Surveys: Viewers In 4 Markets More Likely to Watch AVOD, FAST Ads Than Linear

• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, 9 hours ago

Ads on free, ad-supported streaming (FASTs) and services supported by both ads and subscriptions (AVODs) are more likely to be watched in full than those on linear TV and broadcaster video-on-demand “catch-up” channels (BVOD), according to a study from Samsung Ads in the UK, Germany, Austria and India.

The research surveyed a sample of 700 nationally representative adults (18-64) in each of the four markets, sourced via a third-party external panel facilitated by Verve Research. All participants owned a smart TV and watched or accessed TV channels and streaming services in the past month. The German survey was fielded in November 2022; the rest were fielded in May and August 2022.

In all of the markets, ads run within AVODs and FASTs were more likely to be watched in full than those on linear or BVOD.

However, in India, viewers were slightly more likely to be engaged with ads in the context of subscription-based streaming services (SVODs), with FASTs running a close second (chart above). 

India aside, AVOD/FAST ads consistently outperformed other platforms on all metrics. These were perceived as more enjoyable and relevant—although Samsung acknowledges that this was mostly due to many of the ads being promotions for new films and series, rather than being product- or sales-driven

 

Fox Sells Out Super Bowl, Peak :30s Go For $7M+

• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, 7 hours ago

Fox has sold out all of its Super Bowl LVII ad inventory, Fox Sports announced this morning.

A few 30-second ads went for more than $7 million, and most went for between $6 million and $7 million, according to Mark Evans, Fox Sports executive vice president of ad sales.

Fox reported that 90% of inventory was sold out last summer, and 95% by September — a higher level in those early months than what was seen in previous seasons.

But “atypical” events — including rising inflation and the “implosion” of the cryptocurrency category following the FTX’s fiasco — held up the sale of the last 5% of inventory, Evans said. The actual sellout happened during the week of January 23, he reported.

Four cryptocurrency brands — FTX, Coinbase, Crypto.com and eTore — ran ads in last year’s Super Bowl, causing it to be dubbed the “Crypto Bowl.”

This year, two advertisers in the crypto category had already booked, and two were close to doing so, he said, but those deals fell apart after FTX’s founder was charged with defrauding investors and the company filed for bankruptcy in November, leaving no advertisers in that category.

Evans, who did not reveal the number of ads, said it was similar to the number in previous games.

Anheuser-Busch is again the biggest advertiser with three minutes of national time, but relinquished its game exclusive, opening the way for Diageo, Heineken, Remy Martin and Molson Coors to buy airtime this year.

Other dominant categories including packaged foods, movie studios and streaming services, automotive and tech.

The Super Bowl will also be iive-streamed on the Fox Sports website and the Fox Sports App.

 

Turning To Gen Z to See What the Year Will Hold

• by Kathy Sheehan , Op-Ed Contributor, February 1, 2023

The uncomfortable fact is that no one knows exactly what the future holds. However, there are certain trends we know will be influencing the mindset and the culture into 2023 and beyond.  Gen Z, in particular, has grown up in a world of upheaval that has acted as a catalyst for an entirely new way of thinking, ushering in creativity and fundamental change. 

Often, what Gen Z surfaces today is a great leading-edge indicator of what may be mainstream tomorrow.  And what do we know about Gen Z today? 

The Struggle is Real

A decade or so ago, society told the parents of Gen Zs, it was imperative to teach their children “grit,” as it was the most significant predictor of success. But somewhere along the way, grit got twisted into a focus on achievement -- sometimes at all costs, which has caused a rise in perfectionism and an unhealthy fear of failure among Gen Z.

Then the pandemic happened, and Gen Z (along with the rest of the world) was forced to take a step back and examine what really matters. Gen Z is embracing that life is sometimes messy and unorganized and they’re going to make mistakes. They will lean into the process of actually living life in the moment rather than living for its product.

In 2023, it will be more of an imperative for businesses to demonstrate that they too are embracing the “work in progress” mindset by sharing their journey of trying new things and learning from their mistakes. Brands should say goodbye to perfectly curated content and embrace imperfections, giving Gen Z a safe space to express their creativity and listen to their needs and wants.

Gen Z Doubles Down on Political Power

Gen Z’s activism is a hallmark of the generation. They’ve been standing up for themselves and others from a very young age, using their voice to challenge social, environmental, economic and political issues. Now they’re taking the next step into political activism, since their future quite literally depends on it. 2023 will be the year that Gen Z builds on its momentum by building the society they want to live in. And their expectations of businesses and organizations to fall in line will only grow. 

