Wednesday, August 31, 2016

How To Sell More Digital Advertising+ Ad Growth to Hit Record $178 Billion+ Bonus on Reach & Frequency




Radio Ink - Radio\'s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine

August, 30, 2016
Back in March, Westwood One promoted Kelli Hurley to Vice President of Digital Sales. She was the company’s Vice President for National Partnerships and Digital Activation in the Midwest. Hurley now oversees all sales efforts for the company’s portfolio of digital products, including streaming audio, on demand, and podcasting. And she continues to develop new content partnerships for the company. We recently spoke to Hurley in depth about radio’s challenges of selling digital without losing focus on the most important radio revenue stream, spot sales.
Radio Ink: What digital services are having the most success for radio stations/companies?
Hurley: Digital streaming (whether live broadcast stations or pureplays) are still the largest sources of revenue opportunities due to scale and engagement with consumers. We can now consume content at all times of the day across multiple devices, and audio is a critical part of that experience, be it music, sports, news/talk, weather, traffic, entertainment, etc. Audio is at the forefront of our daily content consumption through a multitude of digital audio streams
Podcasting is a rapidly emerging audio platform and one we are seeing a lot of success with. While the scale is not there (yet) of streaming, there are lots of opportunities for audio to experience exponential growth within this vertical. There are still many challenges, but it is an exciting and evolving space, and one to keep an eye on.
Social media is becoming more and more important to brands. Having a broadcast personality align with a brand via social media is a powerful tool and an incredibly unique extension to an audio buy.
Radio Ink: What is the best way to train AE’s and managers?Hurley:
Educate – Educate on not just your platform, but the industry as a whole.
Resources – Ensure your team is armed with compelling marketing materials that tell a story, and one that they can understand and feel comfortable selling.
Examples – As a Digital Sales Manager, it’s important my sellers know where other sellers are finding success. Sharing those successes is critical to training.
Positioning – How to properly and effectively position our platform versus the competition and show how it complements our larger menu of broadcast assets.
Hands On – I make sure I take the time to explain, answer questions, and dedicate my time to making a seller feel comfortable pitching digital. I need to build a strong relationship with each individual seller to ensure there is trust, not only in our assets, but in me, that if they make the sale, I will deliver for them.
Radio Ink: Can the existing sales department be depended on to monetize this, or is yet another hire to sell only digital products needed.
Hurley: I believe existing sales departments can absolutely be depended on to monetize this, but I do see a lot of success with sellers who have had experience selling digital or who show a strong passion/liking toward it. I think anyone can agree that you have to enjoy and have passion for what you are selling. I believe in audio. The way in which we consume audio delineates whether it is a broadcast or digital sale, but that doesn’t change that it is still audio and we are telling a brand’s story, just within different platforms. I think we as an industry, and as sellers, need to start telling this story more often and truly believe it. Audio is audio no matter how we consume it…we still hear it.
RadioInk: What is the best way to sell digital: on its own, or bundled with our traditional radio offerings?
Hurley: That will always depend on what is best for the client. However, I do believe that most of the time digital audio is a natural and seamless extension to a broadcast buy. It is there to enhance and extend the audio to consumers who listen on their computers and devices while at work, while commuting on public transportation, working out, etc. Consumers are not always in their cars to hear an audio spot, so it is critical to deliver that message to them at all points throughout their day. As we know in audio, frequency sells. Digital audio also has the opportunity for more flexibility outside of the traditional radio clock which makes it a very exciting platform for advertisers.
Radio Ink: Are stations just moving dollars around, or are they bringing in real digital revenue?
Hurley: They are creating real digital revenue. I am still of the belief that in order to effectively buy digital audio, there should be a separate digital audio RFP/budget/negotiation. It should not take away from traditional audio budgets, it should enhance and diversify an audio buy with a real strategy behind it.


U.S. Ad Growth To Hit Record $178 Billion


Money graphic

0
  
MediaPost has the details from London-based advertising researcher Warc, which is predicting the 2017 U.S. advertisingmarket to grow at its fastest pace in six years. Warc is upgrading its earlier forecast for growth from 4.9% to 6%. The company says radio will decline 2.8
TV spending is projected to increase 6.6% to $68 billion. But in 2017, with no Olympics or political advertising, TV advertising will decline again, sinking 4.5% to $65 billion.
Digital media will continue to increase, up 12.5% next year to $76 billion — with half of that going to mobile platforms.
Newspapers are projected to decline 12.7%, Magazines will be down 12.4% and radio will drop 2.8%.


