Battle Over Net Neutrality Moves To Congress, Courts

Media Post

COMMENTARY

• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, February 22, 2018

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today published the full text of its order repealing the Obama-era net neutrality rules.

The move means that the battle over the future of broadband will now move to the courts, Capitol Hill and statehouses throughout the country. Already, advocacy groups, tech companies and other net neutrality proponents are gearing up to fight for restoration of the rules, which prohibited carriers from blocking or throttling traffic and from charging companies higher fees for prioritized delivery.

A coalition of 23 attorneys general are proceeding with a lawsuit challenging the repeal, as are Mozilla, Vimeo and consumer advocacy groups. Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) said Thursday he is pressing forward with a resolution to scrap the FCC's recent move. So far, that effort has garnered the support of 50 senators.

The FCC voted 3-2 last December to repeal the Obama-era rules, which treated broadband as a common-carrier service. Current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said those rules were too "heavy handed." But a broad array of net neutrality proponents counter that the rules are necessary to prevent broadband providers from engaging in censorship, and from harming competitors.

The FCC's two Democrats are among the most vocal critics of the decision to repeal the rules.

"Today it is official: the FCC majority has taken the next step in handing the keys to the internet over to billion-dollar broadband providers," Commissioner Mignon Clyburn stated. "I am both disappointed and hopeful. Disappointed that this is one more anti-consumer notch on this FCC’s belt, but hopeful that the arc of history is bent in favor of net neutrality protections."

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel added that the agency "is on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law."

After the repeal takes effect -- which won't happen for at least two months -- broadband providers will be free to censor sites, slow down competitors and otherwise interfere with people's use of the web. In other words, a carrier like Comcast or Charter will be able to throttle traffic from online video providers like Netflix or Amazon. For now, the major Internet service providers have said they have no plans to block or throttle traffic. But that could change at any time.

Carriers will also be able to engage in practices that fall short of blocking and throttling, but nonetheless influence how consumers access services. For instance, carriers will be able to make their own video services more appealing by exempting their own streams from consumers' data caps. (In fact, AT&T has been doing that since 2016, but the Obama-era FCC said the practice violated the net neutrality rules. After current chairman Ajit Pai took over, he gave AT&T the green light to continue.)

On Thursday, the American Library Association -- which is among the groups that have long supported net neutrality -- declared that open Internet principles are "essential" to intellectual freedom and democracy. "Without the protection of Net Neutrality, tiered access limits diversity and blocks ideas and opinions," the group writes. "Allowing ISPs to determine which speech receives priority access and which speech can be delayed, or even blocked, based on commercial and financial interests impairs intellectual freedom. This leads inevitably to censorship of voices without economic or political power.

Sinclair Rejiggers Tribune Deal, Impacts Local TV Ad Future

COMMENTARY

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, February 22, 2018

Has Sinclair Broadcast Group given up the hunt to become a true national TV service -- based on local TV stations? Or at least one that drives more local TV advertising their way?

Looking to get FCC regulatory approval, Sinclair has amended -- somewhat drastically -- its merger plan filings with the federal regulatory agency to buy Tribune Media.  

A major alteration: It will now sell off Tribune Media’s two major market stations that originally came as part of its $3.9 billion deal to buy the TV station group: WPIX New York and WGN Chicago.

Sinclair also says it will sell Tribune’s KSWB San Diego outlet and one or more TV stations in Seattle, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma, Grand Rapids, Richmond and Des Moines.

Sinclair may have been anticipating relaxed federal rules for TV station ownership.

For many, a proposed mega-TV station deal between Sinclair-Tribune could have meant overall coverage -- via all its stations -- of more than 72% of U.S. TV homes. Currently, there are federal limits on ownership of TV stations; it collectively cannot represent more than 39% of U.S. TV homes.

Initially, acquiring Tribune was believed to give Sinclair a dominant position in local TV advertising -- especially in having ownership in two of the top three U.S. TV markets.

Still, while having control of 70% of U.S. TV coverage is a powerful asset, it isn’t the only factor that local TV and other advertisers want. When it comes to future programmatic and addressable TV advertising buys, standards across all TV groups need to be set, according to media-buying executives.

