Why Social Media Needs TV and TV Needs Social

Advertising Age's DigitalNext Strengths and Weaknesses of Both Create Ideal Fit for the Future By: Mike Mikho Published: October 15, 2012 Every now and then, we come across a couple seemingly made for each other. Think of Barack and Michelle Obama, Jay-Z and Beyonce, or John Stamos and his array of hair products. Marketers are reaping the benefit of another match made in heaven, and as the industry evolves, these two will change the way each other operate: That's social media and television. I'm not talking about second screen marketing; I'm referring to social's growing ability to provide what television doesn't, and television's ability to dispel the biggest argument against social. I had an opportunity to speak with social media leads at a few brands that are well versed in both mediums -- Jon Budd of Hyundai, Adam Kmiec of Campbell's Soup and Barbara Liss of Quaker Foods -- and it was clear that the symbiotic relationship between social and TV is on the minds of marketers worldwide. Consider television's strengths: wide-reaching, immediate impact on sales proven through years of media-mix modeling and a universally accepted data provider. (Yes I just counted Nielsen as a strength; I'll explain later.) Now consider TV's greatest weaknesses: earned media and long-term benefit. Tracking the results of broadcast marketing is like looking at a heart rate monitor; a brand makes a media investment, impressions shoot up (directly proportionate to the dollars spent), and sales increase. Then as soon as dollars are out of the market, conversation and subsequent conversion drop significantly. This is where social comes in. More and more brands are using social as a megaphone to bolster broadcast campaigns, driving earned media that boosts the heart rate while lowering the cost per impression. Furthermore, since people are always talking online, social can allow a brand to monitor and impact the conversation so that the heart rate never drops down. Therefore, television's short-term benefits seed long-term advocacy, with social serving as the soil. As Barbara Liss put it, "With the advent of social, brands now have strong loyalty-building opportunities to complement the messages on TV. And if done right, TV can enhance conversation." That's not to say social is without flaws. The focus on social media is often around the oceans of accurate consumer data available, rather than its ability bring together and enhance traditional marketing tactics. Jon Budd suggests that social has been promoted as being measurable rather than as simply a great branding tool. "When digital first started up, it built itself up as being measurable at the bottom of the funnel instead of delivering on brand as broadcast did; measurement was digital's unique selling proposition. Social is falling into that same trap," said Budd. But while data is one of social's biggest selling points, it may also be one of its greatest downfalls. Adam Kmiec brought up social's lack of data standardization: "Ask how many homes a commercial reached and you'll get one number, from one source. Ask someone how many impressions a social campaign delivered and you might get four different answers. This creates skepticism." And therein lies my justification for praising Nielsen. Say what you will about its methodology and accuracy, but it's a universally accepted data provider that allows for fair comparisons. That's something social is sorely lacking, and Kmiec isn't the only one to express that. Liss went as far as to say, "There are 100 startups for every metric." Here's where TV can save social from the data confusion and subsequent skepticism of ROI. Consider social as an amplification tool for a TV-heavy marketing plan and plug it into a media-mix model. While social isn't typically known to drive immediate sales, brands that use social to amplify broadcast activations drive low-cost impressions and increase the brand-relevant conversation. This drives CPI down, and the lift in sales driven by those social impressions can be easily measured by comparing sales data to media dollars spent, both with and without social support. Several brands are already taking advantage of the complementary nature of the social and TV. Broadcast marketers are starting to create engaging, sharable content to leverage the long-term benefits of social, and social marketers are working more closely with broadcast teams to amplify reach and drive calls to action. As the mediums develop, we'll continue to see a shift in content strategy, and collaborative strategies will pay off for years to come.

Auto: Strong sales are driving up ad $

MediaLife On pace for best year since 2007 with 14 million vehicles sold By Bill Cromwell October 24, 2012 Olympic and political advertising certainly deserve much of the credit for the advertising gains being seen in 2012. But the biggest sign of a sustainable recovery, not dependent on the two-year election and Games cycle, is the strength of the auto category. After a solid 2010 and disappointing 2011, 2012 is on pace to be the best year for auto sales since 2007, and perhaps the best advertising year as well. Forecasters are predicting that 14 million cars will be sold this year, up 29 percent over 2009, when the auto industry was battered by the recession, bankruptcy and bailouts. There’s a huge market for auto sales, which is leading to strong advertising in the category by manufacturers and dealers fighting for market share. Add to that the big gains from the Japanese manufacturers, who pulled back on advertising last year following the earthquake and tsunami that led to severe inventory shortages, and auto advertising should remain strong for the remainder of the year and beyond. “The automotive category is coming back very strong on both the foreign and domestic front, with tier I, tier II and now tier III local dealer advertisers spending heavily [on spot television],” notes a recent forecast from the British agency ZenithOptimedia. “There is a strong appetite among consumers for new vehicles, with many holding off coming out of the recession, and automakers are offering deals and incentives to entice these consumers.” During second quarter spot TV spending by automotive was up 25.6 percent over the same time in 2011, according to the TVB, to $648.8 million. That was the biggest gain for any non-political category among the top 25, with the Honda, General Motors, Toyota, Hyundai and Ford dealer associations all up at least 9 percent. “Local dealer advertising was the No. 1 [spot TV] spender in 2007 for many markets; this category coming back is making a strong impact on local inventory in markets,” says ZenithOptimedia’s report. The appetite for new cars is being fueled by the recession. In 2008 and 2009, many people held off on buying new cars when their vehicles were six or seven years old. That’s led to a larger than usual number of 9- or 10-year-old cars on the roads. Now that the credit crunch has eased a bit, and it’s easier for people to get approved for long-term deals, dealerships are seeing much more traffic and thus laying out incentives to try to woo consumers, incentives that they’re advertising heavily on television and online.

Patience (And A Plan) Is The Prescription For Mobile Marketing

MediaPost's OnlineSpin Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012 By Cory Treffiletti The medium is still maturing. There currently is a lack of proven brand case studies, and as a result there are more direct-response advertisers driving CPC or CPA ad models than there are CPM-driven brand advertisers. The ad formats are still in flux, and the growth rate for consumer use is so steep that standard metrics for success are almost obsolete by the time they are published. I’m not talking about mobile (yet). That’s how you described Internet advertising way back in 1998-1999. The fact is, mobile marketing is experiencing the exact same growing pains as standard Internet display did from 1998 through 2002. My prescription for the future is simple: mobile marketers, publishers and technology need to have context for where they are, and they need a plan for getting a seat at the table of true strategic involvement for large brand advertisers. Like any good doctor, let me lay out that prescription. First off, be patient. Success is going to come if you follow the plan. Mobile marketing has a clear path to success, but it is not an overnight occurrence. It will take time. The Internet marketing business grew faster than any other marketing avenue in history, and it took about 15 years to get a seat at the “big kids” table. Mobile will get that seat as well, and its growth is even faster than the “traditional” Web, so the timeline could be a total of eight to 10 years, of which we are really only five years in. As for the plan, there’s currently a plethora of direct-response advertisers playing on mobile on a CPC (cost per click) or CPI (cost per install) basis. The medium NEEDS brand marketers to prove value on a CPM model if mobile will gain credibility. To do so, some larger publishers are going to have to give away mobile campaigns, either at no cost or at cost so to cover their costs for implementation. In exchange for these discounted or free campaigns, publishers should be asking for big, public case studies for the industry. Back in the day, the IAB and a few other groups published groundbreaking case studies that demonstrated the value of Internet display marketing. These cases got play from agencies and marketers for years, and arguably the business would not have taken off as quickly if they hadn’t been published. Brand advertisers never like to be first, but they like to say they were. That means you need to have someone willing to go to bat with a minimal amount of risk, meaning they can still spend their money where they know it will work. Give them the impressions, and give them the chance to be that trailblazer. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the form factor of mobile ads is currently not where it is going to end up. It’s still in the “468x60” stage, for those of you who know what I’m talking about. If the creative units are not more engaging and larger than they currently are, and if sizes are not standard across all mobile sites, then brands will decide not to produce those ads and they may stay away from mobile. If you prove the value through a branded case study, and the creative is more engaging, then you as a mobile publisher have to ditch the CPC and CPI/CPA model in favor of CPM. Stop giving away your inventory and maintain a rationally priced rate card. Don’t expect $60 CPMs, but do expect that you provide a valuable service and should be paid as such. Every time you discount your pricing and every time you execute a performance-priced campaign, you effectively devalue the exposure of an impression on mobile, making it less likely for brands to take you seriously. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time you run a performance campaign. Be willing to walk away in order to take the high road. Most of all, and I will sound like a broken record, stay the course. You have a clear blueprint to follow in the case of Internet advertising, so follow it. Stop complaining, “we aren’t there yet” or “When will mobile be taken seriously as a marketing vehicle?” It will, but you need to be patient. As sure as the sun rising in the East, and as sure as the Internet being on when you wake up in the morning, mobile will mature into a viable medium that marketers view as a must-have. Stick to the plan! Or do you think I’m completely crazy here?