Gen Z has long believed that the brands they choose to support should be reflective of their own values -- and that means politics, too. Brands are a statement for Gen Z and an extension of themselves and the world in which they want to live. Ignore this fact at your peril. 

The Great Humbling of Genius Billionaires

As we’ve all watched billionaires lay off thousands of dedicated workers, Gen Zs are calling out the inequality of it all, demanding a more level playing field between employer and employee. Gen Z is rejecting the “rockstar status” of billionaires and the “let them eat cake” mindset that simply doesn’t align with their own values. 

Gen Z is more skeptical (and critical) of people, institutions and the world around them. For them, 2023 will have a focus on transparency, equality and values. And they will demand that brands do the same.

The movement to keep kids off social media altogether.

 

By Cristiano Lima Welcome to The Technology 202! Judges, do us all a favor and air on the side of unsealing.  Below: A judge is said to have shot down the FTC’s Meta-VR suit, and the agency dings a drug discount app for leaking data. First: The movement to keep kids off social media altogether. Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) is proposing a bill banning users under 16 from accessing social media. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) A growing number of U.S. policymakers and federal officials are angling to keep children and young teenagers off social media entirely, citing mounting concerns that the platforms may harm their well-being and mental health. It's a notable escalation in the rhetoric around keeping kids safe online, which has largely focused on setting new digital protections. The push gained traction after the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told CNN on Sunday that he believes 13 is “too early” for kids to be joining apps like Instagram and TikTok, which he said can create a “distorted environment” that “often does a disservice” to kids.  Since then, other officials including Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and the Federal Trade Commission’s Alvaro Bedoya have either voiced support or shared the remarks on Twitter. Jim Steyer, a prominent children’s safety advocate, called the comments “a huge deal.” “This is exactly the kind of leadership we need from our Federal government when it comes to educating the public about technology’s impact on society,” Steyer, whose advocacy group Common Sense Media has close ties to the White House, said in an emailed statement. Now the movement is fueling legislation on Capitol Hill: A House Republican on Thursday is introducing a bill to ban kids and teens under 16 from using social media. The bill represents one of the most stringent efforts yet to keep kids off major platforms, going far beyond more narrow bipartisan proposals to set up guardrails for kids online.  The measure, led by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), would require companies to verify users’ ages and allow parents to sue them if they fail to keep those under 16 off their sites. It would also empower federal and state agencies to enforce the standards.  The proposal sets a high bar: While lawmakers have introduced bills to expand restrictions on practices like targeting ads to users up to 18, few have called for outright bans. Stewart likened the effect social media can have on children and teens to that of drugs, a refrain that’s becoming increasingly common in Washington.  “We protect our children from drinking, from smoking, from driving. They can’t drive when they’re 12,” he said in an interview. “We should protect them from the impacts of social media.” Many social media platforms, including TikTok and Twitter, already prohibit users under 13 from joining, but some such as YouTube offer a separate service designed for kids, while others like Instagram have mulled launching their own. Those plans have faced intense scrutiny from children’s safety advocates and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who have said they don’t trust the companies to safeguard their children.  Stewart’s proposal would open companies up to liability if they fail to adequately vet users’ ages and likely pose significant compliance challenges for companies, who have poured major funds into developing verification tools they acknowledge can fall short.  Many kids and teens don’t have identification, while others find workarounds to join platforms. In turn, a number of platforms have resorted to asking users to provide their birthdays.  Tech industry leaders have urged lawmakers to help those efforts by crafting legislation to set up standards or best practices for age verification. Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of U.S. public policy, told Senate lawmakers at a hearing in 2021 that any effort to update children’s privacy protections should include “a better way to verify age across the internet.” NetChoice, a trade group representing social networks including TikTok and Twitter, pushed back on the surgeon general’s comment that 13 is “too early” for kids to be on social media, arguing such decisions should be left to parents.  “Parents, not the government, not Silicon Valley, know what is best for their families,” said Carl Szabo, NetChoice vice president and general counsel. “Rather than doomsaying or trying to get between parents and their families, the government should provide tools and education on how best to use this new technology, not demonize it.” Industry and human rights groups alike have also cautioned that cutting kids and teens off from social media could backfire by removing access to positive digital resources. “For many kids, especially LGBTQ young people who may have unsupportive parents or live in a conservative area, the internet and social media are a lifeline,” said Evan Greer, director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future. “There are very real concerns about the ways that Big Tech companies’ business practices harm kids, but we need better solutions than just cutting kids off from online community and educational resources.”