In 2017, Sinclair tried to further this process along, proposing a local TV ad programmatic co-op for other major TV station groups to join.

For many media agencies, it isn’t enough to have two or three TV stations with programmatic/automated ad sales platforms in a specific eight-station market. Media agencies need to have the bulk of a market -- for example, at least six or seven TV stations with similar ad automated platforms -- to be effective. That status makes it more efficient for them to make deals.

There is also hope that the new ATSC 3.0 TV standard could move this along.

Good news: All this isn’t dependent on big TV station mergers. Still, the current number of differentiated programmatic local TV ad systems isn’t making things easier. Local TV marketplaces need to gravitate to more open -- or at least more “standardized” -- efforts.

Fashionable Radio Listeners

Tuesday, February 27, 2018 Today's Sponsor: System 21 The Broadcast Industry's Most Relevant Sales Training Curriculum

by Jack Loechner, Staff Writer According to a new study by Nielsen, reported by David Burge, Associate Director Media Industry Group, almost four-in-10 commercial radio listeners consider themselves to be ‘Fashion Forward’, or ahead of the game when it comes to what to wear. The ‘Fashion Forward’ group of listeners, says the report, consists of primarily females who are appearance driven, with a higher than average household income and ready to spend it on all things image and status-related, says the report, who are in a prime position to purchase fashion and accessories, skincare, tanning products, and cosmetics. The Fashion Forward group brings big opportunities to advertisers as they are regarded as information-hungry influencers seeking to receive and share advice among their inner circle and beyond. These are the findings from Nielsen and Commercial Radio Australia’s latest Consumer & Media View (CMV) research report, which reveals that the Fashion Forward group of image oriented consumers are engaged by commercial radio, especially during the breakfast and afternoon prime-time slots. They listen to, trust and share what they hear on their favorite radio station. This is in contrast, says the report, to 62% of commercial radio listeners who identify themselves as ‘Fashion Idlers’, who prefer to wait and see if the trend takes off before trying out new clothes. The Fashion Idler group's average yearly household income is approximately $10k less than that of the ‘Fashion Forward’ group. Fashion Idler's are more likely to be taking on home duties, in a trade, a laborer or retired. Fashion Idler's also have the highest representation of males aged 55+, and of retirees. While the percentage of commercial radio listeners who are ‘Fashion Idlers’ is higher than ‘Fashion Forwards’, the purchasing behavior is very different, says the report. ‘Fashion Idler’ consumers spend less in shopping centers, and are less likely to recommend a product to their friends. According to the report, approximately 3.67 million, 38% of commercial radio listeners, identify themselves as ‘Fashion Forward’. This group is always the first to try out the latest trend quite soon after it becomes available on the market. Of this group, 57% are female and 43% are male, with an average household income of $104,000. The Fashion Forward group holds the highest representation of females aged 18-24 and also has the highest average personal and household income. The ‘Fashion Forward’ group likes to differentiate themselves from the crowd through clothing. They believe that designer labels will improve their image, and are highly style and appearance-driven. This group prefers to do research in-store, before purchasing an item online. They are more likely to be concerned about the delivery timeframe of online purchases, compared to the ‘Fashion Idlers’. While approximately one quarter of both ‘Fashion Forward and ‘Fashion Idlers’ spend $101-$200 in shopping centers each week, ‘Fashion Forward’ consumers spend the most on entertainment. ‘Fashion Forward’ consumers will spend an average $66 on entertainment per week while ‘Fashion Idlers’ will spend an average of $54. Additionally, 67% of ‘Fashion Forwards’ are likely to spend more than $50 in a shopping center each week, says the report. The report concludes by noting that  ‘Fashion Forward’ consumers are in a position to impact others’ purchasing behavior. They are seen as influencers in fashion circles and are more likely to seek out and give advice on a range of clothes, products and services. They will not limit advice to fashion, instead will actively influence the rest of the population across categories such as eating out, gadgets, cosmetics, holidays, clothes, shoes and accessories, health and nutrition, and renovation.

2017 Ad Spending in Review

 
45   

After windfall revenues in 2016, the advertising market continued to increase by another 3.7% in 2017 to more than $53 billion.  Digital was the largest driver of the growth, increasing 12%.  Meanwhile, national television dropped 3% in 2017; however, that was in comparison to the prior year which included the Summer Olympics and the Presidential election -- both big moneymakers for the networks.  Here's how some of the verticals netted out.