Understanding Reach And Frequency



In previous articles we touched upon various planning and scheduling concepts, such as “recency,” which is based on the premise that life largely puts the consumer in the market for a product, not necessarily advertising, the idea of sequencing, which is the rotation of shorter length commercials along with :30s or :60 s as a campaign progresses and the concept of the strategic media weight allocation based upon previous ad activity. Nothing revolutionary with any of these, but each individually or collectively could serve to positively impact campaign results.
We’d like to touch upon one additional planning tenet that deserves some attention when scheduling commercials across multiple week flights and it has to do with “reach and frequency.” When these metrics are considered in isolation, they are one-dimensional figures in that they provide zero insight into “when” and “how” listeners were reached, which can be as important to the success of a campaign as “how many” and “how often.”
In media, we often define “when” in terms of the listener’s mindset (ready to buy and open to messaging) or location (nearness to purchase and can take action) at the time of exposure. But rarely do we think of “when” in terms of at what points throughout a campaign consumers are exposed to the messaging. And while it is impossible to entirely control for this, there are ways we can schedule commercials that can positively impact “when” and “how” for maximum client advantage.
It’s generally preferable to have a listener exposed as consistently as possible throughout an entire campaign, as opposed to multiple impressions clumped in short periods of time. The reason: decay of commercial impact — we forget and need to be reminded. The more time that elapses between commercial exposures, the greater the commercial messaging decay. Without continuous “refreshment,” commercial impact eventually declines until any positive influence as a result of a commercial exposure all but disappears.
A certain degree of message decay is to be embraced and expected, if for no other reason than the reality of budget limitations. Think of commercial impact ebbing and flowing similar to the peaks and valleys that we see when viewing a picket fence’s silhouette, soaring when the messaging is refreshed and ebbing when it’s not. The key to effective scheduling is making sure “ebbing” is followed shortly thereafter by “soaring,” thus ensuring that our advertiser’s offering will be thought of in more purchasing situations than their competitors. Those advertisers thought of by more consumers in more purchasing situations, win. In media, the measurement of this ebbing and flowing of commercial impact/decay is known as adstock.
So what’s the most effective way to schedule campaigns that limit commercial decay while maintaining consistent exposure and share-of-voice? We believe it’s by airing the messaging across as many dayparts and days as possible. This not only will lead to more consistent and balanced exposure throughout a campaign, and limit the impact “valleys,” but maximize the raw reach of the campaign, which is so important to any business’ growth.
We can add this tenet to our suite of planning insights that can assist us in maximizing the impact of multiple-week client campaigns, which is the first step toward a renewal. We’ve found that discussing these concepts with our clients goes a long way to elevate our conversations with them while enabling us to segue from salesperson to trusted advisor.
Let’s be sure to not underestimate their ability to grasp and embrace these planning tenets. It’s a win-win for everyone.
Bob McCurdy is Corporate Vice President of Sales for The Beasley Media Group and can be reached at bob.mccurdy@bbgi.com

TV/Video Trade Association? Strange Bedfellows, Secret Handshakes Welcome


TV Watch
Full Frontal Television


A media critique by Wayne Friedman, Staff Writer Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2016

Google’s YouTube just commissioned a study to suggest that YouTube and traditional TV actually help each other.

Among other results, there was an 18% increase in tune-in on traditional TV airwaves of talk shows among those who watched content from those shows on YouTube.

To be sure, short-form video -- Jimmy Fallon’s musical skits and James Corden’s “Carpool Karaoke” -- seem like perfect promo stuff to feed the bigger video platform.

Overall the Nielsen/YouTube study looked at 30 TV shows—including comedy, competition, drama and talk shows— analyzing data from YouTube and TV data from Nielsen.
This kind of positioning make sense in the growing more complicated digital media world. It’s not us versus them. People who watch TV also watch videos on YouTube.

Now, can we all hope for more studies perhaps commissioned by the TV networks about the effects of  YouTube TV exposure?

Traditional linear TV, the dominant form of video distribution, would be leery about giving credence -- if not advertising revenue -- to a growing competitor. From linear TV’s perspective, who wants to see articles about that?   Instead we’ll continue to get research touting TV’s dominance -- and what TV does in terms of value, for the likes of YouTube.

Not that long ago, broadcast networks might have been in the same spot, since they were in  in heavy direct competition with cable networks. That seems a lesser focus these days -- not just because all major media companies own cable networks, but because traditional TV companies now gain advertising/viewing strength from their cable networks.

This trend manifests itself with the Video Advertising Bureau, which morphed from the Cable Advertising Bureau. The VAB now has broadcast and cable networks as members.

In regards to YouTube, perhaps also Facebook and Snapchat, there may be more media mergers to come -- and perhaps, bigger, more diversified marketing/advertising trade associations.

Maybe it comes down to this -- the old Groucho Marx observation, loosely quoted by many: “I’d never want to belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member.”