It's Time To Toss Average Frequency Into The Bucket

MediaPost’s MetricInsider by Ronit Fuchs, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012 You are building an ad campaign. You’ve completed vast amounts of research, worked hard on the creative, media plan and set your goals. Now it’s time to figure out frequency --how many times a person should see each ad. This task is extremely important. If your ad gets either too many or too few views, the whole campaign can derail. And once you’ve set the frequency, what is the actual probability of meeting it? Most premium publishers and ad exchanges claim they’ll help advertisers achieve the perfect frequency target, by ensuring that theaverage frequency meets a set frequency cap. The key word here is average. But is a frequency cap what you need? If you advertise with different premium publishers, how do you choose the cap for each site? How do you avoid overexposure to people visiting more than one of those sites -- or underexposure to those visiting just one? Achieving average frequency can mean you are not necessarily controlling ad exposure to those people reached. For example, a campaign reaching 1 million people with an average frequency of 10 impressions could mean either of the following: • 1 million people were exposed to 10 impressions each (the desired result), with total impressions of 10 million. • 800,000 people were exposed to one impression each (serious underexposure for a total of 800,000 impressions) and 200,000 others were exposed to 46 impressions each (serious overexposure for a totall of 9.2 million impressions). In the second case, there are again 10 million total impressions, and again an average frequency of 10 impressions. But while the first scenario is successful, the second one scenario misses the target frequency with both under and over exposure. So what can you do to avoid such a scenario? Instead of looking at average frequency, you can look at frequency buckets: the number of people exposed to an exact number of impressions. In the example above, for example, you’d want to know how many people fall into frequency bucket 10 – that is, how many saw the ad the desired 10 times? In the first scenario, the answer is 1 million; in the second scenario, zero – a total failure. Some advertisers would also consider any user exposed to the ad nine or 11 times a success; they would look at a frequency bucket of 9, 10 or 11 impressions. And again, in the example above, the first scenario would result in the desired 1 million, the second in zero. The question advertisers should be asking is, “How many people actually had the proper amount of exposure?” Not, “What is the average exposure?” So avoid averages. And raise the bucket! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. of Executive Decision Systems, Inc., Littleton, CO, along with partner and co-owner of System 21, Michael Guld, President of Michael Guld Resource Group, Richmond, VA. has always espoused 3-5x frequency per week for each media channel during what they call Brand Equity Months followed by 8-10 frequency exposure during Spike Months.

Mobile Pros: Industry Yet To Be Optimized

MediaPost's OnlineMediaDaily by Steve McClellan, Yesterday, 7:31 PM Is 2012 the year of mobile? Probably not. From a device standpoint, the year of mobile came and went sometime last year when smartphone penetration reached 50% of all mobile phones in the U.S. From an advertising standpoint, mobile's year has yet to come -- the industry is still trying to figure out optimal ways for marketers to use the medium, and mobile ad budgets are disproportionately low compared to usage. That was the consensus of a panel session of mobile experts who assembled at PHD headquarters in New York Monday to discuss the medium’s appeal to consumers and potential for marketers. The session was part of a week-long series of events that PHD is staging this week for clients and staffers to help them better understand the mobile ad marketplace and how it is impacting both online and offline platforms. According to Eli Goodman, media evangelist at comScore, about 12% of all Internet usage is now mobile usage, while only between 1% and 2% of marketer ad budgets are placed against mobile. But for sports fans, mobile has become virtually indispensable, said David Roter, senior director digital sales and strategy at ESPN. For the network’s coverage of live games, up to 50% of online usage comes from mobile, he said. The key for advertisers, he said, is “managing that connectedness to a live event.” Jeremy Steinberg, vice president digital sales and business development at Fox News Channel, said the network's “oh crap moment” with regard to mobile came about six months ago. “We woke up one day and people were consuming more mobile” devices then laptops, he said. Now, he said, the network is “almost entirely focused” on a multiscreen marketing strategy. The task for content providers is twofold, he said. First, they must successfully translate their product to all devices “or it will fail.” Learning how to make money from mobile platforms also remains a key challenge. “Nobody has figured it out yet,” he said. Except maybe ESPN, said Roter, who said the network sells mobile's qualities as an engagement vehicle with “synergistic” capabilities. “It drives great metrics when combined with other media,” he said. That said, mobile has a long way to go before marketers are spending at parity levels compared to usage, said Steve Siegel, video solutions specialist at Microsoft. In fact, he said, marketers are probably spending less in the overall digital space then they should be, based on usage. “I don't know if we’re at parity,” he said. “I think we have a ways to go with everything digital.” Seth Rogin, vice president advertising at The New York Times, said being aware of consumer habits is key and that the science enabling that knowledge has advanced.“We produce the water” while consumers “pick the faucet,” he said. One example he noted was that the Times’ site streamed the presidential debates live, while the company used its mobile platform to fact-check what the candidates were saying.

Nielsen Chief: GroupM Pushing XCR As Cross-Platform Ratings Standard, Asserts It's A Fait Accompli