Sports Overall:  Sports have an appealing target audience and 93% of it is viewed live.  In fact, Advertising Age reported that 43 of the 50 most watched telecasts in 2017 were live sports.  As such, sports remain popular with marketers and continue to be a prominent source of ad revenue on television, accounting for $10.3 billion in 2017.  Advertising revenue during televised sports should increase in 2018 due to the Winter Olympics airing across the NBCU networks and World Cup Men's Soccer airing on Fox and Telemundo in June and July.

NFL:  The NFL remains the most popular sport for television advertisers.  Over the 17-week regular season, NFL games on CBS, NBC, Fox and ESPN generated over $2.4 billion in advertising revenue, a slight decline from the previous season.  The average paid unit for a 30-second spot grew 1.2% to $505,000.  However, since NFL regular season ratings dropped in 2017, the number of audience deficiency units (ADUs) -- or makegoods -- for audience under-delivery grew by 6% from the prior year. 

Similarly, Thursday Night Football (TNF) increased paid unit rates by 7% in 2017 while ADUs rose by 6%.  Altogether, TNF saw a 3% year-over-year decline for regular season games telecast on CBS, NBC and NFL Network.  In 2018, TNF will move to Fox as part of a five-year deal for a reported $3 billion.  The NFL will also negotiate a separate deal to live stream TNF.

News:  Even though the Presidential election was over, 2017 was, nonetheless, a strong year for the cable news networks.  With late-breaking news seemingly occurring every day, all three major cable news networks averaged over one million viewers in primetime for the entire year.  Advertisers took note of the continued popularity of cable news and increased spending by 9.3% compared to 2016.  Fox News accounted for 45% of ad dollars among the Big Three cable news networks.  There was year-over-year growth in advertising revenue for these three networks in ten of twelve months during 2017.  With the accelerated news cycle expected to continue, combined with mid-term elections and a majority of news watched live, ad spending should continue to be strong with advertisers in 2018.

Original Dramas:  Dramas continue to be a popular genre with viewers.  With competition coming from streaming video services and pay premium channels, broadcast and cable television networks have premiered a number of critically acclaimed dramas with compelling storylines and well-defined characters.  As a result, this era has been described by some as another Golden Age of TV.  Fox's Empire was the most expensive broadcast primetime original drama for television advertisers based on paid unit costs.  On cable, the most expensive original drama series is AMC's The Walking Dead.

Factoring in all of the commercial spots for primetime original dramas, CBS generated the highest gross advertising revenue for the genre.  NBC's This Is Us has been a boon for the network, helping NBC gain the largest network year-over-year increase for gross advertising revenue of 15%.

Digital/Social Media:  In 2017, overall ad spending in digital media grew by nearly 12%.  Among social media networks, Facebook (including Instagram) posted ad volume growth of 40%.  Snapchat, which has a high concentration of teens and young adults as users, had an increase in ad dollars of over 50%, most of the increase occurring in the first half of 2017.  Pinterest and LinkedIn also showed ad revenue growth of 39% and 8%, respectively.  Twitter was the only prominent social media network to see a year-over-year decline in advertising revenue.  This comes as Twitter lost its streaming rights to the NFL's Thursday Night Football for 2017.

Product Categories:  Despite spending 13% less than last year, the auto industry was the largest product category for advertising spending on national TV.  Meanwhile the second largest category, prescription pharmaceuticals, increased spending by 8%.  Travel and non-alcoholic beverages had the largest year-over-year growth in ad spending at 16% and 10%, respectively. 

Looking Ahead:  Despite its declines over the past year, we predict national television will remain flat in the first quarter of this year at $10.8 billion, not including revenue from the Olympics. 

Click the social buttons above or below to share this story with your friends and colleagues.

The opinions and points of view expressed in this content are exclusively the views of the author and/or subject(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of MediaVillage.com/MyersBizNet, Inc. management or associated writers. 

Liberty Media Makes a Play for Radio Giant iHeart

Link copied…

• BANKRUPTCY

 

John Malone offers $1.16 billion for 40% stake in post-bankruptcy company.