 

Streaming To Be the Big Winner for The Super Bowl: Are TV Consumers Playing Ball?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 95 minutes ago

Consumers may not always know what platform -- streaming, linear TV, or other digital media -- to watch when it comes to a particular piece of content.

More than 25 years ago, Bill Daniels, a prominent cable TV executive and system owner, speaking to TV Watch at an industry event, predicted that one day the “Super Bowl would be on cable TV.” He was expecting a shocked reaction. But instead, TV Watch calmly told him this: “I have seen the Super Bowl -- on cable TV -- many times.”

The executive was puzzled. Yes, at the time TV Watch saw a Super Bowl on NBC in 1993 and 1994, as well as one CBS in 1992 -- networks that are carried on a cable TV service. 

Daniels, of course, was alluding to the big game being aired on a cable TV network. 

All this makes you wonder whether any of this matters to consumers -- now in a new age where all things streaming, internet, and digital media have usurped the cable reference as the latest and greatest.

The most important thing to consumers is the program -- sports, entertainment or otherwise.

Next is how they get it. A recent poll by Adtaxi, a digital marketing company, had some 1,056 responses to the question: ”Which of the following best describes how you will primarily consume the 2023 Super Bowl? Select one.”

For those watching the big game, the number one result was “using a streaming service” -- at 22.82%, followed by “using my cable subscription” at 22.54% and third, “broadcast TV, not connected to a cable or the internet” at 14.77%.

Do you think those numbers accurately reflect how they will get to see the big game? The headline of the survey is: “Streaming viewers expected to surpass both broadcast & cable.” 

Some might disagree. Last year there were 98.1 million average minute viewers watching the big game, according to Nielsen, with the average streaming-minute audience at 10.5 million. The out-of-home audience was 12.5 million, per iSpot/Tinuiti Analytics. 

Last year's game was available on NBC, Telemundo, Peacock, NBC Sports Digital, NFL Digital and Yahoo Sports mobile properties.

By some new estimates then, should we expect out of 125 million viewers that around 27.5 million will come from streaming? 

It seems that would be s dramatic change -- even with cord-cutting continuing to eat away at the legacy pay TV system of cable, satellite, telco, virtual operators.

One final result of the poll may tell a different story: 24.5% say they “will not be watching/listening to the Super Bowl.” As our cable TV executive example highlights, perhaps not everyone is clear about industry-specific TV definitions when it comes to distribution systems. Could that be a factor?

Streaming is the new shiny toy for consumers. Guessing a better game metric trend would be to follow the money would be not to go long. Focus on the core stuff -- the program itself. Try the run game.

The Washington Post

Opinion 

 Artificial light harms our bodies and souls. It doesn’t have to be this way.

By Paul Bogard

February 1, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EST

The San Francisco skyline. (Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle)

Listen

5 min

Comment

377

Gift Article

Share

Paul Bogard, author of “The End of Night: Searching for Natural Darkness in an Age of Artificial Light,” is an associate professor of English and environmental studies at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

I took my daughter to see the sky on her first night on Earth. Clouds blocked much of the view, but low above the western horizon a waxing crescent moon glowed amid a handful of attendant stars. I later learned that newborns are nearsighted and can focus only on objects 8-12 inches away. The distance to, say, Dad’s face. But I could not wait to share with her the beauty of the universe.

The sky that night, though, was much diminished from the skies of my childhood in suburban Minneapolis. Then, the Milky Way still arced overhead. In the intervening decades, our northern American city, like nearly every city around the world, became swamped with artificial light. A recent study published in “Science” sounded the alarm on skyglow.

Ten years ago, I set out what a serious problem light pollution was for the health of people and ecosystems in my book “The End of Night: Searching for Natural Darkness in an Age of Artificial Light.” It was a waste of money and energy, I warned, that erased starry nights the world over. Since then, light pollution has grown by a troubling 10 percent each year, new data shows. In other words, the world’s skies have doubled in brightness in less than eight years. One big culprit? The tsunami of electronic lighting such as LEDs — barely on the horizon a decade ago — that has washed over the planet.

Too often, city planners assume adding more light is an effective way to address crime. Yet many lights are used in ways — unshielded and shining into the sky, blazing over empty parking lots through the wee small hours — that serve little purpose. While artificial light at night might make us feel safer, there is no clear evidence that it actually improves our safety.

Worse, these lights take a toll on our health. Artificial light at night disrupts sleep cycles, hormones and more. It has been linked to chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and some cancers.