Pay TV Biz Takes Big Hit -- Down 812,000 Subscribers



Pay TV providers lost a record 812,000 subscribers in the second quarter of his year -- largely due to consolidation of AT&T fiber-based U-Verse service with satellite TV provider DirecTV.
Overall, there are now 98.4 million pay TV customers among the cable, satellite and telco companies, according to SNL Kagan.
Pay TV telco operators sank by 488,000, and telco customers now total 12.2 million. AT&T continues to make marketing efforts in moving its telco U-Verse customers to its satellite service, DirecTV, which it acquired last year.
Cable TV operators had a net loss of 298,000 subscribers in the second quarter of this year, down 13.6% from the same period a year ago. SNL Kagan says cable now totals 52.9 million subscribers.
Satellite pay TV services, even with the efforts of AT&T, still had a net loss of 26,000 customers, currently at 33.3 million pay TV homes.
A year ago in the second quarter of 2015, the pay TV business dropped 625,000 video subscribers, falling to 100.4 million subscribers. In the second quarter of 2014, the pay-TV industry experienced a net loss of 291,000 subscribers from the first quarter.
Pay TV subscribers have been regularly declining since the second quarter of 2010.

Cord Cutters Aren't Thrilled By Streaming, Either



A J.D. Power study out last week indicates that if you already like what you see on television, you’ll really like streaming video services.
This information seems a little uncomfortable at first. Doesn’t the popularity of Netflix (and kinda/sorta all streaming video) mean you’re sick and tired of the blather on TV?
Well, no. Apparently not. People who are still invested in TV watching--that is, they still subscribe to cable or satellite services--are the most satisfied streaming customers.
They can’t get enough.
But cord cutters and cord nevers just aren’t as passionate about Netflix, Hulu, et al as their bold defiance would lead you to believe.
The J.D. Power 2016 Streaming Video Satisfaction Study charts the pleasure online video service subscribers have gotten in the last six months,in six key measures. Here they are in order of importance: performance and reliability; content; cost of service; ease of use; communication; and customer service. Scores are indexed on 1,000 point scale.
The Satisfaction Study says 60% of streaming subscribers are still subscribers to pay TV services. Those are the cord stackers. But 23% are cord shavers, 13% are cord cutters and 4% are cord nevers.
If this study is right, some of those cutters are having unbundler’s remorse.
Cord cutters, with an index score of 802, are the least satisfied streaming customers; cord nevers, who have so far in life been deprived of the endless ins and outs of cable’s fantastic triple-play, are second least satisfied with an 807 index score.  
But cord stackers are a happy more-the-merrier lot (826), followed closely by cord shavers (822). Those shavers at least have the satisfaction of having done something to lower than indebtedness to their big cable/satellite oppressors without totally ruining their lives, like the cord cutters have.
You can read even more, or a lot less, into this data than I just started to.
For example,  J.D.Power points out that 52% of cord nevers are 18-to-34, and comparatively unhappy.  Really? What’s their beef?  Streaming is the only kind of paid-for visual media they have had the chance to complain about. As Billy Joel sang, these are not the best of times, but they’re the only times they’ve ever known. They are young and just beginning to experience the total package of lies and disappointments awaiting them.
And conversely, those cord stackers are happy even though they are the least likely to watch original fare offered from streaming services--just 41% of them do, least of all the categories. So, that’s not nothing. But it indicates that a second season of “Narcos,” or any seasons of Chelsea Handler, has less pulling power than some might feel.
What ends up being a big viewing plus for all types of streamers is binge viewing. More, more, more is better. Nearly two-thirds (62%) binge watch TV programming.  Luxuriating in long stretches of making no decisions is a great unifier.
J.D. Power notes, “Overall satisfaction is 35 points higher among those who binge watch vs. those who do not (834 vs. 799, respectively). As binge-watching sessions increase in duration, so does overall satisfaction: 823 among those whose most recent session lasted less than four hours; 841 among those whose session lasted 4-8 hours; and 858 among those whose session lasted eight or more hours.”
This, perhaps, is the ultimate couch potato stat. Pay services are also advertising-free so that those long binge sessions are accomplished without seeing the same set of commercials every 15 minutes from sundown to midnight that make cable networks’ marathon weekends so nauseou