 

By

Soma Biswas

Feb. 26, 2018 6:15 p.m.

 

John Malone’s Liberty Media Corp. is making a play for iHeartMediaInc., offering to pump $1.16 billion in cash into the nation’s largest radio broadcaster in return for 40% stake in the reorganized company following an eventual bankruptcy filing.

A deal between iHeart and Liberty, which owns Sirisu XM, presents the possibility that Mr. Malone could combine the biggest radio broadcaster, scrubbed of billions in debt after bankruptcy, with the leading player in satellite radio.

“This is one of the leading visionaries of the tech and media industry coming and saying I have a plan for this company,” said Lance Vitanza an analyst at Cowen.

News of Liberty’s proposal, disclosed Monday by a group of iHeart lenders and bondholders, comes as a 30-day grace period among the company and its creditors is set to expire. The clock began ticking for iHeartMedia on Feb. 1 after it missed an interest payment to bondholders.

Formerly known as  Clear Channel Communications, iHeart has been in talks with its largest creditors for months about restructuring more than $15 billion in debt at the company’s radio business.

The debt is a legacy of a $26.7 billion buyout by private-equity firms Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital. The 2008 buyout came on the eve of the financial crisis just as markets seized up and advertising rates cratered.

Mr. Vitanza, the analyst, said iHeartMedia’s radio business and Liberty-controlled SiriusXM radio could provide a boost to each other’s offerings. The two companies will no longer have to bid against each other for big name talent such as Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern or the right air NFL games. Liberty could also promote the subscription-only Sirius offerings on its free broadcast channels, he said.

Despite the potential benefits of the merger, there is no certainty that a merger would survive the often-contentious bargaining sessions played out in bankruptcy court.

“There’s a lot of deal risk still here,” Mr. Vitanza said. “I think some of iHeart’s bondholders understand the potential power of a merger between iHeart and Sirius, but not all creditors understand that.”

A group of iHeart bondholders led by Franklin Advisers unveiled the proposal from Liberty on Monday. A spokeswoman for Liberty Media didn’t return calls seeking comment. An iHeart spokeswoman declined to comment.

Liberty Media has built a position in iHeart’s debt in an effort to gain a foothold in the company’s restructuring, according to Monday’s announcement.

The company’s debt gained a few points on the news, with the company’s 9% priority guarantee notes due 2019, up 3.125 points to 78.375 cents on the dollar, according to MarketAxess. The gains are muted, however, by skepticism over whether the deal ultimately gets done, Mr. Vitanza said.

New York Post

TV Has An Attribution Problem

 

 

COMMENTARY

• by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, February 22, 2018

The advertising industry is quickly approaching a future where household-level sales attribution becomes table stakes for all media campaigns and channels. This future sets up digital media companies well, but could be disastrous for TV companies.

TV has an attribution problem, and the industry needs to fix it.

Let's be clear: TV advertising does not have an effectiveness problem. No media channel delivers access to more consumers faster, with more impact, than TV. TV’s ability to drive sales predictably and at scale for categories from retail, travel and packaged goods to restaurants, cars and financial services, has been well known and documented for decades.

However, TV companies don’t provide real-time reporting at the household and user level for each and every campaign, as digital, search and social do. And that’s a big problem for TV companies that want to avoid big ad budgets cuts -- especially from agencies and brands under pressures to provide greater accountability for when and where they spend ad dollars.

When marketers buy ads from Google, they get access to Google Analytics to help them attribute sales and conversions to those ads at the user level. When large marketers buy ads from Facebook, they are given access to what is arguably the best marketing science team in the world, as well as a powerful set of software tools to understand and attribute the sales impact of their ads at the person and household level.  When marketers buy ads on Amazon … You get the picture.

Digital is winning bigger and bigger ad budgets because it works, and because digital giants can draw a visible line between ad exposure and a sale. As advertisers become increasingly addicted to campaign-level sales attribution -- and they are -- media sellers that lack this feature will lose budgets, whether or not they are effective. That is the dilemma TV faces.