MediaPost's OnlineMediaDaily by Joe Mandese, Yesterday, 9:54 AM Nielsen is approaching an “inflection point” in terms of the ad industry adopting its Online Campaign Ratings (OCR) as the currency for online advertising buys and it is getting“significant uptake” on its recently launched Cross-Platform Campaign Ratings (XCR), with WPP’s GroupM once again pushing the industry toward a new media currency, Nielsen CEO David Calhoun said this morning during a quarterly earnings calls with analysts. “If GroupM’s early runs are indicative, I don’t think the others will even hesitate,” Calhoun said of the big agency holding company’s initial foray into the new cross-platform ratings, which comingle TV and online audience estimates into one integrated rating that can be planned, bought and posted on, just like traditional TV ratings. “It’s going to take a while, because you need all the agencies to understand what it is, and have it line up with the TV ratings today,” Calhoun said, adding that it would be “months before we can get it even distributed in a way before it can become a standard.” Noting that big sellers such as ESPN and Hulu are already pushing the XCR ratings, Calhoun implied that it will ultimately be up to Madison Avenue to decide whether it becomes an advertising trading currency such as its conventional TV ratings, or its new OCR ratings appear to be becoming for online ad buys. He said GroupM is showing some “progress” and was hopeful that it could influence other agencies and advertisers to follow suit. GroupM historically has been very influential in motivating the rest of the ad industry to get behind new media trading currencies, as it proved several years ago by ending an industry stalemate around time-shifted TV viewing estimates, and convincing the industry to move toward TV’s current “C3” ratings, which include live viewing plus seven days of DVR playback viewing. During the call, Calhoun noted that TV networks have been pressuring Nielsen to include more days of time-shifted viewing, but that it was ultimately up to both sides of the marketplace -- both buyers and sellers -- to determine that. While Nielsen is hopeful that XCR may ultimately become a new media-buying currency for combining TV and online audience impressions, Calhoun said OCR is approaching an inflection point as a legitimate industry currency for buying online advertising. “With respect to the measurement of [online] video, I think we’ve already seen it,” he said, adding that he believes Nielsen is “getting very close” to achieving that same inflection point in terms of OCR becoming the standard bearer currency for all online advertising buys. He noted that Nielsen has measured 1,800 campaigns across more than 100 advertisers to date, and recently launched in the U.K., with plans to add five more overseas markets soon. While Nielsen has been giving its OCR data free to big marketers and agencies to vet the service, Calhoun said, “we pretty much have most of the TV networks signed up.” In response to an analyst’s question, Calhoun dismissed allegations from rival comScore that Nielsen’s OCR ratings do not sufficiently account for the “viewability” of online ads, which currently is a contentious issue in the online ad industry, with many buy-side stakeholders pushing to make it an industry standard for advertising’s proof-of-performance. “I understand that our competitor has tried to make that a big deal,” he said, emphasizing “it is not.” He explained that the reason is that measurement of “viewability” will become “less and less important, because all of the [ad] servers are going to determine that. I don’t see that as a big factor now, and even less in the future.”

MTV: Youngest Millennials Flee To Twitter

MediaPostNews' MarketingDaily by Sarah Mahoney, Yesterday, 3:54 PM Few brands are as clued in to what Gen Y is thinking as is MTV, with its sweet spot of 18 to 24. But increasingly, the company is trying to suss out what is on the minds of the youngest Millennials -- those between 12 and 17 -- not to mention how the older wave is navigating such gloomy employment prospects. We asked Alison Hillhouse, VP at MTV Insights, fresh off a research blitz, to share what’s coming from this next wave. Q: So what are the biggest differences between the younger end of Gen Y and their older brothers and sisters? A: They’re moving to Twitter, especially the 15 to 18 crowd. It really seems to be exploding all of a sudden with teenagers. They say, “We’re all transitioning to Twitter, because our parents are on Facebook, and we get a lot of spam on Facebook.” Of course, the numbers are huge for Facebook, and these kids know they need it. They have to check in there; you can’t avoid it. But their intimate conversations? Those are now happening on Twitter. They talk in code a little bit more there, and there’s less pressure to friend your entire school there. Q: So you have some research called Generation Innovation. What’s that about? A: We are just seeing such a spirit here, with these kids starting businesses on Kickstarter and Etsy. So we went to Detroit, L.A., and New York. Detroit was especially fascinating. It feels like it’s completely boarded up. Yet we’d go into these warehouses, and they are tech incubators with a bunch of artists and entrepreneurs. We went to one where there was a canoe-maker, someone designing apps, and someone making coats for homeless people, all in one space. They are all coming together to share with each other. These co-working spaces are a huge trend. Q: Is there something special about how they innovate? A: Yes. Beta. Swarm, Hustle. Hack. They are so very empowered to do this -- some by their parents saying you can do anything, some because they’ve been so enabled by technology, and in part, by the recession. Many are like, 'the economy is so bad, I might as well start this company now. What else am I going to do?’ Q: They’re not nervous? A:No. They think experience is overrated. In fact, 55% say their hustle is more valuable than an MBA would be. More than half of them think you can Google how to be the CEO of a startup. Q: Are they afraid of failing? A: No! They don’t even see failure as failure. They’ve spent their lives watching the next version of things come out. Millennials are eternal optimists! They view a flop as experimenting, not failure. Just like the next version of the iPhone. Q: Are there gender differences that marketers should be especially aware of? A: Yes. While I don’t think it’s quite accurate to talk about the demise of guys, Gen Y males are definitely pioneering what it means to be a man. They are navigating a new space, and their dads can’t really guide them. And the idea of the metrosexual is dead. They’re all metrosexual. If they tweeze their eyebrows, they aren’t embarrassed about it. Q: What about politics? A: That's very complicated. But one thing we see is that they like to be funny. They get their political views from memes. Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/185388/mtv-youngest-millennials-flee-to-twitter.html#ixzz29hM86HXB

Global Ad Dollars Up: TV Leads, Internet Rises

MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, 8 hours ago Internet, outdoor, and TV continued to be the top media categories making gains globally in advertising dollars. For the second quarter, Nielsen’s Global AdView Pulse says Internet advertising rose 7.2%; radio, gaining 6.6%; outdoor, up 4.7%; and TV, adding on 3.1%. TV is holds the biggest share of advertising dollars globally: 61%. Overall, global advertising growth is up 2.7% for the second quarter. Nielsen says Internet advertising made big improvements in the Mideast and Africa, up 30.3%, while Latin America grew 20.6 %. Even though economic times have been depressed in Europe, the Internet climbed 11.2% during the period. TV grew 30.1% in the Mideast and Africa; 6.2% in Latin America, and 4.0% in North America. In Europe, TV witnessed a 2.2% decline, and a small 1.4% gain in the Asia-Pacific territory. Print media -- magazines and newspapers continues to suffer, with newspapers up 1.6% and magazine advertising down 1.3%. Nielsen says magazine spending fell significantly in both Europe and North America, but both magazines and newspapers saw growth in Latin America, Asian Pacific, the Mideast and Africa. Small but growing cinema advertising was up 5.9% with a 40.2% gain in the Asia Pacific market and a small gain in Europe of 0.4%. But other regions were down: Latin America, off 21.1%; and the Mideast and Africa, sinking 19.1%.

Television Remains the Top source for Political Election Coverage

Voters: TV Key To Political Choices MediaDailyNews by Steve McClellan, Yesterday, 5:58 PM Television remains the top source for political election coverage for consumers and is cited by voters as the most important media for deciding which way to vote, according to a new study from Mindshare about media habits defining the 2012 campaign season. The WPP-owned agency conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1,032 adults in late September. While much has been made of declining broadcast network news ratings in recent years, the Mindshare survey showed that TV was the go-to medium for election coverage. Sixty percent of respondents said they tuned to broadcast network news coverage of the presidential race -- more than any other medium. Cable TV news was cited as the second-most-favored medium for keeping up with politics. Fifty-three percent said they used the medium for doing so. Neither the Internet or newspapers was ranked third. Rather, it was word of mouth. Specifically, 50% cited “talking with friends and family” as the third-most-important way they keep up with the political races. The agency said the finding reinforces a trend it pinpointed in a separate survey earlier this year: One-on-one human interaction is becoming increasingly important for decision-making “in a world that is more complex, tech-based and uncertain.” Slightly more Americans have followed the presidential election via online channels (25%) than by reading a national newspaper (22%). Some 21% said they have followed politics via social media and 20% said they have done so by reading magazine articles. Ten percent of respondents indicated that they were not following the election coverage at all. Millennials are nearly twice as likely (19%) to follow the presidential election via video on tablet computers than the average adult (10%). Younger adults are also most likely for keep up with events via their mobile phones. The survey found more Republicans are following the election coverage via social networks and online news content. “We believe this is partly a function of Republicans’ higher income skew,” and thus the ability to afford devices to access the newer media, the agency surmised. The single most important factor in deciding who to vote for in the presidential contest is seeing the candidates talk on national TV, per the survey. Emails from the candidates were deemed least important in decision making. Sixty percent of those polled said they planned to watch the presidential debates live on TV, while one-third of respondents said they also planned to watch TV news summary coverage after the debates.

