station advertising revenues of $19.5 billion -- virtually the totals of 2010. But it says local TV stations' digital advertising revenues will continue to climb, topping to $890 million.
Local TV -- as with all broadcast TV -- continues to witness lower ratings. But business continues to be steady.
Mark Fratrik, Ph.D., vice president of BIA/Kelsey, stated: "Even with some erosion of viewers, it was a strong demonstration that local television continues to show its value to advertisers by delivering the shoppers, voters, and influencers they want to reach."
BIA/Kelsey says revenues for the overall local media advertising marketplace -- as defined by media that provides local audiences to all types of advertisers -- will grow at a 2.4% compound annual growth rate over the next five years, reaching $153.5 billion by 2015
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, April 29, 2011, 10:37 AM
The absence of big Olympics and political advertising will pull down local TV advertising revenue almost 10% in 2011.
Local media research firm BIA/Kelsey is estimating that local TV advertising revenues will sink 9.8% to $17.4 billion, down from $19.4 billion in 2010. But online/digital revenues for local TV stations will climb 22% to $550 million.
2010 was the first year since 2006 that witnessed year-over-year gains -- improving 23.2% over 2009's deep recession-scarred performance, which pushed down local advertising revenues to $15.8 billion.
For the better part of two decades, TV stations have been subjected to two-year cycles: soaring gains from Olympics and political advertising dollars in one year, followed by declines with their absence the following year.
True to form, BIA/Kelsey estimates the local TV advertising market will recoup virtually all its 2011 declines in 2012, rising to $19.3 billion. Local TV-connected digital advertising will continue to gain strength -- a 15.8% hike to $638 million.
However, research suggests that TV stations will not top the big $20 billion totals in recent years -- 2005 to 2008 -- before the recession hit anytime soon. The 2006 year was at an all-time high of $22.8 billion. By 2015, BIA/Kelsey projects local TV station advertising revenues of $19.5 billion -- virtually the totals of 2010. But it says local TV stations' digital advertising revenues will continue to climb, topping to $890 million.
Local TV -- as with all broadcast TV -- continues to witness lower ratings. But business continues to be steady.
Mark Fratrik, Ph.D., vice president of BIA/Kelsey, stated: "Even with some erosion of viewers, it was a strong demonstration that local television continues to show its value to advertisers by delivering the shoppers, voters, and influencers they want to reach."
BIA/Kelsey says revenues for the overall local media advertising marketplace -- as defined by media that provides local audiences to all types of advertisers -- will grow at a 2.4% compound annual growth rate over the next five years, reaching $153.5 billion by 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)