Fortunately, there are now plenty of tools to link TV ad exposures to sales and conversions at the campaign and household level. TRA, now owned by TiVo, helped pioneer this capability. Neustar has built a powerful product here. Nielsen provides these capabilities through its NBI and NCS tools. ComScore has offerings here. So do another dozen or so start-ups. And sellers like CBS, NBCU, Turner, Fox and Viacom are stepping up in this area, including attribution with some of their campaigns.

However, in spite of a plethora of tools, providing campaign-level sales attribution at the household level still the exception in TV. It needs to become the norm.

What’s holding TV attribution back? First, many in the industry are afraid of it. What if the ROI is low? That's one worry.

Second, many others don’t think that TV should be driving sales, let alone providing attribution for it. TV is a branding medium, they say. Plus, clients and agencies control the creative, so it’s an unfair burden.

Third, it’s expensive. Who will pay for all of this, they ask.

Fourth, putting sales attribution and ROI out front in TV will create a race to the bottom in pricing, they claim.

Fifth, if they just keep doing the same things as last year, and maybe negotiate a bit harder in the upfront, they’ll make it through another year -- or through the sale of their company -- without having to make any big changes.

For all of those worried about what "they say," I point you to TripAdvisor’s Q4 earnings call from last week. On it, the online travel booking company’s CEO and CFO told investors to expect strong revenue and profit growth for the year ahead.

Why? As a result of significant improvement in the company’s cross-channel ad attribution capabilities, TripAdvisor was going to significantly increase its TV ad spend and decrease its digital marketing expenditures -- which would result in more sales of higher quality than it was getting from its previous marketing mix,  more heavily skewed to digital advertising, according to the CEO.

Yes, that's a digital- and mobile-first company making that statement.

The message for TV companies is simple: Trust in your platform. TV ads are underpriced, not overpriced. But you won’t be able to capture the real value of your ad inventory until you know exactly how your spots drive sales for your advertisers, and you make sales attribution table stakes for all your campaigns.

What do you think? Are you ready?

Spending Habits Of Gen Z: They Like To Own Stuff

COMMENTARY

• by Jodi Littleton , Columnist, 5 hours ago

$44 billion. That’s the amount of spending power Gen Z brandishes a year, according to data from “Uniquely Generation Z.” 

The demographic following Millennials is young, not afraid to spend money, but at the same time maintains a bank account. 

Gen Z has no intention of making the same mistakes of Millennials: think living at home, student debt and minimal savings. 

In my last column, we discussed Gen Z’s influence on household spending. 

Now, let’s dive into what they purchase, or plan to purchase and how these habits vary from Millennials.

Gen Z has a sense of pride in ownership. Rather than rent, lease or take an Uber around town, this demo wants to own a car and eventually a home. 

Lofty goals for a young group, born between 1996 and 2009. 

According to the Gen Z Automotive Study, conducted by Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book, 92% of Gen Z own or plan to own a vehicle. Prepared to sacrifice, Gen Z is willing to give up social media (72%), new clothes (63%) and their cell phone (33%) if it means owning a car. 

Gen Z cares about hybrid cars, but something ranks higher in importance: price. The study found that 77% of Gen Z felt price was most important, compared to 72% of Millennials in their teenage years. If they were to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle, 43% would to save money on gas, as opposed to 30% to prevent global warming.

Safety truly comes first for Gen Z, finding it more important than previous generations did when they were teenagers: Gen Z (43%),  Millennials (25%), Generation X (11%) and Baby Boomers (9%). 

Brand specificity plays little to no role in Gen Z’s car buying decision, although Ford, Chevrolet and Honda were preferred based on their reputation for being traditional, practical and trusted.

If you think it’s a big deal for Gen Z to want to own a car, take a look at stats from the Zillow Housing Aspirations Report, Q1 2017, which found that Gen Z desires to be a homeowner, despite the low number of demographic old enough to rent.

The report found that 57% of Generation Z renters would consider buying instead of renting. These are young adults in their early twenties, just starting out. The median household income for Gen Z renters is $27,827, with 44% making less than $25,000.

Known as the first generation born into a high-tech world, Gen Z moves fast when searching for a home. Thirty percent of Gen Z renters spend less than a month searching, compared to 26% of all renters.