Modern Ads at a Loss for Words

YellowBrix, Oct 01, 2012, By @MichaelWolffNYC, Michael@burnrate.com, USA TODAY Not too long ago, I had lunch with the head of a large digital advertising agency -- owned by a larger traditional agency, in turn owned by a much larger holding company -- who offered the following cryptic explanation for the way his firm did its job: "We don't do story. We facilitate the handshake between buyer and seller." In this new world, he was saying, the craft of advertising, of explaining the virtues of a product and making it seem exceptional and therefore creating desire for it, was significantly less important than streamlining how a customer completes a transaction. Cold, I thought. But modern. Then recently a media consultant I know who is called in by big agencies to help creative teams with the problem of ever-increasing consumer disengagement observed that even in the meeting-obsessed business world ad agencies stand out. Nothing is done or decided, in his experience, without large numbers of people sitting in a room. Hardly anyone even writes memos anymore. When they do, it's done as a Powerpoint deck -- symbols instead of sentences. Exchanges of information are through meetings, or conference calls, or via Skype. This is necessary, analyzes my friend, because even creatives want to avoid writing -- because they can't. "Scary, semiliterate, gibberish," he characterizes their infrequent attempts. While technological disruption is most often blamed for the existential predicament of the media business, the more precise problem is that advertising doesn't work as well as it used to work. This presents a crisis not only for newspapers, magazines and television -- but also, according to the stock market, for Facebook. We just don't look at advertising, respond to it, or believe it, as much as we once did, wherever it appears. Maybe this is the reason: There are no writers in advertising anymore. Johnny who can't write has gone into advertising. In fact, "copywriter" is a job that now hardly exists. The historical partnership between graphic designer and copywriter has, more and more, become a partnership between project manager and programmer, or videographer and editor, or media buyer and researcher. If you are the person who actually has to write an ad -- rather than conceptualize, or produce, or program, or pitch, or research -- your career in advertising is not going very well. Tick off the reasons: Advertising is all visual now; the real money is in making boffo videos; consumers don't read; in the post-consolidation agency business, the bureaucrats have taken over from the creatives; in a big data world, you need to target not convince. Almost everybody in the advertising business will tell you that there are more efficient ways to influence the consumer than writing copy. But here's something else that almost everybody agrees on: It has gotten harder and harder to build brand, move merchandise, convey a message, leave a lasting impression. Almost all the intellectual capital of the advertising business is still vested in campaigns, most of them print campaigns, from the early-'60s through the mid-'80s: The Silver Cloud (Rolls-Royce); Think Small (Volkswagen); We Try Harder (Avis); You Don't Have To be Jewish (Levi's Rye Bread); The Ultimate Driving Machine (BMW); The Absolute Bottle (Absolute); Just Do it (Nike); Macintosh introduction (Apple). These are all word ads. They tell a story; they make a case; they offer a big idea; they change the way we think. And often it takes quite a lot of words -- text-heavy copy. The more you get someone to read (the job of the copywriter), the more the reader is engaged with what you are saying -- and selling. The late Jay Chiat, then CEO of Apple's ad agency, Chiat/Day, once told me that every time a new person was put on his account, Steve Jobs, who was as shaped by good advertising as he was by innovative technology, would say "but can he (or she) write?" That's a question it seems every client should reasonably ask. "Pictures," Jobs once told Chiat, "are easy. Words are hard." And, indeed, Apple has continued to ground its ad campaigns in print. When I first saw the USA TODAY redesign for the paper, I had the same epiphany I always have about the page: It's a perfect canvas. Everything else is ephemeral, plastic, fleeting, while the page is fixed -- in your mind and in the moment. Or, to put it a different way: The problem may not be with the medium, but with the message. There are just fewer and fewer people to fill the canvas. My suggestion to USA TODAY editors was to let the opportunity of the page encourage an agency and client to brilliantly use it. A contest -- always beloved in the ad business -- was suddenly born. It may be that all we have to do to reinvent traditional media, save Facebook, even make digital media a decent business, as well as move more merchandise, is bring back the copywriter.

Barclays Revises Ad Forecast, Dips Down

MediaPost's MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Oct 11, 2012, 12:58 PM U.S. advertising growth and TV advertising growth is estimated to be lower than expected for the rest of the year and way down in 2013, according to one analyst. Barclays Capital analyst Anthony DiClemente said the overall U.S. advertising market is expected to grow at 4%, down from a 4.6% projection. Conditions will drop in 2013 with advertising growth at a weak 1.9%. He had estimated 2.3%. In 2013, the only media platforms expected to grow are the Internet (17.2%), cable TV (7.2%); outdoor, (3.5%); and radio (0.7%). Concerning this year, DiClemente says national broadcast TV ad growth projection will now be 8.6% for the calendar year 2012 versus a year ago -- down from a 9.2% projection. DiClemente expects cable TV network growth to be 7.2%, down from a 7.5% estimate this year. Much of this is due to strong results from Olympic and political advertising. Near term -- the fourth quarter -- TV advertising growth is expected to climb because of better comparisons to the fourth quarter of 2011 -- which he says was the slowest advertising rate in the last nine quarters. He also credits mid-single to high-single-digit percentage price increases in the period, and a tightening of the TV ad market due to high political advertising activity. Next year, he believes there will be a dramatic shift -- with broadcast TV sinking in advertising revenues. National broadcast network will decline 2.1% for 2013; he predicted it would be down 1.0%. Local TV advertising will have it worse -- losing 6.9% in ad revenues next year. DiClemente's previous estimate was 6.4%. Cable networks, however, will continue to climb to higher levels. Now he says advertising for cable networks will be at 7.2%, down from a 8.0% estimate. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. of Littleton, CO says..."The game winner is still local-direct revenue enhancement."

2012 Political Ad Spend To Hit $2.7 Bil

MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Oct 11, 2012, 5:30 PM Political advertising is helping a lot of what ails some parts of the media industry this year. Overall, next year looks to be tougher. Interpublic's Magna Global unit says there has been a nearly 30% surge to almost $274 million in political advertising in the second quarter of this year, compared to a similar period in the last big political advertising year, 2010. Overall, the Magna says political advertising is expected to hit $2.7 billion for 2012 -- a 30% gain over the $2.1 billion level in 2010. Vincent Letang, executive vice president and director of global forecasting of Magna, stated: “Without political ad spend, Magna believes that local television ad revenues would have been up 2% this year; with political effect, it will grow by an average 14%. The bonanza will be much bigger in swing states." Taking out political and Olympic ad spending offers up a more sober picture of the U.S. ad economy on a quarter-by-quarter basis. Magna says without political and Olympic dollars the second quarter was flat year-to-year and only grew 0.7% in the third quarter, All this followed a relatively strong first quarter, which grew at 1.9%. This year, Magna says U.S. total media spend will get to $177 billion -- which will be 2.7% above 2011. Taking out political and Olympic spending will put U.S. total media spend at a weak 0.9% hike over 2011. Next year -- 2013 -- Magna says total U.S. media spend will be virtually flat, with an actual 0.4% decline to $176.2 billion. Taking out political and Olympic spending means a $175.8 billion number -- a 1.3% hike over 2012. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. of Littleton, Co says it is important that management at local stations continue to accelerate efforts with local-direct revenues as political and auto business is too volitile on which to depend for making budgets in the next few years. Local-direct is still an untapped frontier for most large market stations

