MediaDailyNews
by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 12:10 PM
A new study showing how local broadcasting is a boost to the U.S. economy is impacted by governmental discussions of TV and radio spectrum allocations.
The economic analysis says local radio and television broadcasting -- direct and supporting businesses -- contribute $1.17 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product, with 2.52 million jobs.
The study comes from Washington, D.C.-based Woods & Poole Economics and media researcher/consultant BIA/Kelsey. It was commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters.
"Decision-makers now debating spectrum policies need to be cognizant of the millions of people and thousands of businesses reliant on the unparalleled impact of local TV and radio for economic survival," stated Gordon Smith, president and CEO of the NAB.
Some 300,000 jobs are directly connected to the local broadcast industry, amounting to $59.32 billion in GDP annually. Television accounts for a little more than half: 187,000 of these jobs. Television itself contributes over $30 billion to gross domestic product. Radio employs 118,000 people and contributes a little over $18 billion to the GDP.
The analysis estimates residual effects on non-broadcast businesses -- advertising on local broadcast television and radio stations -- adds more than $986 billion in economic activity and supports 1.38 million jobs.
Soo....get going and help those local-direct businesses grow...and generate more $$$ for your TV and radio company...PJL
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Media Buyers: Clients Still Spending, But Cautious
MediaDailyNews
To Be Published Thursday June 16th
by David Goetzl, 5 hours ago
Unemployment may remain high and consumer confidence middling, but top media-buying executives suggested Wednesday that clients have no plans to rein in spending, though there is a level of concern.
"No signs of a pullback yet," said Tim Spengler, who heads Initiative's North American operations, on a panel at the national cable convention.
One sign of business-as-usual for now is Initiative's decision to put down a significant amount of money in the coming October-December quarter as part of the upfront process, Spengler said.
However, Horizon Media chief Bill Koenigsberg, who has blasted the upfront process in the past, said he doesn't think the healthy upfront is a reliable "barometer" or "forecast for the future."
Like Spengler, he said "clients right now are cautious" and not "ready to throw any parades" about recessionary conditions in the rear-view mirror.
But Spengler and Koenisgberg ticked off a slew of categories spending heavily -- from autos to retail to pharma to consumer package-goods. "As long as those categories stay strong, the marketplace will stay strong," Koenigsberg said.
The only bumpy category mentioned is the quick-service restaurant business cited by Horizon's Koenigsberg. When the topic turned to measurement, MediaVest's Bill Tucker said "getting collective and comparative measurement across screens is really the big frontier in a converged world. We're not there yet."
Spengler downplayed the traditional interest in demo targeting and said his agency is looking for data indicating whether media consumption leads to purchasing or visiting a Web site or some other activity.
The agency is investing heavily in so-called single-source research. "We're paying money to get closer to an action," he said.
Koenigsberg added that in a multiscreen world there is a need for a common currency for "what are we trading on." He cited potential in the initiative from the IAB, 4As and ANA, which is looking for some common metric in the digital sphere and in cross-platform measurement.
The trade groups have commissioned Bain & Co. and MediaLink to lead the process.
To Be Published Thursday June 16th
by David Goetzl, 5 hours ago
Unemployment may remain high and consumer confidence middling, but top media-buying executives suggested Wednesday that clients have no plans to rein in spending, though there is a level of concern.
"No signs of a pullback yet," said Tim Spengler, who heads Initiative's North American operations, on a panel at the national cable convention.
One sign of business-as-usual for now is Initiative's decision to put down a significant amount of money in the coming October-December quarter as part of the upfront process, Spengler said.
However, Horizon Media chief Bill Koenigsberg, who has blasted the upfront process in the past, said he doesn't think the healthy upfront is a reliable "barometer" or "forecast for the future."
Like Spengler, he said "clients right now are cautious" and not "ready to throw any parades" about recessionary conditions in the rear-view mirror.