The effects on the animal world are equally disturbing. Car headlights and streetlamps have been shown to make almost every species studied less resilient to environmental change, which has impacted foraging and reproduction, for instance. Light pollution disorients millions of migratory birds and is contributing to the population decline of pollinating insects. One recent study found that even quite dim light alters where plovers roost and grunion spawn. If exposed to artificial light, trees, grasses and crops might bud early or yield less.

Now, our night skies face their greatest threat: the expected expansion of low Earth orbit satellites from 5,000 to more than 100,000 in the next decade. Bright enough to be visible with the naked eye and to blind the world’s most important research telescopes, these mega-constellations threaten to fundamentally alter humanity’s experience of looking at the stars.

Is all this light an unavoidable cost of modern life? Not at all. In the United States alone, for example, at least 30 percent of outdoor light is wasted. We can use artificial light more intelligently, and recent developments offer hope we will.

In 2022, dark-sky advocates created the Responsible Outdoor Lighting at Night Manifesto in collaboration with influential professional lighting organizations. It offers designers and manufacturers 10 core principles for external illumination to encourage changes. These suggestions include the use of warmer colors such as red and orange, rather than blue and white, wherever possible and the use of direct light only where needed.

Worldwide, momentum is growing for smarter regulation and policy. At the United Nations, a new dark and quiet skies movement is taking shape. Last year, a promising new policy initiative at the European Union was spearheaded by the Czech Republic. The city of Pittsburgh recently adopted the most dark-sky-compliant lighting ordinance in the eastern United States while Mexico has made nighttime lighting subject to pollution regulations.

With dimmers, movement sensors and more, the tools exist to light our nights differently. What is lacking is public awareness of the steep costs of light pollution and the political will to make smarter decisions about the future.

I have been thinking a lot about the future these days. What will my now-5-year-old’s nights be like when she’s my age? I want her world to be canopied by moonlight and the breathtaking Milky Way. I think, too, about millions of children in overlit cities who might never know these wonders. Will the future be one where only the uber-wealthy are able to visit increasingly remote locations to come face-to-face with the universe?

I hope we will choose instead to light our nights in ways that enhance our health and safety, add to the beauty of our communities and inspire us to take our children outside and point to the sky.

 

TV Networks and Affiliates: What Relationship Should They Have in The Streaming World?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

TV networks are under a lot of pressure -- and TV station affiliates are along for the ride.

With linear TV in steady free fall, networks are counting on the continued upswing of streaming. But it can't come fast enough. Financial losses for those services to be started up continue to eat into whatever profit remains from those legacy businesses.

So, do they have time to deal and attention to give to their sometimes tenuous, sometimes suffering TV station affiliates?  

Paramount Global and its CBS TV station affiliates ran into a renewal issue with a virtual pay TV provider FuboTV.

This is one where the network negotiates exclusively for its TV stations. But some stations complained they would not be getting a bump in those revenue fees. As a matter of fact, some station affiliates say carriage fees under the new deal will be lower than previous carriage deals.

Early on, these network-affiliate agreements allowed TV networks to negotiate with the virtual pay TV provider to quickly give TV stations more coverage.

TV stations are now complaining that the original system is not working. For its part CBS says stations are not obligated to go along. They can do their own negotiations if they choose to.

Still, in its current situation, if a market rejects Paramount's efforts, the company will instead provide FuboTV with a CBS network feed to fill that spot for that market.

All this got TV Watch thinking about the long and somewhat troubled history of network-affiliate stations -- now disrupted with TV networks' pursuit of all things streaming -- even if some of the deals carry local TV stations, abd even if they might share in some of those revenues. 

But maybe TV networks' heavy focus on streaming is altering their longtime partnerships with affiliates.

With regard to the FuboTV deal, a CBS spokesperson says: “It appears that they are just trying to leverage our high-value CBS content to do so, which they don't have the rights to do.”

Increasingly independent TV station groups are looking to do their own thing -- taking on local/regional streaming businesses that need help in selling advertising time. In turn TV stations can package those deals with their local linear TV inventory, giving advertisers some much needed extra reach.

At the same time, TV station groups are trying to launch or promote their own locally based networks via local digital signals.

This doesn't mean that the network-affiliate relationship is over. Networks still benefit from local TV stations' promotional efforts that push viewership to the network-owned programming -- in prime time, daytime, late night, whatever.

But the push is coming mostly for its linear TV airings of those shows -- which have the other purpose of promoting the streaming airings of those shows.  TV stations continue to also bet heavily on its local TV news content for its continued value. 

Is all this enough to hold the TV network-affiliate relationship together -- for the long term?