Nielsen's New Local TV System Moves Into Living Rooms

MEdiaPost's TV Blog by David Goetzl, Oct 12, 2012, 4:49 PM Nielsen’s new local TV measurement system looks to boost the ad market. It might give the jobs market at least a little bump, too. This week, Nielsen began installing new technology that is a cornerstone in its efforts to transform ratings in local markets. The “code reader” is making its way into homes in St. Louis and Charlotte, while coming soon to Dallas. Over time, some 60,000 of the devices will have to be plugged in with field workers doing panel recruitment and installations, necessitating hiring and training. “Nielsen’s good for the economy,” said Matt O’Grady, the company’s managing director of local media, who wasn't being too flip. The code reader, which uses audio signals to identify programs, will help quadruple the effective size of the Nielsen sample in markets with local people maters (LPMs) – which include St. Louis, Charlotte and Dallas. A quadrupling will also occur in markets with set meters, where installation will begin in five of them soon. Laying groundwork in all 210 markets – which include those using diaries, where there will be a panel doubling --will be a multi-year process. O’Grady said, however, once the installation gets going it moves pretty quickly through a market. It’s sort of “plug and play … all it really requires is electricity” as the devices are placed within earshot of a TV set. The code readers, which send data to Nielsen using wireless technology, join return-path data (commonly known as set-top-box data) in providing additional tools in gathering ratings information. (On the jobs front, Nielsen may need to hire more analysts to claw through all the data flowing back to it.) The three initial LPM markets were chosen in part because they have homes served by cable operator Charter Communications. Nielsen is obtaining its set-top-box (STB) data from Charter and DirecTV, though it hopes to add other sources. Its legacy local people meters, set meters and diaries aren’t going away, but will become one of three ratings streams that Nielsen says will help it expand panel sizes and increase ratings soundness. The quadrupling in St. Louis, Charlotte and Dallas will boost the 600-household panel to 2,400 in each, for example. Many clients have been lobbying or several years for larger panels to better reflect viewing behavior and for Nielsen to take STB data from the lab to the living room. In metered markets, Nielsen will have at least as many code readers as LPMs or set meters. But, the number of code readers will vary widely depending on how much STB data Nielsen has access to. The less STB data, the more code readers. In Dallas, Nielsen has access to STB data covering 24% of TV homes. In St. Louis, it has access to 60%. So, in Dallas, the panel could have about 1,200 homes with code readers, compared to 600 in St. Louis. By next summer, clients will be able to evaluate preview data from the new system that’s packaged similarly to what the ultimate product will look like, offering them a chance to “understand it on a wide scale,” O’Grady said. Some preliminary findings will be made available starting in the late winter -- what O’Grady referred to as “alpha data.” (More employment news: TV stations may have to ultimately bolster their research teams to work with the data mass.) Nielsen would like to receive accreditation from the Media Rating Council (MRC) for its code reader and processing methods for STB data before launching the new ratings service. But if client demand is intense and the MRC review process takes a while, would Nielsen launch the service while continuing to pursue the MRC credential? “It depends on what the data looks like and the acceptance in the market, so I can’t answer that emphatically,” O’Grady said of the possible parallel track. (Nielsen took that dual path with its C3 ratings in the national TV market several years back.) The installations that began this week come after testing in the Northeast and Florida, which came after so many other steps in engineering, data validation and processing, manufacturing, etc. One issue was trying to make the new system compatible with processing systems such as Mediaocean and STRATA. “When you introduce a change you have to make sure you don’t upset the ecosystem,” O’Grady said Some in the local TV business might say that wouldn't be a bad thing on some fronts.

MTV's Young Viewers: Still Finicky, But Now With More Options

MediaPost's TV Watch A media critique by Wayne Friedman, Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 Big double-digit rating declines at MTV? I've heard that story before -- about a decade ago. Should be we worried that viewers aged 12-24 will have nothing to watch on TV -- in a lean-back position? During its hot-growing period back in the early ‘90s, this might been a lesser concern for MTV. Back then -- before the real Internet started up, when mobile real-time devices weren't even a dream for executives -- there was little worry. After all, there were virtually no other places for young viewers to go, and therefore no other places where TV advertisers could hit these key soon-to-be-heavier-spending consumers. Viacom's strategy was simple back then -- and even today. Bring them in early with the likes of Nickelodeon. Hand them off to MTV when they get older, and then -- tacking on more years -- see them on Comedy Central, VH1 and Spike. Even back then, MTV had some dramatic starts and stops when it came to ratings growth -- as well as issues with Nielsen over calculating the amounts of young viewers it pulled in. For MTV's recent ratings growth, you could tout "Jersey Shore" for sure, and, somewhat less, its "Teen Mom" franchise. Now that "Shore" is getting somewhat lower results -- as well as ending its run after this season -- MTV finds itself in another reloading, new development period. But this is nothing unusual. Typically, MTV continues to understand how to react with quicker down-and-up periods than older-skewing networks. Think of the morning-after periods when the likes of "The Hills," "The Osbournes,","Punk'd" and "Beavis & Butt-head" had seen better days. Other young-skewing networks -- like the CW -- have also seen difficult periods. But CW's mostly scripted shows and young female viewers have a different engagement process. Now, through stronger efforts in promoting and showing its episodes online -- as well as striking a potentially lucrative library Netflix deal -- CW touts a different kind of TV financial model. Still, the type of short-term young viewer attention MTV had to deal with in the early-to-mid-‘90s is now increasingly tougher to hurdle, especially with today’s still-growing array of digital media competition. All that makes media analyst Todd Juenger of Bernstein Securities observe that potential investors in Viacom perhaps need to be more cautious. Media research tells you young consumers aren't abandoning TV; some studies even say that their TV viewership continues to grow. So, it isn't that the audience for MTV's mostly reality-based programming is looking for an excuse to abandon cable altogether. Just give them some new lean-back stuff -- like "Jersey Shore" with its out-of-the-blue controversial themes -- and they'll come. So long "Jersey Shore." Hello, "Pocono Hills"?

Does Social Media Just Connect Those TV Viewers Not Content To Lean Back?

MediaPost's TV Watch A media critique by Wayne Friedman, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012 Some associations between social media and TV are fleeting -- or worse. They could exist just to solve "business" problems while not attending to real consumer needs. Do we really need frequent flyer/incentive points for watching or talking about TV shows? That doesn’t sounds like a way to connect with TV, but a way to get other stuff. Maybe that’s what marketers want. Social interjectors may moan about a TV show ‘s script and actors. But does that make people want to buy products associated with the moaning -- or does it just become something to avoid? Not commercial skipping here, but more like full-scale marketing skipping. Social media just may be a real tool for consumers but with no scalable advertising dollars attached. Social media proponents point to strong data like the following from DirecTV: -- 42% of Americans watch TV while on their laptops, smartphones or tablets; 45% of men and 55% of women tweet while watching TV. -- 31% of those aged 50 plus talk “TV” on social media, with 27% of 25-35 year-olds and 12% of those 18 years and under also doing so. -- 50% of Twitter users who engage with shows discuss the shows they’re watching in real time. -- 77% of social network users tweet to tell friends what they’re watching; 68% tweet to keep shows they like on the air. Those sound like pretty compelling arguments. But if social media is so good for TV, why haven't most broadcast shows shown rapidly growing audiences? Why are there mostly declines? For that matter, why haven't established original scripted cable programs shown continual growing viewership? Engaged viewers send a lot of social messages, but some studies show they are a small number compared to casual social message makers. A bigger part of the population does even less than that. Sure people want connection, but what about people who want to connect less with TV? Maybe they want more of a simple affair -- the lean-back activity analysts talk about. This isn't to discount heavy social media TV engagers. But perhaps a broad-scale formula has yet to be found. Overall, people are inherently lazy when it comes to TV. The lean-back entertainment activity is the easiest platform. And yet, apparently, not easy enough.