But Spengler and Koenisgberg ticked off a slew of categories spending heavily -- from autos to retail to pharma to consumer package-goods. "As long as those categories stay strong, the marketplace will stay strong," Koenigsberg said.
The only bumpy category mentioned is the quick-service restaurant business cited by Horizon's Koenigsberg. When the topic turned to measurement, MediaVest's Bill Tucker said "getting collective and comparative measurement across screens is really the big frontier in a converged world. We're not there yet."
Spengler downplayed the traditional interest in demo targeting and said his agency is looking for data indicating whether media consumption leads to purchasing or visiting a Web site or some other activity.
The agency is investing heavily in so-called single-source research. "We're paying money to get closer to an action," he said.
Koenigsberg added that in a multiscreen world there is a need for a common currency for "what are we trading on." He cited potential in the initiative from the IAB, 4As and ANA, which is looking for some common metric in the digital sphere and in cross-platform measurement.
The trade groups have commissioned Bain & Co. and MediaLink to lead the process.
Money Tree: TV Advertising Hits Nearly $19 Billion
MediaDailyNews
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, June 10, 2011, 3:47 PM
In the strong digital age, television advertising continues to thrive -- now up by nearly a double-digit percentage increase in the first quarter. Radio and magazines also fared well.
Television grew 9% to $18.8 billion in the first quarter of 2011 over the first quarter of 2010, according to the Nielsen Company. Older media -- radio and magazines -- also had decent gains. Radio added on 6% to $1.6 billion; magazines improved 7% to $3.5 billion. Newspapers continued to lose ground, down 10% to $2.8 billion.
The top five advertising categories were the usual suspects: automotive marketers were at $2.75 billion during the period; quick service restaurants at $1.11 billion; pharmaceuticals at $1.05 billion; telecommunications with $938 million and movies screening at $917 million.
Other media highlights: Nielsen says 76% of the time, U.S. Internet consumers say friends' recommendations of products and services are the "most trusted form of advertisement." Another healthy marketing statistic for the Web -- especially in the social media area -- 49% said they trusted consumer opinions posted online.
When it comes to mobile advertising, teens are the most receptive to advertising on the still-developing marketing platform. Fifty-eight percent of teens say they "always" or "sometimes" look at mobile ads.
While traditional commercials are still growing on television, so too are product-placement activity. Looking at 12 broadcast and major cable networks for their prime-time shows, product placement has grown 22% in four years. There were 5,381 major product placements in 2010.
Reality shows and cable TV shows overall accounted for over half the product placements in the first quarter. Nielsen says while consumers better remember the brands of placements during sitcoms, product placements in reality shows are the most effective at positively impacting viewer opinion of the integrated brand.
by Wayne Friedman, Friday, June 10, 2011, 3:47 PM
In the strong digital age, television advertising continues to thrive -- now up by nearly a double-digit percentage increase in the first quarter. Radio and magazines also fared well.
Television grew 9% to $18.8 billion in the first quarter of 2011 over the first quarter of 2010, according to the Nielsen Company. Older media -- radio and magazines -- also had decent gains. Radio added on 6% to $1.6 billion; magazines improved 7% to $3.5 billion. Newspapers continued to lose ground, down 10% to $2.8 billion.
The top five advertising categories were the usual suspects: automotive marketers were at $2.75 billion during the period; quick service restaurants at $1.11 billion; pharmaceuticals at $1.05 billion; telecommunications with $938 million and movies screening at $917 million.
Other media highlights: Nielsen says 76% of the time, U.S. Internet consumers say friends' recommendations of products and services are the "most trusted form of advertisement." Another healthy marketing statistic for the Web -- especially in the social media area -- 49% said they trusted consumer opinions posted online.
When it comes to mobile advertising, teens are the most receptive to advertising on the still-developing marketing platform. Fifty-eight percent of teens say they "always" or "sometimes" look at mobile ads.
While traditional commercials are still growing on television, so too are product-placement activity. Looking at 12 broadcast and major cable networks for their prime-time shows, product placement has grown 22% in four years. There were 5,381 major product placements in 2010.