In On-Demand World, It's Time For On-Demand Video Advertising



But why must those darn, interrupting video commercials nearly ruin the whole experience? So says an April 2016 Accenture study, as reported by eMarketer. In most global regions, 80% or more of Internet users surveyed agree or strongly agree that “Advertising interruptions while reading text or watching videos are too frequent.” Also, 38% to 55% of users agree or strongly agree that “in the next 12 months I am planning to pay for new solutions to remove advertising interruptions (e.g. paid subscriptions) while reading text or watching videos.”
It’s time to move video advertising out of the middle of the content stream, and right to the front of the interactive content activation experience.  It’s time to put the viewing of advertising in the hands of the user, just as we’ve done for content. It’s time for a gateway unit that commands high CPMs from brand advertisers, is fully viewed and listened to through consumer activation, and allows users to opt out of in-stream interruptions by opting in to an advertiser message.
The upfront trading of consumer attention for content access — as an alternative to pay-per-view (PPV) or the overload of interruptive ads — is the next logical evolution of the ad-supported T/V (television/video) business model.
Requirements
1. A lead-in screen that offers the consumer three interactive choices to access content:
-- Micropayment (PPV)
-- Regular commercials pre- and mid-roll
-- A “one and done” commercial option, where a viewer selects one of three ad “avenues.”
2. Ad-tech platforms and software that manage multiple functions of digital ad delivery, content delivery, transactions, tracking/reporting and billing
Benefits
Advertisers
Buyers are assured of viewability, audibility and accountability up to the level of completed ad views, adding major value to each ad impression.
Since viewers are presented with a “menu” of commercials, choosing one identifies their purchase interest and stage, adding even more value to the gateway ads.
As the on-demand ad data is captured, it allows buyers and sellers to refine targeting and further increase the value for both consumer and advertiser.
Content Providers
Brand advertisers are paying a much higher CPM for this high value, fully completed sight, sound, motion message delivery, allowing content providers to reduce ad clutter and maintain /increase profitability.
Video Content Consumers: Viewers are willing participants, not the aggrieved/annoyed targets of forced “search and destroy” advertising strategies.
Still, without the multitude of interrupting commercials that advertisers pay for now on an opportunity-to-expose basis, wouldn’t total revenues take a beating?
I believe not. No business ever succeeded by rigidly holding onto a worse customer experience when technology brought new and better options (see cell phones vs. land lines for a fairly recent example). And buyers who are CPM “hardliners” will still have plenty of online and long-tail interruptive TV inventory to buy at a discount, further filling the coffers of providers. Finally, the value of each ad message and related behavioral data will rise so significantly, that revenues may well increase in the end.
Positioning this new approach to consumers would be exciting and fun. Imagine as a consumer being offered a “view-per-view (VPV)” or “one and done” option, with the key benefit being one ad or ad pod of reasonable length and no further interruptions to content.
I dedicate this article to Dana Jones, who founded Ultramercial (a former client of mine), and conceived the idea of making the implicit ad contract explicit.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Who Are The Highest Paid Hosts in Radio? Should You Consider Dropping Nielsen? Plus More

Radio Ink - Radio\'s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine


Forbes couldn’t resist taking a dig at radio when listing radio’s highest paid hosts in an online story Tuesday. “While the radio industry has been striving to embrace the modern age with new apps and video streaming, today’s highest paid radio stars — all middle-aged white men — highlight how little the industry has actually changed over the years.” So let’s find out how much Forbes says radio’s top hosts are making…
Forbes only lists six hosts and they are:
Howard Stern – $85 million
Rush Limbaugh – $79 million
Ryan Seacrest – $55 million
Sean Hannity – $29 million
Bill O’Reilly – $18.5 million
Glenn Beck – $13 million

Forbes says it estimated pretax income from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2016 before deducting management and legal fees; figures are based on data from Nielsen, Box Office Mojo, Pollstar and IMDB, and interviews with agents, analysts and industry observers.

Should You Consider Dropping Nielsen?

                   
Consultant Mark Ramsey says yes in his latest blog posting, following the recent revelation that one household has 16 panelists. He says that when you’re running a household that contains 16 meters, you’re effectively a Nielsen employee — and his opinion is that’s not good. “I think it’s time for many more broadcasters to drop Nielsen and make their products better.”
Ramsey’s point about the 16 household meters is that listening has become a job, and the panelists have become employees of Nielsen: “And your first priority will be to keep your job with Nielsen, and that means maximizing cooperation and staying on the panel until Nielsen throws you out — if they ever do. That means Nielsen’s bribery, er, compensation will be your end game, not going about your day and remembering to carry your meter(s). Thus, the so-called ‘passive’ nature of measurement becomes a job in and of itself, and anything but passive. The PPM device for such a family becomes a time-card, and Nielsen is waiting to punch it.”

Ramsey writes that this is one of those “shockingly unfair and non-representative elements of PPM that broadcasters overlook far too easily.” He writes, “According to 2015 data, the percentage of U.S. households containing 7 or more persons is a mere 1.39%. The fraction of households containing more than 10 must be tiny. So what is the possible logic in entertaining the made-up threshold of 16? There can be only one: It’s a huge bounty for Nielsen to be able to park a large number of meters in a single household like this. It’s comparatively cheap to install and maintain them, and to any radio station subscriber 16 meters all in one household look just like 16 meters in 16 different households — unless you care about the accuracy of the results, of course. And because these large households are so scarce, where they occur they will represent a HUGE proportion of the installed households in the zips they reside in, if not ALL of them. I challenge you: Go to ANY one household in any one zip code and tell me if you think that accurately represents all households in that zip code. I dare you. Now go to any one 16-person household and tell me if you think that accurately represents anything average or typical.”