Bright Spots Notwithstanding, Marketers Lag In Mobile

MediaPost's MarketingDaily by Karl Greenberg, Yesterday, 12:50 PM The CMO Council reports, in a new study, that companies may be getting better at figuring out how to make mobile interaction work for their brands but marketers aren't happy with the pace of mobile relationship marketing (MRM). They'd better pick it up, as, per the council (citing Portia Research), there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.5 billion global mobile phone subscribers by the end of the year. Along with accelerated adoption, we are also in the midst of a big growth in lifestyle and business on mobile devices; mobile apps; social media engagement on mobile devices; and higher wireless network speeds enabling rich-media on hand held devices. The study finds that only 14% of the 250 global marketers the CMO Council surveyed are satisfied with the progress they are making on mobile channels, versus 43% who say they are not and another 37% who are still evaluating their brands' performance. The audit, "Engage at Every Stage," which the council conducted this year includes both quantitative and qualitative insights. It was fielded in cooperation with the Mobile Marketing Association and was sponsored by Pandora and FunMobility. The council says 42% of respondents come from companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales. Also missing from companies' play books is a good plan, and they don't seem to be keeping up with the convergence of mobile with other screens. Only 16% of marketers polled said they have formal strategy for using mobile as a significant channel of customer engagement; 46% are still reviewing and evaluating the role of mobile, and 32% are allocating more budget to mobile app development and channels of engagement. Another 40% say they are making sure their websites and content are mobilized for device use and access. Part of the problem is that a lot marketers are skittish about dealing with the potential for paying for snake-oil and want more proof. Seventy percent of those polled said they want to see more case studies of best practices or success stories; and 48% would like to see less complexity and carrier control of the mobile ecosystem. Thirty percent said they have encountered false claims by providers and vendors. The CMO Council said it predicts marketers will get up to speed with mobile apps, location-based messaging, proximity marketing, and smart merchandising systems in-store. The council pointed to some signs of life in specific programs: more than 60% of guests checking into the Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts now do so using an iPad, compared to none three years ago; Caesars Entertainment Total Rewards program members can get into their loyalty programs through a mobile app. Coca-Cola has an app for showing users the closest Freestyle drink machine, as well as what flavors the machine is dispensing. It also lets them talk about the drink they created. The roster of companies that helped put the study together includes Anheuser-Busch InBev, Beam Global, Caesars Entertainment, Coca-Cola Company, Eastman Kodak, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, JP Morgan Chase, and NASCAR.

Summer Viewing: Broadcast Shows Beat Cable's Best

MediaPost's MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Oct 8, 2012, 12:47 PM Despite years of growing cable TV program strength in the summer, fall broadcast TV shows continue to out-rate the best of these shows with viewers -- even when just looking at broadcast time-shifted audiences. Looking at the time-shifted portion of Nielsen's live-plus-same-day time-shifted ratings, The TVB, the broadcast TV advertising group, says many new fall prime-time shows have a higher audience than cable shows, when including live-plus-same-day ratings. When looking at a key demographic -- viewers 25-54 -- 12 broadcast TV shows ranked in the top 25 just in their same-day time-shifted viewing -- not live viewing -- versus that of cable programs' live-plus-same-day time-shifted viewing. The No. 1 show for cable in the summer was History's miniseries "Hatfields & McCoys," which had 2.8 million 25-54 viewers. But the fall premiere time-shifted same-day viewing of ABC's "Modern Family" was close behind with 2.5 million viewers. CBS' "Big Bang Theory" was next at 2.3 million, followed by TNT's "Falling Skies" at 1.9 million. Other broadcast networks that ranked well in same-day time-shifted viewing were: ABC's "Grey's Anatomy, 1.7 million; CBS' "NCIS," 1.7 million; CBS' "How I Met Your Mother," 1.5 million; CBS's "Survivor: Philippines," 1.4 million; and CBS' "2 Broke Girls," 1.3 million. Although cable has made gains, the TVB says cable on a program-by-program basis is still behind broadcast. For example, broadcast television commanded 94% of all adult 25-54 GRPs (gross rating points) among the top 100 telecasts this summer. This does not include factoring in the NBC's Summer Olympics. When comparing the top 50 summer cable originals versus summer repeats on broadcast television, repeat programming on broadcast television still had the majority of the top 100 ranked programs.