Reality shows and cable TV shows overall accounted for over half the product placements in the first quarter. Nielsen says while consumers better remember the brands of placements during sitcoms, product placements in reality shows are the most effective at positively impacting viewer opinion of the integrated brand.
Cross Platform Report: Americans Watching More TV, Mobile and Web Video
TV is still top dog among video consumers. PJL
Nielsen Wire
June 15, 2011
The average American today has more ways to watch video — whenever, however and wherever they choose. In the Cross-Platform Report, Nielsen finds that the resounding trend is this: Americans are spending more time watching video content on traditional TVs, mobile devices and the Internet than ever before.
Traditional TV
Overall TV viewership increased 22 minutes per month per person over last year, remaining the dominant source of video content for all demographics. In addition, Nielsen data shows that consumers are willing to pay for high-quality TV content, with broadcast-only homes less than a tenth of U.S. TV households.
Mobile Video
Though still accounting for just a handful of hours per month, mobile video viewing continues to see marked gains, increasing 41 percent over last year and more than 100 percent since 2009.
Timeshifted TV
Timeshifted TV continues to grow, both in the penetration of DVR devices in the home and the time spent.
Internet Video
Internet video streaming also saw increases in time spent; this behavior is the highest among a younger and diverse subset of the population.
More details are available to download in the complete Cross-Platform Report.
Emerging Traditional TV/In-home Internet Streaming Trend
Until the fall of 2010, Nielsen data consistently indicated that the heaviest media consumers are so across all platforms. A subset of consumers from television and Internet homes has now emerged that defies that notion, with the lightest traditional television users streaming significantly more Internet video, and the heaviest streamers under-indexing for traditional TV viewership.
This behavior is led by those ages 18-34. The group of consumers exhibiting this behavior is significant but small. More than a third of the TV/Internet population is not streaming, whereas less than 1% are not watching TV.
Nielsen Wire
June 15, 2011
The average American today has more ways to watch video — whenever, however and wherever they choose. In the Cross-Platform Report, Nielsen finds that the resounding trend is this: Americans are spending more time watching video content on traditional TVs, mobile devices and the Internet than ever before.
Traditional TV
Overall TV viewership increased 22 minutes per month per person over last year, remaining the dominant source of video content for all demographics. In addition, Nielsen data shows that consumers are willing to pay for high-quality TV content, with broadcast-only homes less than a tenth of U.S. TV households.
Mobile Video
Though still accounting for just a handful of hours per month, mobile video viewing continues to see marked gains, increasing 41 percent over last year and more than 100 percent since 2009.
Timeshifted TV
Timeshifted TV continues to grow, both in the penetration of DVR devices in the home and the time spent.
Internet Video
Internet video streaming also saw increases in time spent; this behavior is the highest among a younger and diverse subset of the population.
More details are available to download in the complete Cross-Platform Report.
Emerging Traditional TV/In-home Internet Streaming Trend
Until the fall of 2010, Nielsen data consistently indicated that the heaviest media consumers are so across all platforms. A subset of consumers from television and Internet homes has now emerged that defies that notion, with the lightest traditional television users streaming significantly more Internet video, and the heaviest streamers under-indexing for traditional TV viewership.
This behavior is led by those ages 18-34. The group of consumers exhibiting this behavior is significant but small. More than a third of the TV/Internet population is not streaming, whereas less than 1% are not watching TV.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
7 Ways Smart Companies Tell Customers “No”
bNET The CBS Interactive Business Internet
By Christopher Elliott | June 7, 2011
I recently addressed a group of customer-service representatives at a conference, and near the end of my speech, I joked that these must be good times for English majors.
As someone who reads a boatload of rejection letters every day, I explained, I’ve noticed that they’re getting a lot more creative.
“Someone needs to write those letters,” I added.
A man in the back of the room laughed out loud. Later, he approached me and identified himself as a high-level executive for an airline.
“Chris, you’re right,” he told me. “We are hiring more English majors. We want our rejection letters to look good!”