Gen Z submits approximately 3.1 applications during their search for a rental home, compared with 2.6 applications for Millennials, 2.4 for Generation X and 2.2 for Baby Boomers.

As much as Gen Z wants to “own” things, they don’t actually have much, which explains why half of Gen Z renters want a home to have their preferred utilities, compared to 40% of all renters. Fifteen percent of Gen Z renters want a furnished rental home, compared to 9% of all renters.

Much of the Gen Z demo not living on their own just yet still exercise a high level of household spending influence.

Data from “Uniquely Generation Z,” commissioned by IBM Institute of Business Value and NRF, found that 93% of Gen Z parents note their children have an actual influence over the family’s household spending, predominantly on Food & Beverage (77%), Furniture (76%), Household Goods (73%), Electronic Goods (61%), Clothes & Shoes (60%) and Personal Care Items (55%), respectively.

Gen Z will make up 25% of the U.S. population by 2020. It’s closer than you think.

Netflix Costs TV Nets Billions In Lost Ad Revenue

• by Wayne Friedman , February 15, 2018

Although Netflix is not ad-supported and has nothing to do with TV marketers, the subscription video service is having an major effect on other networks’ TV advertising, according to a report.

An analysis in nScreenMedia estimates Netflix has taken anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion per year off the table in TV advertising revenue as a result of the viewing on its platform. In the past, such viewing would have gone to ad-supported TV networks.

The report from digital media analyst Colin Dixon says the average U.S. Netflix subscriber misses out on seeing around thirty-five 30-second commercials per day. Looking at all of Netflix’s U.S. subscribers, this comes to nearly 2 billion ad views per day.

In a year, the average Netflix U.S. subscriber misses 5,753 ads during prime-time viewing and 7,032 ads during non-prime time. This analysis considers third-quarter 2017 results of 56.4 million Netflix streaming U.S. subscribers.

Using the approximate cost-per-thousand viewer of $18 in prime time, and $5 for non-prime time programming, the report says these missed ad views have a value of $139 per year per subscriber, or $7.6 billion for all subscribers.

This research suggests Netflix viewing has removed between 4% and 8% of total U.S. TV advertising, which in 2017 totaled $72 billion, per eMarketer.

Dixon cautions: “This analysis assumes Netflix viewing replaces only ad-supported television viewing. It doesn’t consider ad-skipping through DVRs, though Nielsen says the average U.S. adult only spends about 10% of TV viewing time on DVRs.”

He adds: “It also doesn’t consider the use of premium video networks like HBO and Showtime. These factors could lower the calculated value of lost ads by 15% to 20%.”

Is Fox Right -- Sports TV Is The Future?

Commentary

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, February 16, 2018

Big sports TV franchises are costly -- think the NFL and the Olympics.
For many networks, it is worth it. NBC will prove it with one simple number. For the first time in 16 years, NBC is the No. 1 network for total average viewers in a specific week. CBS has been the reigning champion when it comes to total TV viewers.

NBC did this because it had the Super Bowl four days before the start of the Olympics. Even with both stellar events, NBC just edged out CBS for the most recent week ending February 11: 9.56 million to 9.38 million.

Mark Lazarus, chairman of NBC Broadcasting & Sports, reckons the network will do this again next week, partly because the Olympics runs 16 days.

But if you took sports programming out of the picture -- just analyzing entertainment and other non-sports programming -- things would be different. NBC would be behind CBS by 1.9 million viewers.

In this regard, consider Fox’s move to secure more “Thursday Night Football” -- 11 games per season for the next five years. For the last two seasons, CBS and NBC shared those games — with the NFL Network simulcasting all of them.

Pretty good deal? All NFL programming has seen around a 10% decline in viewership. The answer is that everything is relative -- the weakest NFL series still bests virtually all other TV.

Dig deeper. Before Fox’s deal to secure “TNF,” it agreed to sell about half its TV/entertainment businesses to Walt Disney for $52.4 billion. The reason: It wanted to focus on national TV sports programming, as well as news programming for its Fox News Channel and Fox Business networks.
Would it make sense for other big TV networks to follow Fox’s lead, trimming some holdings to focus more on sports?

If so, it would drive license fees for sports TV programming even higher. All major media holding companies -- Comcast Corp., Walt Disney, and CBS -- already have significant sports TV programming.

