Innovative tv audience measurement tools
-
Upload
steve-weaver -
Category
Documents
-
view
894 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Innovative tv audience measurement tools
Innovative Audience Measurement Tools
Steve Weaver
Australian Broadcasting Summit 2009
The future- oh my god!
Unprecedented transformation
Image courtesy of Group M
The end of tv? As we know it now
Then Now
Central programming Self programming
“One price fits all” content / channels
Time-based release windowing
Central scheduling / TV adjacencies
Content freed from time and place
Linear-only advertising with CPMs Tailored interactive advertising
Content networks’ oligopoly Internet and mobile aggregators
Monopoly/oligopoly for access Access form telcos, Internet, others
Primarily ad-supported broadcasts
“Anywhere” screens
Platform-based release windowing
Subscriptions and PPV revenues
TV set as the only screen
Tailored content / channel bundles
Image courtesy of IBM
A Taste of the Future Present
The new generation of viewers
Buying Connections, Not Audiences
Media Measurement Evolution
Advertisers:
1. CFO driven decision making- ROI
2. Fragmented attention
3. Changing retail landscape
4. More sophisticated targeting of consumers
Media Owners:
1. Increasingly own multi silo’s
2. Traditional measures can be slow to adapt- losing money to other platforms
3. Share of budget can only be grown by looking outside silo
4. Seeking direct partnership with client- know/access their tools increases chance of share of budget
Agencies
1. Planning now infinitely more complex
2. The agency model is being challenged
Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
WFA Blueprint
1. Quantitative, passive measurement systems
2. Multi-media audience research
3. Large sample sizes
4. Better target group descriptions
5. Flexible and adaptive approaches
6. Single-source, with a link between multi-media use and
purchase behaviour
Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
Consumer Centric Holistic Measurement
Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
Media Owners Need to
1. Get closer to Agency CCHM’s via • sharing of knowledge
• complimentary research using each others products
2. Maintain, Enhance, Evolve their own currencies • TV
– timeshift viewing to be included in ratings from 2010
– Global developments in tv/online metering technology
– Return path measurement modelled on panel data
• Radio
– Moving from home- based, to people-based diary
– 24hrs, and includes how you listen eg Internet; DAB; AM/FM
• Outdoor
– MOVE
– Likelihood to see
Engagement
Program Engagement Power (PEP)
PEP Correlates with Ad Recall
Correlation Between PEP and Ad Recall
y = 0.6499x - 0.1606
R2 = 0.4646
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Program Engagement
Ad
Re
ca
ll
PEP Case Study
Applying PEP- Cost per Engaged 000
Cost Per Q- Claimed Engagement
Uses normal Q Scores Data (claimed program engagement)
Combines this with Ad recall data
Cost Per Q
Recall by level of engagement- 4’s recall 26% higher than average
19%
24%
20%
14%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Overall Ad Recall 4's recall 3's recall 2's recall 1's recall
Ad
Re
ca
ll %
100 126 105 74 37 Index
Cost Per Q
Claimed Program Engagement is weighted by Ad Recall and indexed
50%63%
36%
38%
12%
9%
1%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Must Watch % Weighted Must Watch %
4's 3's 2's 1's
x 1.26=
x 1.05=
x 0.74=
x 0.37=
Applying Cost Per Q
Use the weighted Q to re-calculate the CPM
1403
1488
1539
1190
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
CSI Gladiators
000s
000's Reweighted by Q Recall
Program A Program B
Other Engagement Approaches- IAG
IAG Engagement Services
Summary
Image Courtesy of IMMI