I thought that was funny. And a little disturbing.
A well-crafted rejection letter can deflect a customer’s anger, restore their faith in your company, even encourage them to give you another chance. But as an advocate for customers, I’ve seen rejection letters used to turn down a legitimate problem, and even to inappropriately assign blame to a customer.
That’s just wrong.
Still, I became fascinated with the best way to tell a customer “no.” I’m focusing on the written word (I’ll get to the other ways in a future post) because in an age of email and texting, the word is by far the preferred method of telling a customer you can’t do something.
1. Send it soon. Most companies, as a matter of policy, respond to any written inquiry within a week, and sometimes less. (That doesn’t include the autoresponder, which unfortunately, doesn’t count.) It’s not enough. A week is too long in an “always-on” society. Customers will not bide their time quietly; they’ll go online and vent, complain to their friends through social media, and email people like me. Trust me, you can’t afford that.
2. Be polite but firm. The best rejection letters are cordial while leaving no doubt that this is a final answer. No need to sugarcoat it; you have to make a clean break, which will both give the customer a sense of closure and eliminate any unnecessary and unproductive follow-up. In other words, just say “no.”
3. Skip the empty apology. Too many times, companies will offer a half-hearted apology (”We’re sorry for the way you feel”) as opposed to the real deal (”We’re sorry”). Customers aren’t stupid. When they see a less-than-genuine apology, it lessens the credibility of your answer. If you have nothing to apologize for, then don’t do it.
4. Avoid cut-and-paste responses. Form letters are an inevitable part of the customer service process. Heck, even I use form letters to respond to readers sometimes. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. Make sure the form addresses the problem, as opposed to a general set of circumstances that may apply to the situation. if it doesn’t, write one that does. Nothing says “I don’t care” better than a form letter that suggests you didn’t bother to read the initial complaint.
5. Personalize everything. Even if you send a form, make sure the customer’s name is correct and that you address him or her properly. I’ve lost count of the number of times someone’s name was misspelled (how hard is it to cut and past a name from the original letter?) and the gender was wrong — Mr. instead of Ms. It helps to add a sentence or two that shows you’ve actually reviewed the first letter, even if the bulk of the email is a form response.
6. Switch it up. Even your best form letters will eventually make the rounds, getting published on bulletin boards and blogs. You can’t continue to recycle them, because customers will recognize them. Change the script. Regularly.
7. Be sincere. Perhaps the worst crime, when it comes to your “no,” is that of insincerity. After you’ve denied someone a refund or exchange, it’s highly inappropriate to look forward to seeing them in your store again soon. That’s just a nonsense thing to say. Instead, acknowledge their disappointment in an authentic way, and express your hope that you’ll consider giving you their business. Don’t act as if a return is inevitable. It isn’t.
Even if you follow these tips, I can’t guarantee you’ll avoid upsetting your customers. But you’ll dampen the blow.
The only surefire way of doing that, unfortunately, is saying “yes.”
By Christopher Elliott | June 7, 2011
I recently addressed a group of customer-service representatives at a conference, and near the end of my speech, I joked that these must be good times for English majors.
As someone who reads a boatload of rejection letters every day, I explained, I’ve noticed that they’re getting a lot more creative.
“Someone needs to write those letters,” I added.
A man in the back of the room laughed out loud. Later, he approached me and identified himself as a high-level executive for an airline.
“Chris, you’re right,” he told me. “We are hiring more English majors. We want our rejection letters to look good!”
I thought that was funny. And a little disturbing.
A well-crafted rejection letter can deflect a customer’s anger, restore their faith in your company, even encourage them to give you another chance. But as an advocate for customers, I’ve seen rejection letters used to turn down a legitimate problem, and even to inappropriately assign blame to a customer.
That’s just wrong.
Still, I became fascinated with the best way to tell a customer “no.” I’m focusing on the written word (I’ll get to the other ways in a future post) because in an age of email and texting, the word is by far the preferred method of telling a customer you can’t do something.