How RTB Video Exchanges Will Create A New T/V Business Model

MediaPost How RTB Video Exchanges Will Create A New T/V Business Model by John R. Osborn , Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2012 Note: RTB Stands for Real Time Bidding which is being done on line to purchaze TV or other digital media. There are some concepts that are essential toits understanding that will preced the article....Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. Publisher LeNoble's Media Sales Insights. Here they are: Recently, in advance of a Webcast we conducted on RTB, we surveyed attendees about their biggest challenges related to online display advertising. By far, the most universal challenge noted was how to achieve better performance and ROI (define) for their campaigns. Here's a summary of the benefits real-time bidding can bring to performance and many aspects of an online campaign. Cost efficiency. Your ad spend can go further, with less budget spent on poorly-targeted impressions or impressions delivered to fulfill a bulk inventory purchase, despite questionable relevance to campaign goals. Yield management. With the ability to evaluate and place cost parameters on each impression opportunity, pay-for-performance takes on a new, positive meaning for your campaign. RTB buyers will have control over price/performance unprecedented in the world of display. Actionable insights. By learning what works for your campaign at the impression level, you have a great opportunity to identify trends and discover new insights about your best -- and worst -- consumers, context, and creative. These learnings can be used to guide strategy both within your campaign and across a broader marketing effort. Retargeting. Real-time, impression-level bidding can make cookie re-targeting more powerful and scalable, with ability to go beyond flat files and more precisely identify and target desired consumer behavior. Creative optimization. Testing and matching creatives with consumers becomes much more efficient and effective in this new media buying model. Opportunities for a new level of customization of message and creative will also emerge. Performance. In aggregate, all of the benefits described here should deliver an overall performance lift for online campaigns compared to previous approaches. And the good news is that this difference should be consistent and sustainable, across all types of target markets and audiences. Now.the article: While every campaign is influenced by a myriad of variables, real-time bidding will help advertisers more effectively uncover, understand, and unleash opportunity within each campaign effort. Exciting times are ahead for advertisers. My next column will focus on inventory suppliers and finding your audience through RTB. In the meantime, tell us what you think. With marketers clamoring for measurable results in this economy, how will real-time bidding impact your marketing and media plans for 2010? We want to hear from you. This is the second of two articles addressing why the dramatic emergence of RTB/Ad Exchange buying and selling will significantly influence a broadly accepted, T/V business model. Part 1 is a primer describing the basics of this process. Dramatic growth in “Big Data” is driving a revolutionary advance in buying and selling advertising media that has several names: RTB (Real Time Bidding/Buying), Media Exchanges, Ad Exchanges, Media Trading. The time-consuming, far-in-advance, guaranteed direct deals for uncertain upfront and scatter TV inventory (media-centric ad buying) is now making way for a more audience-centric process. I spoke with Keith Eadie of leading T/V DSP (demand-side platform) TubeMogul and explored some of the opportunities presented by this rapid shift in the way T/V is purchased. Here’s what I’ve learned from him and others, supporting why I believe this development will influence the birth of a new business model for T/V: Advertiser Opportunities Unprecedented target-ability: T/V buyers can now purchase audiences based on addressable data beyond demographics: viewing behavior, geography, platforms, operating systems, type of ad (pre-rolls [including mid- or post-roll], auto-play, interstitials etc.), proprietary and third-party data. Guaranteed engagement: Because all premium video starts with a consumer action (“click-to-view”) where the viewer accepts pre-rolls or mid-rolls as the way to get content, advertisers will be able to measure and evaluate engagement and let go of “opportunity-to-expose” CPMs. Reasonable ad-loads: Over-the-top (OTT) T/V, even from traditional networks (e.g., Hulu), has not forced unreasonable amounts of ad-loads on viewers. This will reduce consumer ad avoidance and add value to marketer messages. Interactivity: Features that allow advertisers to efficiently track and purchase viewer behaviors such as surveys, polls, RFIs (requests-for-information), dealer listings, social media connections and other “drill down” actions are a big plus. Constant, real-time adjustments: Traders/buyers can make real-time modifications to buys using sophisticated yet easy to navigate “dashboards”. Local or national buyers with strong relationships to media sellers are no longer the only way to get effective deals done. Contextual placement: This real-time video buying puts brand marketers in control of context -- the sites where ads will run. Any time during a campaign, marketers can tweak the exact sites where their ads are appearing based on where campaigns are achieving goals. Favorable costs-per-thousand based on engagement: Advertiser value will increase as constant, real-time feedback and adjustments get the message in front of the right audiences in the right context at the right time. Heavy lifting becomes lighter: As with any industry that has used automation to increase productivity, more and better buying can be done with lower staffing costs. Digital GRPs: Many players are focused on development of a common buying currency, (sometimes called “digital GRPs”) to help accelerate the use of RTB and video ad exchanges. Content Creator/Producer Opportunities Monetization scale: The aggregations of audiences allow producers to get to a massive global audience across many platforms quickly, and monetize their investments. Developing differently priced product lines: Content producers and publishers can segment (e.g., direct vs. RTB vs. remnant) inventory to gain optimal pricing through real-time bidding, particularly for high-value impressions. Bidding and optimized pricing: Online search has benefited from pricing based on a bidding approach for years. For the first time, central exchanges can present a total publisher’s video inventory to a massive buying sector in real time. Content Distributor Opportunity Competition drives growth/success/innovation: Traditional distributors (cable/satellite) now face competition from OTT (over-the-top) platforms and providers who most benefit from RTB. Like land-line telcos or dial-up internet providers in the 1990s, these cable and satellite companies will either grow or die. Whether they are comfortable with that or not, the survivors will be stronger for it. Consumer Opportunities Lower monthly T/V content costs: Consumers rely more and more on search to find and organize their own programming schedules from fragmented sources (USA Today has announced it will include web options in its T/V programming guide). Younger viewers, reared on an internet-fed world already, seem willing to avoid monthly subscription fees of cable/satellite and will no longer need “one-stop bundled shopping” from a single media distribution source. This increased competition should lower out-of-pocket costs. Better experience: A video-on-demand world with many programming sources, interactivity and small ad-loads is better for consumers. Also beneficial: lower OTT consumer costs. Summary Whether the marketer’s purchase funnel strategy is focused on the top (branding), middle (developing consideration) or bottom (promoting action), these advances in buying and OTT are softening the silo walls between the various traditional responsibilities for media placement – a good thing. I am most excited for the engagement opportunities that “click-to-view” pre- and mid-rolls offer along with interactive, “drill down” offerings that serve consumers as well as advertisers. When viewers willingly provide pre-roll/mid-roll attention in exchange for the content they want, the process starts to look like the quid Pro Quo model I have always believed will be the best chance for all ad-supported T/V to grow and prosper.

Emerging Research Techniques Could Offer Targeting Gold

Media Post's Television News Daily Oct. 2, 2012 by David Goetzl, 3 hours ago If just several years ago, mining for TV targeting gold seemed as tough as holding out a pan in a stream, it’s pretty impressive how many more modern options are emerging. Deciding the best route (or shows) to reach a target audience will never be perfect, but the science being applied to get as close as possible is profound. Take tools from multi-purpose firm Collective, which look at online behavior and can give advertisers and buying agencies direction in identifying shows with a large number of viewers “in the market” for a particular product or service. How nice for an airline to reach as many Kayak.com and Fodors.com visitors as it can, right? Then, there’s Simulmedia, which can help a marketer navigate a reach-frequency balance with data on “light TV viewers." Instead of placing multiple spots in a show that might reach the same audience twice, a marketer might look elsewhere to hopefully reach a new crop. There are also research services that help find shows with a heavy level of viewers with good credit scores, or those loyal to a brand of probiotic yogurt, or frequent social-media users. Joe Abruzzo, the executive vice president of research at MPG, refers to all this as “new approaches that are available for assessing the many dimensions of television programming quality.” The output can inform decisions on upfront buying or make-goods requests, hopefully with more precision than just Nielsen numbers. Abruzzo has been examining various targeting guides to help his agency, while also taking the lead in an effort by a part of the MPG Collaborative Alliance to evaluate various research options. Abruzzo will make a presentation Wednesday at an Advertising Week MPG event offering up mock case studies on how different types of research might inform targeting efforts with shows on CBS. The project took 15 CBS series and divided them into five groups based on their ratings levels. The three highest-rated series were “2 Broke Girls,” “Two and a Half Men” and “NCIS" -- which made up a“most-viewed quintile.” “Undercover Boss,” “Blue Bloods” and “Same Name” compromised a bucket of the lowest rated of the 15. And there were nine shows from “Criminal Minds” to “Big Brother” in between. The research was conducted using data from a month-long period starting in April and covering most of May. Using data from New York-based Collective to help reach “in the market” consumers for a travel client, Abruzzo found heavily-viewed “NCIS” offered a large audience composition of people whose online behavior indicated a trip may be imminent. But so did “The Good Wife,” a much lower-rated show. (Not surprisingly, “The Amazing Race” offered the highest composition of potential travelers.) Abruzzo said Collective offers an opportunity to bring Web-like retargeting to TV. “It’s taking the behavioral targeting to a different platform,” he said. Simulmedia research can help identify shows with heavy concentrations of “light TV viewers,” a group that could be less likely to be exposed to a campaign. “Amazing Race” offered the best opportunity to reach light viewers by a long shot. A pair of lower-rated shows among the CBS group evaluated -- “The Good Wife” and“Undercover Boss” -- came in second and third. So, what’s a buyer to do? One option: look to air fewer spots on one of TV’s most-watched shows and shift the weight to other series that can grab harder-to-find consumers. “Wouldn’t it be great if by doing that, you’re cost neutral, but reach extends?” Abruzzo said. Another opportunity Abruzzo examined involved trying to identify shows delivering a chunk of viewers with good credit ratings. Rentrak has a system melding viewing information with credit-score data from Experian. Only 11% of the population is classified as “super prime” -- perhaps colloquially defined as the group mostly likely to pay up when buying your stuff. So, where should a retailer or auto marketer looking for them run spots? Heavily viewed “NCIS” and “Criminal Minds” might be avoided. Among the 15 CBS shows evaluated, the pair have the highest concentration of viewers considered “high risk” by creditors. Much lesser-viewed “The Good Wife” and “Amazing Race” looked to offer the best chance to reach the "super prime" consumers. So did big hit “Two and a Half Men.” What about engagement? “The more passionate people are the more (likely) they are to stay with the program and the more likely they are to see your commercial and have positive impressions of your brand,” Abruzzo said. Abruzzo thinks there might be some potential there with Trendrr, a company that tracks social media conversation. One hypothesis is people who comment about a program long after it airs (tabbed "off-air activity") may be the most passionate about it. Some of the most-watched shows led in “off-air” mentions. “Two and a Half Men” generates a lot of social media activity, but 81% of it came in that delayed fashion. (Ashton Kutcher might keep people talking or, maybe more likely, there was a run of mentions during the research period about former “Two and a Half Men” star Charlie Sheen as the debut of his new comedy“Anger Management” approached.) Other data Abruzzo looked at came from TiVo-owned TRA and Bluefin Labs. TRA, which looks to match purchase data with media exposure, helped identify shows with a higher level of viewers loyal to a probiotic yogurt brand. “The Good Wife” and “Person of Interest” led the CBS pack. Abruzzo said that’s not surprising with their appeal to older women. Marketers talk about paid, owned and earned media. Earned can be really valuable because it can carry a feel of authenticity with social-media brand ambassadors. Advertising in a show with a high percentage of social-media evangelists might lead to some positive mentions about a brand. The heavily viewed comedy “Big Bang Theory” led Bluefin Labs' rankings in earned impressions by a wide margin, followed by “Criminal Minds” and “NCIS.” The data can help find viewers who tweet and have heavy amounts of Twitter followers. "That's about propagating the message," Abruzzo said. Abruzzo notes it’s tough to divine which of these services will be widely embraced. It’s likely different agencies will be more attached to certain ones. But he says “it’s all very exciting territory” and the industry is on a “very useful path.”