Why The RAB Stopped Reporting Revenue

                 
This is not a totally unexpected decision. In fact it’s been discussed for several years by the RAB’s Board of Directors and President and CEO Erica Farber (pictured here). Over time, since the RAB began reporting revenue numbers, about 20 years ago, they’ve gone from monthly to twice every year. And while some will speculate industry executives might not want to continue to release numbers that are consistently flat, then try to put a happy face on those numbers, the organization says that was not the reason.
There are other companies such as Kantar Media, Miller Kaplan and BIA/Kelsey that release revenue numbers, and with recent staff changes at the RAB, the organization and the RAB Board decided the timing was right to make this change now. Back in July, The RAB’s SVP of Research Andy Rainy left her position with the organization after 23 years.

The next report would have been released around the 15th of August (the RAB changed them from quarterly to semi-annual last year). Radio Advertising Bureau CEO Erica Farber tells Radio Ink the focus will be to push out more specific information about advertisers and categories and the role radio plays in helping businesses succeed. That type of detail was always included in the revenue reports anyway and she says we should start to see more of that type of data from the organization in the next several weeks.

Who Will Provide Radio’s Most Accurate Revenue Figures?

 
For the RAB, it had to be a monumental task organizing these revenue reports, not only compiling the revenue data from radio companies, but adding the detail from radio’s largest advertising categories, which were also included in the report. It appears the RAB will continue to focus on providing members with that detailed advertiser information moving forward. But what about the numbers?
It will be interesting to see how radio’s revenue is accurately compiled in the months and years ahead. While there are other organizations reporting radio’s revenue, the RAB report was the most detailed, and quoted as gospel by many groups outside the industry. For example, when Pandora and SiriusXM CEO’s say they are coming after radio’s revenue, which they often do, it’s often that RAB number they quote as the total pie of revenue.
To give you examples of other organizations that report revenue numbers for radio, BIA/Kelsey reported in March that radio revenue for 2015 was $14.9 Billion. It was about $3 Billion off from the RAB report for that year, but that was because the RAB also included network advertising and NTR and BIA/Kelsey only covers over-the-air and digital. Will BIA/Kelsey now include network advertising and NTR? In the last Kantar report we looked over, radio figures only reflect commercial spot sales, and the Kantar radio revenue numbers are thrown into a much larger revenue report for all media.

Healthy But Challenging Outlook For Stations

Broadcast Industry News - Television , Cable, On-demand - TVNewsCheck.com 

A new report from BIA/Kelsey says that while television stations will experience many new challenges between now and 2020, they will also maintain an important presence in the local media marketplace, remaining a major part of national and local advertising plans.
 
By
 
    
In the face of increased competition for viewers, television stations are maintaining their position in the advertising marketplace.

That’s just one of the conclusions of a new report released today by BIA/Kelsey.
 
"Local Television Stations: Maintaining an Important Presence in 2016 & Beyond” analyzes opportunities and hurdles for the local television industry. The report examines TV’s position in the competitive media landscape, with a look at a range of influences, from the many viewing options now available to consumers, to the variety of revenue streams the industry is embracing.
New options for national and local advertisers are now available, exerting competitive pressure on local television stations, the report finds. At the same time, some national cable networks are feeling pressure themselves from the increase of online viewing options.

Many local television stations are benefiting from increased retransmission consent revenues from cable, telco and satellite delivery services. Local television stations are also continuing to provide new services with their digital signals and are in the planning stages for a massive overhaul and improvement in their transmission technology, though that is several years away.
What is not encouraging in the short term, the report says, is the prospect of any regulatory relief of ownership rules.
 
  
The level of television station transactions increased between 2013 and early 2014, due to the success of larger groups’ retransmission consent negotiations and the upcoming reverse auction to be held by the FCC. While M&A activity declined in late 2014 and into early 2015, recent combinations late last year and early this year of several television groups have led to increased concentration on the national level.
 
Among the many findings of the report are:
  • Local TV ranks second in terms of U.S. local advertising revenue share at $21.9 billion. Direct mail is No. 1 at $36.9 billion, newspapers is third at $17.4 billion, closely followed by online at $17.3 billion and radio at $15.4 billion.
  • Local news is key programming for stations, drawing national and local advertisers via audiences with higher education and income levels.
  • Over-the-air advertising revenues will grow 12.1% in 2016 due to political advertising.
  • Online/interactive ad revenue is growing steadily — it will account for 6.4% of total revenue by 2020.
  • Local TV stations get nearly 35% of the $16.7 billion in total advertising spent by the automotive sector.
  • Local TV stations will receive more than $543 billion in restaurant advertising in 2016.
  • Between 2016 and 2020, local TV will receive a growing share of mobile advertising, up to 14.9%.
  • By 2020, local TV stations’ advertising revenues will remain the largest portion (63.6%) of the local video ad marketplace.
  • Retransmission consent revenues are expected to grow at a 17.3% compound annual growth rate through 2020.
The report concludes that “increasing choices now available to consumers and advertisers have already had a significant impact on local television stations. Stations have responded by bolstering their online presence, becoming more involved in social media, expanding their offerings and improving their overthe-air services. Given recent revenue increases from advertising revenues and retransmission consent payments, they are making these changes from a strengthened position.”
Even with these steps, the study says stations “will need to remain vigilant in adapting to their new environment. They must consider thinking of themselves as not just local television stations providing a stream of programming in which they sell advertising, but as local media companies reaching their local communities in different ways and providing many access points for their advertiser clients.