1. Send it soon. Most companies, as a matter of policy, respond to any written inquiry within a week, and sometimes less. (That doesn’t include the autoresponder, which unfortunately, doesn’t count.) It’s not enough. A week is too long in an “always-on” society. Customers will not bide their time quietly; they’ll go online and vent, complain to their friends through social media, and email people like me. Trust me, you can’t afford that.
2. Be polite but firm. The best rejection letters are cordial while leaving no doubt that this is a final answer. No need to sugarcoat it; you have to make a clean break, which will both give the customer a sense of closure and eliminate any unnecessary and unproductive follow-up. In other words, just say “no.”
3. Skip the empty apology. Too many times, companies will offer a half-hearted apology (”We’re sorry for the way you feel”) as opposed to the real deal (”We’re sorry”). Customers aren’t stupid. When they see a less-than-genuine apology, it lessens the credibility of your answer. If you have nothing to apologize for, then don’t do it.
4. Avoid cut-and-paste responses. Form letters are an inevitable part of the customer service process. Heck, even I use form letters to respond to readers sometimes. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. Make sure the form addresses the problem, as opposed to a general set of circumstances that may apply to the situation. if it doesn’t, write one that does. Nothing says “I don’t care” better than a form letter that suggests you didn’t bother to read the initial complaint.
5. Personalize everything. Even if you send a form, make sure the customer’s name is correct and that you address him or her properly. I’ve lost count of the number of times someone’s name was misspelled (how hard is it to cut and past a name from the original letter?) and the gender was wrong — Mr. instead of Ms. It helps to add a sentence or two that shows you’ve actually reviewed the first letter, even if the bulk of the email is a form response.
6. Switch it up. Even your best form letters will eventually make the rounds, getting published on bulletin boards and blogs. You can’t continue to recycle them, because customers will recognize them. Change the script. Regularly.
7. Be sincere. Perhaps the worst crime, when it comes to your “no,” is that of insincerity. After you’ve denied someone a refund or exchange, it’s highly inappropriate to look forward to seeing them in your store again soon. That’s just a nonsense thing to say. Instead, acknowledge their disappointment in an authentic way, and express your hope that you’ll consider giving you their business. Don’t act as if a return is inevitable. It isn’t.
Even if you follow these tips, I can’t guarantee you’ll avoid upsetting your customers. But you’ll dampen the blow.
The only surefire way of doing that, unfortunately, is saying “yes.”
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Future of TV Advertising is ... Data
Nice points..but I don't believe anything will take the place of consumer centric advertising and branding...especially since most consumers enjoy the fun of the story that touches and engages them that they can see or hear from TV or radio......Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.
MediaPost log: TV Board
by Charlene Weisler, 3 hours ago
What will be the future of TV advertising in this ever-fragmenting media environment? An attempt was made to shed some light on this subject by Rovi, who sponsored a panel last week fittingly called "The Future of TV Advertising."
The panel, moderated by Bill Niemeyer of TDG, included Jeff Siegel of Rovi, Lori Schwartz of McCann and Matthew Pagen of IAG discussing Rovi's Smart TV initiative, the pace of change, social media, extended screen and bundling vs a la carte. But in my opinion, their discussion of the role of data was the most interesting.
The creation of metrics and measurement in the STB data space continues to be a land rush with competitors racing to get their brand of customizable (and standardize-able) analytics to market. And equally, the demand from the marketplace for data insights and analytics has never been so strong. Part of this demand is due to ever increasing cross platform opportunities and the plethora of data points resulting from the potential combination of interactive platforms and set top boxes.
Lori Schwartz, Chief Technology Catalyst at McCann Worldgroup, said it best: "The data piece is pivotal. Data is the new black. Everyone wants the data and everybody wants the data to touch everything. They want it to not only measure the traditional interactive side of things; they also want it to address engagement." She also admitted that because the landscape is in constant change, there is a pressing need to stay ahead of the curve, learning about new cutting edge technologies even if they are destined to disappear by the next year.