NBCUniversal has a major long-term commitment with the Olympics and the NFL; as well as its sports cable NBCSN network; and its partnership in the Olympic Channel in the U.S.
Walt Disney, with ABC and ESPN, has the NBA, College Football Playoffs and “Monday Night Football.” 

CBS, which will get bigger with a Viacom re-merger, also has the NFL on Sundays, as well as the monthlong NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament (shared with Turner networks).
Given that, there doesn’t seem to be much room to grow -- at least with big sports franchises. With continued fractionalization of media, and the need to grow bigger quickly, what can a single TV network do?

Whatever it is, it might become ever more valuable -- from a marketing point of view -- to call yourself the most-viewed TV network. Bottom line? Networks hopes to get to bottom of this.

Why Have TV Viewers Stopped Channel Surfing?

Commentary

• by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, February 15, 2018

The following was previously published in an earlier edition of Media Insider:
We all know the headlines about television these days: “Massive ratings declines.” “Prime time down.” “TV dying as viewers cut the cord.”

Do these really tell the whole story about the behaviors of U.S. TV viewers, and the health of TV as media?

To find out, my company’s chief scientist Kyle Hubert recently teamed up with Forrester’s Jim Nail to dig into the numbers behind the ratings. They analyzed the “gold standard” of TV viewing data – Nielsen’s All Minute Respondent-Level Data – over the past four and a half years to better understand what was happening at the individual viewer level.

 The high-level findings were what you’d expect. Almost everyone watching TV has access to more channels today than they did five years ago. The ratings of top shows have declined over those same five years, on average about 25% down. To reach the same size audience as five years ago advertisers must buy spots on significantly more shows and  networks today.

 However, a lot of what the data revealed was not nearly as aligned with conventional wisdom about what is happening on TV.

First, while individual show ratings are down by 25% over the past five years, viewing per person has only dropped 15% over that time frame. How is that possible? It’s simply because more shows are being viewed by the average viewer than five years ago. And, if you look at TV viewers who are 25 and older and watch at least 12 minutes of TV a day, there is no change in the amount of TV they watch. Yes,  25+ TV viewers are still watching the same amount.

Further, total TV audience viewing is up 5% over that time, since more people watch TV today. And like the U.S. population overall, the TV viewing population has grown.

Also, the number of different networks each viewer is watching has dropped over the past five years. Sounds counterintuitive, but it’s true. Most TV viewers watch only one or two  networks each day. The number of people who only watch one network per day has doubled, while those watching two networks per day have almost doubled. The number of those watching three networks per day are up 50%.

Wow. Shouldn’t more choice mean that viewers will watch more networks? No. What has dropped is channel surfing. What you can see in the respondent minute level data, and is confirmed by investigation of second level set-top-box viewing data, is that fewer viewers are surfing up and down channels. There is less “snacking” on TV today than five years ago.

In fact, most viewers today ave fewer viewing event and watch for longer periods of time.
With viewers now watching fewer networks and watching each network for longer periods of time, is it getting easier for advertisers to reach them? One would think that a TV media buyer today could just buy the top 10 networks and get the most viewers.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite. TV viewers may be watching fewer networks, but they are selecting those networks from a much larger pool. TV viewing has become more individualized and much more fragmented, with apparently more direct navigation to channel and show destinations. To reach all viewers today who only watch two networks (the largest group of TV viewers), a marketer would have to advertise on 135 different networks.

This has enormous implications for the TV media business. Thirty-five years ago, an advertiser buying one spot each on the top three networks in prime time on the same night reached virtually 100% of all TV viewers. Today, that buy yields less than 5% of TV viewers.

These findings turn upside down what many have thought about TV viewing. Anyone who wants to survive and thrive in the TV world is going to have to throw away old notions and practices and really dig into the data.

Will that be you? Are you ready?