There is some optimism that local television stations will be able to adapt in such a fashion. Recent acquisitions and the strengthening of revenues generated by these stations have led to a renewed confidence in many of these television groups.”

Advertising Update: Strong Market Up By +5% -- Pivotal Research

          Media Village logo
By Brian Wieser Wall St. Speaks Out...on Media August 10, 2016
BOTTOM LINE: 2Q16 was another strong quarter for advertising in the United States, with industry-wide underlying (ex-political and Olympics) growth among media owners of around +5%, slower than the nearly +7% growth rates observed in both of 1Q16 and 4Q15, although well above the nearly +4% growth observed during all of 2016. However, we also note that on our estimates, absolute year-over-year gains equated to $2.5bn in the quarter. By contrast, Google and Facebook combined to generate somewhere between $2.5bn and $3.0bn in gross revenue gains – equal to more than the entire industry's growth by themselves. Of course, this masks gains in some places (as with national television, which grew by ~+3% year-over-year) and declines elsewhere (as with most kinds of print, which declined by more than double digit rates).

Nike Ads Soar; Rio Ratings Sputter




by @mahoney_sarah, Yesterday, 12:55 PM    

                                                                                           
While Americans may not be watching much of the summer games in Rio, Nike says its Olympic-themed “Unlimited” creative is soaring, including its newest spot about transgender athlete Chris Mosier. That spot, called Unlimited Courage, follows Unlimited You, and Unlimited Future, the athletes-as-babies spot that Nike says is its most-retweeted ad, and its most-liked ever on Twitter. All told, it says the Wieden + Kennedy campaign has collected more than 260 global views on various platforms.
“We are connecting with consumers and narrowing the distance between elite athletes and everyday athletes,” says Greg Hoffman, Nike’s CMO, in a release touting the milestone. The Beaverton, Ore.-based sporting behemoth says it will follow up these ads with more spots showcasing “extraordinary athlete journeys and highlighting some of sports’ most iconic athletes.”

Still, observers say it’s unlikely that the company—or any Olympic sponsor—will realize any revenue increase as a result. “Brands use the Olympics as a long term branding tool and as a showcase for new products and technologies,” says Matt Powell, sports industry analyst for the NPD Group. “There typically is not a real bump to sales because of the Olympics.”

And with a loosening of the restrictions on advertisers who are not sponsors, such as Nike challenger Under Armour, who is getting plenty of mileage from its deal with swimmer Michael Phelps, “brands that pay a lot of money to be the official sponsor likely will see that sponsorship devalued with the change in the marketing rules.”

Nor does it help that viewership for the Rio games continues to struggle. Variety reports that while splashy swim events are helping NBC recover somewhat, ratings for the second night of the games are off 17% compared to the London games in 2012. For the opening ceremonies, ratings fell 33%, and on the first night of competition, they dropped 28%.

Local TV Sees Uptick In Online Ad Revs


 

               by , 7 hours ago                                            

Online ad revenues for local TV stations will continue to climb in the coming years -- but slowly, rising under a 7% share of all advertising dollars. In 2014, online revenues were 4% of all stations' TV revenues -- growing to 6.4% by 2020, according to local media advisory BIA/Kelsey.

This year, online advertising for TV stations is estimated to total $1 billion, rising to $1.6 billion. From 2015 through 2020, it is expected that revenue could grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 11.4%.

It’s estimated this year's total local TV advertising revenues will be $21.9 billion -- dipping next year to $21.0 billion, then rising again to $22.4 billion (2018); sinking a bit to $22.2 (2019); and then rising sharply to $24.6 billion (2020).

Overall, BIA/Kelsey says local TV advertising revenue will grow 2.75% to 3% over the next few years.

In 2020, political advertising is expected to fuel growth due to another presidential election, as well as a Summer Olympics. BIA/Kelsey says in that year, local TV will still command the lion’s share of local media advertising spending at a 65.6% -- down from its 67.6% share this year.

Local TV stations will also benefit from retransmission fees, with gross retransmission payments rising from $6.3 billion this year to $8.5 billion in 2020.

Typically, local TV stations keep about half these retransmission fees -- paying their respective networks as part of their affiliation deals. Net retransmission payments to stations will go from $3.4 billion in 2016 to $4.4 billion in 2020.