But which metrics are most meaningful? Do they need to be standardized to the current currency -- or does the evolving marketplace demand new metrics for the new times? Much of the addressable advertising measurement today is still fairly custom -- whether it is data matching to proprietary segmentations or to known consumer measurement industry data panels for that particular advertiser, product or category. But slowly, some of these previously custom metrics are becoming part of a new standard nomenclature like TRA's Heavy Swing Purchasers and Purchaser Rating Points which CRO's Bill Harvey says many of their clients have adopted.
Rovi's contribution to the discussion involves measuring Smart TV usage and behavior through a 100k STB panel that combines ISP data with TV viewing. This initiative involves a partnership with Nielsen's IAG service via a panel. This is one possible approach providing that it is a representative sample of the TV Universe. Results of their study will be available at the end of the summer. In the meantime there are two short videos from the panel which can be viewed here.
MediaPost log: TV Board
by Charlene Weisler, 3 hours ago
What will be the future of TV advertising in this ever-fragmenting media environment? An attempt was made to shed some light on this subject by Rovi, who sponsored a panel last week fittingly called "The Future of TV Advertising."
The panel, moderated by Bill Niemeyer of TDG, included Jeff Siegel of Rovi, Lori Schwartz of McCann and Matthew Pagen of IAG discussing Rovi's Smart TV initiative, the pace of change, social media, extended screen and bundling vs a la carte. But in my opinion, their discussion of the role of data was the most interesting.
The creation of metrics and measurement in the STB data space continues to be a land rush with competitors racing to get their brand of customizable (and standardize-able) analytics to market. And equally, the demand from the marketplace for data insights and analytics has never been so strong. Part of this demand is due to ever increasing cross platform opportunities and the plethora of data points resulting from the potential combination of interactive platforms and set top boxes.
Lori Schwartz, Chief Technology Catalyst at McCann Worldgroup, said it best: "The data piece is pivotal. Data is the new black. Everyone wants the data and everybody wants the data to touch everything. They want it to not only measure the traditional interactive side of things; they also want it to address engagement." She also admitted that because the landscape is in constant change, there is a pressing need to stay ahead of the curve, learning about new cutting edge technologies even if they are destined to disappear by the next year.
But which metrics are most meaningful? Do they need to be standardized to the current currency -- or does the evolving marketplace demand new metrics for the new times? Much of the addressable advertising measurement today is still fairly custom -- whether it is data matching to proprietary segmentations or to known consumer measurement industry data panels for that particular advertiser, product or category. But slowly, some of these previously custom metrics are becoming part of a new standard nomenclature like TRA's Heavy Swing Purchasers and Purchaser Rating Points which CRO's Bill Harvey says many of their clients have adopted.
Rovi's contribution to the discussion involves measuring Smart TV usage and behavior through a 100k STB panel that combines ISP data with TV viewing. This initiative involves a partnership with Nielsen's IAG service via a panel. This is one possible approach providing that it is a representative sample of the TV Universe. Results of their study will be available at the end of the summer. In the meantime there are two short videos from the panel which can be viewed here.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
MediaPost Research Briefs
Mobile Users Are Ad Clickers
by Jack Loechner, 7 hours ago
According to the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, 60% of mobile users click on mobile ads at least one a week. When seeing an ad, half of users indicated that they would play a game, download an application, or visit a Web site after seeing an ad, but only 22% said they would make a purchase, and only 40% would download a coupon.
Tony Nethercutt, General Manager of Mojiva, notes that "... mobile marketing performs well when it lines up the services and products that affect people on an everyday basis ... mobile advertising is part of the conversation for major national brand advertising..."
Some additional findings from Mojiva and InsightExpress in the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide include:
•Over 84% of users deemed ‘normal banner ads,' ‘video ads,' ‘ads that let me interact with them,' or ‘animated banner ads' as the forms of marketing they would likely pay attention to.