How Channel Proliferation, Customer Experience Demands Are Forcing Marketers To Focus On Brand Distinction

Commentary

• by Josh London , Columnist, 3 hours ago

Customer experience can define a company and make or break its fortune. Innumerable communication channels present marketers with a fragmented landscape along with heightened customer expectations and diminishing brand loyalty. Gone are the days when marketers had a finite universe of a few favorite web sites, television, radio, print, and out-of-home when trying to reach their audiences. Not only has the media diet changed, the purchase path consumers take is no longer linear, nor can it be prescribed. Instead more careful attention and understanding is required of brands to identify ways to drive sales, build loyalty and retain customers.

So where does this leave marketers in a world where customer experience is king? Prioritizing customer experience, experimenting with new ways to tailor marketing by channel and identifying how to maintain a consistent customer experience across channels. Here I will dissect and break down the importance of each in this omni-channel marketing eco-system.

Prioritizing customer experience
Recent industry marketing priority surveys and outlooks highlight the value created by companies that put customer experience first. Forrester predicts that forward-thinking brands will surge ahead of their peers in 2018 by fully embracing consumer-obsessed marketing, while Gartner cites that more than 50% of organizations will redirect their investments to customer experience innovations throughout 2018. Some brands have even discovered that customer experience can be the winning formula to distinguish them from the competition, effectively placing them in a league of their own.
Recent industry marketing priority surveys and outlooks highlight the value created by companies that put customer experience first. Forrester predicts that forward-thinking brands will surge ahead of their peers in 2018 by fully embracing consumer-obsessed marketing, while Gartner cites that more than 50% of organizations will redirect their investments to customer experience innovations throughout 2018. Some brands have even discovered that customer experience can be the winning formula to distinguish them from the competition, effectively placing them in a league of their own.
Apple, for example, is a brand that can hardly do any wrong in the minds of consumers when it comes to customer experience.

When a customer purchases an iPhone, they know what they’re getting – a sleek, easy-to-use, luxury product backed by a superior customer service experience. From the moment a customer walks into a streamlined, modern Apple store, they’re greeted with a smile and assured their technology will work well for years, requiring only the occasional update. If an issue arises, a representative is always on hand to assist at the Genius Bar. Apple’s customer experience aligns directly with its brand, resulting in one clean, unified experience that is felt anywhere and through any channel consumers use to interact with their brand, with each interaction providing an opportunity to delight. While the tech giant’s products are great, their customer service and overall customer experience places them ahead of their competitors.

Apple’s example is an important one as it reflects a much more advanced marketing mind shift than the linear strategies of yesteryear. Brands and consumers now co-exist in a living ecosystem that changes by the minute. Discrete message control is a thing of the past, with customers now possessing the capacity to alter the marketing landscape in an instant via social media. With this evolution comes new requirements for channel management, monitoring and reporting as customers remain at the core of business strategies.

Experimenting with new channels
Whether Alexa, Google Home, WhatsApp, WeChat, Instagram or Snapchat, marketers have a chance to experiment with content tailored to the unique characteristics of each channel, based on medium, demographics, time of day and more. These new channels open up additional audiences and reinforce the need to stay true to their brand essence. One of the most important variables to keep in mind when marketing across channels is your willingness to experiment with new channels when trying to reach your target audience. As new channels emerge, there is a required research and development process that must take place to determine the value that channel can deliver.

Consistent customer experiences
Marketers are looking at all communication channels to ensure that consistency is being maintained in this crowded market. Trust is built one interaction at a time, and consistency is key. Marketers have taken note and heeded the mandate to delight and differentiate beyond anything that they may have done before. They are expected to meet customer needs without fail, while simultaneously exceeding them through new initiatives and programs, across all channels.

We see similar customer trend in both the B2C and B2B markets. According to a recent “IT Role and Influence” study we conducted of more than 750 IT and security decision makers, 71% of respondents cited that they will open an email based on a prior experience with a vendor. Brand familiarity helps but 48% of respondents seeking new solutions are also seeking new vendors. With switching costs lower than ever, improved consumer experience will improve customer loyalty, improve word of mouth marketing, and ultimately increase sales.

Channel proliferation and more personalized, holistic marketing initiatives are not excuses for poor marketing, but rather opportunities to build deeper, more connected experiences with consumers on a more consistent basis. It’s imperative for marketers to learn how to leverage multiple channels properly and consistently and to dedicate the resources and time needed to do so. By placing a premium on customer experience, brands can rise above the fray in the crowded media landscape.