Market Continues Expansion Due Mostly To Two Suppliers (Guess Which Two?)


 

           by @mp_joemandese, 7 hours ago                                            
                                               
The good news, according to an analysis of second-quarter U.S. ad spending is that the marketplace for all media suppliers expanded by $2.5 billion. The bad news for all but two is that those two -- Google and Facebook -- expanded by $2.5 billion to $3 billion. 
 
“[Google’s and Facebook’s gross revenue gains were] equal to more than the entire industry’s growth by themselves,” Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser writes in the analysis released to Wall Street investors early this morning.
 
That news isn’t entirely bad for the rest of the industry’s supply chain, Wieser notes -- pointing out that national TV suppliers expanded their ad revenues by about 3% during the quarter, suggesting the that the U.S. ad economy has become extraordinarily stratified with high-demand media like top-tier digital and TV expanding at a healthy clip, meaning most of the rest of the marketplace is eroding. 
Noting that national TV demand defies the belief of some observers that it is in a “permanent secular decline,” he points out that local TV has not fared so well, and has likely eroded when the incremental effect of political advertising is taken out of the equation.
 
So where is the giant sucking sound in the ad economy actually coming from? According to Wieser’s analysis, it’s mainly print media. Noting that radio and outdoor likely managed modest gains in the quarter, Wieser describes newspapers and magazines as being “the other extreme,” with ad revenues eroding at “double-digit” rates. 
 
And in another likely cannibalization by digital “publishing” -- email -- Wieser notes that “direct mail decelerated in the quarter as the U.S. Postal Service’s standard mail revenues fell by -2% during the quarter.”
 
So while the U.S. ad economy continues to show a healthy expansion -- 5% overall during the second quarter after factoring out the effects of political and Olympic spending -- that is an aggregate view masking an increasingly stratified marketplace of demand.
 
“Internet advertising was by far the fastest growing major medium,” Wieser concludes, adding: “We won’t have firmer estimates until the IAB reports their estimates for the quarter in the fall, but we can point to around +56% growth for Facebook during the second quarter vs. 58% in the first quarter and growth that likely accelerated for Google in the low 20% range year-over-year.
 
“These gains more than offset relatively significant deceleration for other sellers of digital advertising in the quarter.”

TV GRPs: You've Had Good Run, But It's Time For New Currency

MediaPost's
Metrics Insider
The Inside Line On Web Measurement and Metrics

 

by Anto Chittilappilly, Op-Ed Contributor, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016
 
TV has drastically evolved over the past 15 years now that viewers have more choices than ever, with hundreds of channels offered by cable providers, online video, streaming services, on-demand viewing and DVRs — all delivered via connected devices like smart TVs, tablets and smartphones.  
TV advertisers have been buying media the same way for over 50 years, but now they have to make sense of the new landscape.  That means TV advertising measurement needs to catch up to the new landscape, too.

On one hand, TV advertising’s greatest power — the ability to reach mass audiences — has been diminished by fragmented viewing.  But on the other hand, the proliferation of connected devices has turned TV into a two-way medium.  Now viewers can see an ad and be influenced to immediately respond via a digital channel.

So why are TV advertisers still only using gross rating points (GRPs) and target rating points (TRPs) to measure success based on reach and frequency alone?  They need a new metric or currency that measures business outcomes based on TV advertising’s ability to efficiently drive a response.

GRP and TRP: A Measure of Delivery, Not Efficiency
GRPs and TRPs are not measures of TV advertising’s efficiency in bringing more brand equity, conversions or revenue. Instead, they’re a measure of its ability to deliver impressions against an audience.  But TV buyers have been using these metrics for decades as proxies because there was no alternative up until now.

The traditional TV buying process forces buyers to lock into deals a year in advance during the upfronts.  As a result, buyers have been using these metrics to gauge their buys’ ability to deliver against an audience.  As long as the network delivers as promised, the advertiser, agency and network are content because they all measure success against the GRP rather than a true measure of efficiency.

Digital buyers look at this process and shake their heads.  They would never accept the idea of locking the majority of their budget into restricted deals a year in advance, or solely measuring success based on how many impressions or clicks delivered.  Instead, they have the freedom to constantly shift budget at a tactical level, and they use efficiency metrics tied to business outcomes, such as ROI or cost per acquisition (CPA) to guide their optimization decisions.
Now that TV buyers have the means to measure the efficiency of their buys, why do so many still rely on outdated metrics like GRPs and TRPs?  Adoption of a new currency or metric is needed.