•Text ads perform modestly with 13% of users most likely to pay attention; however, only 2% pay attention to expanding screen takeover ads
•Marketing offers related to magazines, social/dating, airlines, traffic and banking had the least effective performance.
With user statistics from InsightExpress, the MAG offers a look into what resonates with users through mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. This month's research shows that marketers need to focus on engaging creative executions that encourage user interaction.
Joy Liuzzo, Senior Director from InsightExpress says "... InsightExpress research continues to demonstrate that mobile consumers are evolving, with new behaviors, attitudes, and demographic segments emerging almost monthly..."
There are opportunities to advertise with mobile ads, says the report, as respondents are frequently clicking on mobile ads. Graphic ads as a whole appear to be successful in grabbing attention. Content and type of ad will impact overall reach:
•More than half indicated they would "play a game", "download a mobile application" or "browse a website" after seeing an ad on their mobile phones.
•Fewer than ¼ of respondents would "purchase a product" after viewing an ad on their mobile phones.
Which Of The Following Would You Do As A Result Of Seeing A Mobile Ad On Your Phone?
Action After Mobile Ad % of Respondents
Play a game 63%
Download a mobile application 52
Browse a website 51
Watch a video 49
Listen to music 49
Redeem or download a coupon 40
Request more information 38
Tap-to-call 17
Purchase a product 22
None of these 13
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
For the most part, graphic ads as a whole were successful in capturing the attention of respondents:
•Over 20% of respondents said that normal banner ads, video ads and ads that let me interact with them are most likely to be paid attention to
•Respondents were least likely to pay attention to expanding screen take-over ads, which may be too aggressive.
Which ONE Of The Following Types Of Mobile Ads Are You Most Likely To Pay Attention To?
Type of Ad % Likely to Pay Attention
Normal banner ads 22%
Video ads 22
Ads that let me interact with them 21
Animated banner ads 19
Text ads 13
Expanding screen take-over ads 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Ads pertaining to retail stores, weather, restaurants or bars and sports are most likely to be clicked on by someone using their mobile phone:
•Respondents tended to gravitate more towards mobile ads that focus on providing information pertaining to everyday life, rather than more specific and direct ads.
From Which Of The Following Types Of Companies, Would You Be Most Likely To Click On A Mobile Ad?
Ad From % of Respondents
Retail stores 18%
Weather 15
Restaurants or bars 13
Sports 12
Music groups 11
Food or drink products 11
Radio stations 6
Social / dating 6
Magazines 3
Airlines 2
Traffic 2
Banks or other financial institutions 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
60% of respondents click on a mobile ad for more information at least once a week. Of those, 19% click on a mobile ad for more information several times a day.
How Often Do You Click On A Mobile Ad To Get More Information About A Product / Service You Saw On Your Phone?
Click Frequency % of Respondents
Several times a day 19%
Around once a day 15
Several times a week 14
Around once a week 12
Several times a month 8
Around oncea month 6
Less than once a month 10
Never 16
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Study Demographics
Category % of Respondents
Age Group
Under 18.5%
18-25 16
26-35 35
36-45 24
46-55 13
Over 55 7
Education
Some high school 10%
Graduate high school 33
Vocational / Technical school 11
Some college 29
Graduated college 12
Some post-graduate work 2
Completed graduate degree or higher 3
Annual HH Income
Under $20,000 30%
$20,000-$29,999 15
$30,000-$39,999 15
$40,000-$49,999 5
$50,000-$74,999 8
$75,000-$99,999 7
$100,000-$149,999 1
$150,000 or higher 0
Prefer not to answer 19
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Mobile Users Are Ad Clickers
by Jack Loechner, 7 hours ago
According to the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, 60% of mobile users click on mobile ads at least one a week. When seeing an ad, half of users indicated that they would play a game, download an application, or visit a Web site after seeing an ad, but only 22% said they would make a purchase, and only 40% would download a coupon.
Tony Nethercutt, General Manager of Mojiva, notes that "... mobile marketing performs well when it lines up the services and products that affect people on an everyday basis ... mobile advertising is part of the conversation for major national brand advertising..."