The African American Consumer: A Vital Force

For a Complete Research Piece on the power of African American Consumers by Nielsen please send me an e-mail and I will send it to you at no charge. I tried to post it on my blog....LeNoble's Media Sales Insights but the file was too big and I'm not smart enough to know how to inport it for a blog exposure. My e-mail address is drphilipjay@gmail.com Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Nielsen Leverages Online, TV Metrics

MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 10:59 AM Getting closer to delivering the holistic media measurement marketers want, Nielsen says it is leveraging its new online measurement service with its TV-based service cross-platform service. The two services: The Nielsen Online Campaign Ratings, which has accreditation from the Media Ratings Council, and national TV-based Nielsen Cross-Platform Campaign ratings. The new product is available today. "This is the first time we can show the number of people who saw a campaign no matter where they lived," stated Steve Hasker, Nielsen's president of global media products and advertiser solution. The Cross-Platform Campaign ratings provides unduplicated and incremental reach, frequency and GRP measures for TV and Internet advertising. Clients like ESPN, Facebook, GroupM, Hulu and Unilever are among the dozen companies that have signed on. Nielsen has signed on a number of ad networks and Internet technology companies for its Online Campaign Ratings (OCR) recently, including the CW network, which has been looking for specific measurement, since many of its TV shows run online. The OCR service will allow the CW to provide audience guarantees to advertisers. While both Nielsen's Online Campaign Ratings and Nielsen's longtime TV-based National People Meter service have received Media Rating Council accreditation, Nielsen's Cross-Platform Campaign Ratings is currently still under review by the organization.

Consumers Not Technology

Media Magazine: The Future of Media by Colleen Fahey Rush on Oct 1, 2:44 PM A common belief is that technology will shape the future of media. I’d argue that the consumer, and how consumers harness that technology, is what really drives the future of media. Take, for example, geo-location services created in the early 00s. It was years before consumers adopted the technology – because they weren’t ready. Now look at Foursquare and its 10 million-strong community of users. The takeway? It’s all about how a technology satisfies consumer desires that make it hit. Our relentless research into our audiences’attitudes and behaviors makes one thing abundantly clear: there has never been a better time to be a fan – be it of Snooki, SpongeBob or Stephen Colbert. Viewers have a powerful desire to have relationships with their favorite shows and brands – to interact, to share and to make their voices heard. Because they can. Today’s fans follow shows and characters 24/7 on Twitter, watch clips online, download apps to play games, “like” talent on Facebook…and the list will only get longer. The velocity of change in consumer behavior is keeping us on our toes, driving us to create richer, seamless cross-platform experiences. At this moment in time, we’re seeing our viewers turn to smartphones and tablets for more of their favorite content –and we’re meeting them there with apps like MTV’s WatchWith. While this means that TVs have to share eyeballs, mobile devices are actually providing a complementary experience through these apps and second-screen experiences, bringing our fans closer to their favorite brands than ever before. The future will bring even more appetite to personalize and expand the relationship fans have with their favorite shows. And we’ll keep listening to them to build those relationships. That’s where it all starts – by knowing our audiences inside and out – kids, guys, millennials, adultsters, boomers, moms. Our consumer insights drive everything we do -- the programs we make, the tone we take and the experiences we create. So what is the future of media? Just ask your audiences – they’re more than happy to tell you.

The Future of Radio

Media Magazine: The Future of Media by Bob McCurdy on Oct 1, 2:47 PM If the past can be helpful in predicting the future, then there’s one thing we can expect from radio: consistency. Since the early days of crackling static and living room theaters, radio has heard audio challengers come and go. Yet throughout all of these technological advancements and innovations, radio remains one of the most powerful and yet intimate ways to reach mass audiences—a truly unique combination. And radio has proven time and again its resiliency and transformational power to deliver itself as a marketing solution that advertisers demand. To ensure its continued vibrancy and significance, the future of broadcast radio will rely on growth in several areas. In the sales arena, radio is already evaluating Shazam-like technology, which will greatly enhance radio’s accountability. This will allow radio to close the “performance” loop and enable advertisers to distribute additional“bonus” programming, coupons, video and other messaging to smartphones while providing key performance metrics. Radio is gearing up to compete in two new areas of revenue, mobile and display dollars, through its growing cache of registration data and larger streaming audiences. In addition, multi- and crossplatform campaigns will become the norm, drawing from radio’s 13 channel offerings to produce truly customized, comprehensive and cohesively integrated marketing solutions. And to better quantify AM/FM’s impact, new technology is currently being developed by Arbitron that will allow Audio Beacons to be deployed throughout leading retail locations and automotive dealerships. With these tools, radio will be able to empirically demonstrate its impact on increased foot traffic and sales to advertisers and agencies. Looking ahead, radio will continue to focus on enhancing the one quality that truly sets it apart from all other audio options—live on-air talent. Radio personalities will play a larger and more important role at many stations as educators, entertainers and trusted guides in the daily lives of listeners. As we move into an increasingly digital world, the power of one-to-one personal connections will become even more valuable and important. In addition, it’s likely that Talk programming options will multiply in the coming years. Finally, radio will expand its focus on leveraging its exclusive onsite, feet-on-street capabilities in every metropolitan area throughout the U.S. Radio stations possess the unique ability to offer advertisers the opportunity to have consumers directly touch, sample and interact with their products. And to a greater extent, broadcasters will work to enhance and bolster their event and promotional capabilities to execute complex, local, multi-market event, “experiential” and “sampling” efforts. The AM/FM and audio landscape of tomorrow is not necessarily a linear extension of today. But as a medium, radio has weathered decades of competition and has evolved with the times to remain current and relevant for today’s advertisers and, more importantly, today’s consumers. It’s a safe bet that radio will continue to be the most important audio source, regardless of how its content is distributed, for most Americans for years to come.