The Future of TV Measurement is Now
Marketers that embrace the new world of TV advertising and measurement think very differently.  With the advent of programmatic TV, advertisers can now buy inventory on shorter notice, and they can buy based on an efficiency metric.  In this case, efficiency measures the value of every single TV ad that runs, enabling marketers to understand how much revenue, how many conversions, and how much brand engagement each ad drives, and at what cost.
Even though large portions of marketers’ TV buys are still locked in upfront deals, there are ways to make adjustments to improve advertising effectiveness.  For example, TV buyers can work with their networks to shift impressions into the programs, dayparts, days of week, spot lengths and pod position that drive the most efficient CPA.  Or they can make adjustments to the creative rotation for a given network, depending on which creatives perform best.  But in order to make these types of adjustments, marketers must use a new TV measurement methodology, as well as a metric that demonstrates TV efficiency at a tactical level.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Big Three See Sales Slip in July & Is Radio Going To Get Short-Changed On Political?

Radio Ink - Radio\'s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine                 
 

 

Radio’s most important category, automotive, saw a drop in sales in July that has some worried the industry is entering a sustained plateau. Automobiles have been selling at a record pace for six consecutive years. In July, GM, Ford and Toyota were all down. GM dropped nearly 2%, Ford was down 3% and Toyota was off 1.4%.


So far, what we’ve heard from radio executives on their earnings calls has been that this big political spending is expected to come in more toward the third-quarter. That doesn’t seem to be the case for television. Already you can see how the Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, has taken her message to TV viewers. So what did radio get from the candidates last week?

Media Monitors reported on Monday that there were no ads run by either candidate on the radio last week. And there were no spots run against either candidate either. A lot of radio companies were banking on a big political revenue push this year. In addition to the Presidential election, there are also House and Senate races along with ballot initiatives that should benefit radio as we continue to edge closer to election day.

BONUS:

How To Take Control Of Your Agency Business

Local agencies are competitors, not customers. They poach your clients in your coverage area, expect lower than local direct rates, demand your station’s talent write, voice, and produce their clients’ commercials, pay 90-plus days, and expect you to pay them a commission for the privilege. And oh, yeah, before they can place the next buy, they need five up-front Paul McCartney tickets with backstage passes. I think we would all agree it’s downright shameful how often we in media kowtow to these talentless hacks. Stop kissing ass and start kicking ass!

Don’t recognize. Challenge the agency-client relationship. Imagine your radio competitor across town sent you a “station of record” letter dictating all client communications must go through them! You’d laugh, but agencies do it all the time, and we comply. Yet they show no loyalty in return. Treat these violators like any other competing media.

When any agency pushes too far and doing business no longer makes sense, refuse to recognize. Let them explain to their clients why they are not on your air! Never lose sight of the fact that agencies are voiceless without you, the media. They own no FCC licenses, printing presses, high-traffic digital properties, towers, or transmitters. They don’t employ legions of air, news, production, and retail sales talent. They need you more than you need them.

Protect your AEs. Over the years I’ve seen so many managers make closed-door deals with agencies that seriously undermine their local sales effort. And I’ve known many agencies that sell with the pitch “I can get you a lower rate and free production!” Never give an agency a lower rate than your AEs can offer every day on the street. For you, the sales manager, violation of this rule is a sin.

Don’t let AEs handle agencies. You, the sales manager, should handle or at least oversee agency negotiations. AEs, bless them, are just too nice. They’re so afraid they’ll lose a buy. They cave. The same skills that make them successful with local retailers work against them with agencies. Now, if an AE had influence on a buy, maybe with a store manager or franchisee, pay them commission as reward, but you do the deal.

Agencies make the rules. Make them play by them. Develop a dual rate structure, one for agencies and one for local direct. Agency rates should be based on audience. Local direct, on supply and demand. Agencies make you pay for that expensive ratings survey, so make them pay for your performance. I had a competitor once with great ratings make no such distinction for years, losing untold thousands, maybe millions. Make them play. Make them pay.

Educate clients. “You’ll pay more for less service.” When a local direct client hints or announces the decision to “go with a local agency,” make sure you remind him that he will pay a much higher agency rate, he’ll pay for copywriting and production, and that bright, caring AE servicing his account will no longer be stopping by.

Learn to say no. Once, a local business owner on our air for years passed away and his partner took over. Soon, there came an agency-of-record letter. Then a call from the buyer, demanding invoices and contracts. When I said “Uh, no,” her incredulous response convinced me no media had ever refused. Next day, the client was on the phone, and I explained our position. Soon, he was back on our air — local direct — and all was well again.

Eliminate the term “value added.” “Value added” is a term invented by agencies to conceal the true meaning: free stuff. If an agency for a fast food restaurant wants free stuff, negotiate for gift cards and a cumebuilding promotion. But never agree to or even speak the term value added.

Be polite, but stick to your guns. When an agency requests some ridiculous rate or stupid CPP, simply say, “I’d love to accommodate, but anything less just won’t clear. Avails are tight and rates firm.” Don’t get mad. Stick to your guns, and you’ll be delighted at how often you win!
Follow these tips and take control of your agency business.