Some additional findings from Mojiva and InsightExpress in the Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide include:
•Over 84% of users deemed ‘normal banner ads,' ‘video ads,' ‘ads that let me interact with them,' or ‘animated banner ads' as the forms of marketing they would likely pay attention to.
•Text ads perform modestly with 13% of users most likely to pay attention; however, only 2% pay attention to expanding screen takeover ads
•Marketing offers related to magazines, social/dating, airlines, traffic and banking had the least effective performance.
With user statistics from InsightExpress, the MAG offers a look into what resonates with users through mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. This month's research shows that marketers need to focus on engaging creative executions that encourage user interaction.
Joy Liuzzo, Senior Director from InsightExpress says "... InsightExpress research continues to demonstrate that mobile consumers are evolving, with new behaviors, attitudes, and demographic segments emerging almost monthly..."
There are opportunities to advertise with mobile ads, says the report, as respondents are frequently clicking on mobile ads. Graphic ads as a whole appear to be successful in grabbing attention. Content and type of ad will impact overall reach:
•More than half indicated they would "play a game", "download a mobile application" or "browse a website" after seeing an ad on their mobile phones.
•Fewer than ¼ of respondents would "purchase a product" after viewing an ad on their mobile phones.
Which Of The Following Would You Do As A Result Of Seeing A Mobile Ad On Your Phone?
Action After Mobile Ad % of Respondents
Play a game 63%
Download a mobile application 52
Browse a website 51
Watch a video 49
Listen to music 49
Redeem or download a coupon 40
Request more information 38
Tap-to-call 17
Purchase a product 22
None of these 13
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
For the most part, graphic ads as a whole were successful in capturing the attention of respondents:
•Over 20% of respondents said that normal banner ads, video ads and ads that let me interact with them are most likely to be paid attention to
•Respondents were least likely to pay attention to expanding screen take-over ads, which may be too aggressive.
Which ONE Of The Following Types Of Mobile Ads Are You Most Likely To Pay Attention To?
Type of Ad % Likely to Pay Attention
Normal banner ads 22%
Video ads 22
Ads that let me interact with them 21
Animated banner ads 19
Text ads 13
Expanding screen take-over ads 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Ads pertaining to retail stores, weather, restaurants or bars and sports are most likely to be clicked on by someone using their mobile phone:
•Respondents tended to gravitate more towards mobile ads that focus on providing information pertaining to everyday life, rather than more specific and direct ads.
From Which Of The Following Types Of Companies, Would You Be Most Likely To Click On A Mobile Ad?
Ad From % of Respondents
Retail stores 18%
Weather 15
Restaurants or bars 13
Sports 12
Music groups 11
Food or drink products 11
Radio stations 6
Social / dating 6
Magazines 3
Airlines 2
Traffic 2
Banks or other financial institutions 2
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
60% of respondents click on a mobile ad for more information at least once a week. Of those, 19% click on a mobile ad for more information several times a day.
How Often Do You Click On A Mobile Ad To Get More Information About A Product / Service You Saw On Your Phone?
Click Frequency % of Respondents
Several times a day 19%
Around once a day 15
Several times a week 14
Around once a week 12
Several times a month 8
Around oncea month 6
Less than once a month 10
Never 16
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Study Demographics
Category % of Respondents
Age Group
Under 18.5%
18-25 16
26-35 35
36-45 24
46-55 13
Over 55 7
Education
Some high school 10%
Graduate high school 33
Vocational / Technical school 11
Some college 29
Graduated college 12
Some post-graduate work 2
Completed graduate degree or higher 3
Annual HH Income
Under $20,000 30%
$20,000-$29,999 15
$30,000-$39,999 15
$40,000-$49,999 5
$50,000-$74,999 8
$75,000-$99,999 7
$100,000-$149,999 1
$150,000 or higher 0
Prefer not to answer 19
Source: Mojiva Mobile Audience Guide, May 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)