• by Charlene Weisler , Op-Ed Contributor, June 1, 2015

Mike Bloxham might be best known in research circles for his work at Ball State University, where his ethnographic study set the pace for ascertaining consumer device usage and adoption. Now, as senior vice president for Frank N. Magid Associates, Bloxham is working on a range of studies that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative applications across all video delivery platform initiatives.

Here is an excerpt from a longer interview with him that discusses his past work at Ball State, the impact of smart TV, and how cord-cutting is actually cord-morphing:

CW: What is emotional DNA?

MB:  It is based upon how TV viewers describe TV shows and TV networks, as opposed to the way we in the industry define them. So it creates a different kind of lexicon for the way in which shows are defined by those viewers, and it enables us to compare shows on a very different basis.

We see that shows that are most like each other in the eyes of viewers aren’t necessarily shows which, on the surface, appear to be like each other. So two unscripted shows based in Alaska might be very, very different in terms of emotional tonalities as far as viewers are concerned. It may be that one of them is much more like sports programming or highly intense dramas, for example. In fact, that is true of one Alaska-based unscripted show.

CW: Are you working with any networks on emotional DNA?

MB: We have been working with A+E looking at emotional DNA as a means of defining emotional tonality of both programs and ads and understanding the extent that ad receptivity can be impacted by the extent to which emotional tonality either matches or mismatches to varying degrees. And with other factors — like the extent to which somebody likes a show — it’s also a factor in improving ad receptivity….

CW: Mike, how do you think the media landscape will look five years from now?

MB: I am going to answer that question the way I have been answering it for the last ten years, which is simply to say “more.” There is going to be more complexity, more fragmentation, more functionality….  

Television may finally cease to be the least-sophisticated and most-primitive screen available to us, albeit the granddaddy of them all in terms of reach and frequency….

We are going to have more engagement with more compelling content....

CW: And what about the future of advertising?

MB: I think we are going to get cleverer advertisers, because the one thing [that’s] going to change very significantly is the way in which brands reach people. And I don’t think it is anything as simplistic as what we call native advertising (which I am not a great fan of).

But I do think that advertisers are going to realize as we see more time-shifted viewing of one sort or another — whether it is SVOD or DVR or VOD — I think there is going to be an overhaul in how we think about reaching people.

Live TV is not going away. Thirty-second spots are not going away. I don’t have that much patience for those who say they have gone away. Or for those who say TV is dead. But I do think there is going to be more creativity and inventive thinking in how brands engage with consumers, both directly through what we conventionally define as media — and the media of everyday experience off-air, offline and out in people’s lives.