Forgot your password?
I am real! Richard Whitman is real! This is not a joke! ;)
Response to Chuck Lantz,Chuck bad analogy to have the trains bail this out. I call this autonomous movement Amtrack II, because they can't even keep trains from colliding, ON THE SAME TRACK. (last year in Germany 2 trains went head on, and SIX fail-safe computer programs FAILED) So what happens when you have 10 lanes of LA traffic with on and off rampers, couches, ladders, recap treads, and 40 gallon trash bags in the road, and a certain percent of the population is illegal with no insurance??That's a vacation spot I'm waiting for. The best part is with these self driving vehicles, if you need to be in another lane just start merging toward that 52,000# rolling beer keg, and it will back off and let you in. And what about the truck comes down a hill and when does the computer realizes it needs to take the run-away-truck ramp? This is just ripe with stupidity.
Without support, strategy is dead.
To clarify, Chuck, the police car was an escort of sorts, since this is was still a trial, with involvement and backing by the state.
That' OK Ed, I enjoy a good argument. I've done a good deal of research on this subject. The fact that a show has a low reach and very low average rating and yet has more time spent viewing than almost any show on television by definition means that a small segment of viewers are watching the show over and over again.
" I know Las Vegas is a major and influential market and media hub of the Western U.S. and all" - Wesley Horvath
I hope you were being facetious. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, including a few years in Nevada, and Las Vegas, as well as the LVRJ, have always been considered to be bad jokes at best. The real shocker would have been if it had endorsed anyone BUT Trump.
Bet you never thought you'd be able to work "miserable carnival of horrors" into an article, Erik. Well done.
Steve, not to be argumentative, taking your example of an off-network cable show with an average minute rating of .3 and a season cume of 15%, I would assume that this represents a show with relatively little viewer loyalty, not the opposite. For, example, say that .1% of the adults represented the hard core "binge viewers" of the series out of its total reach of 15%.If this segment saw every installment---unlikely---that was offered, it might generate perhaps 10 % of the total viewing tonnage, however, more moderate, once in a while viewers would provide the majority of the exposures. In my experience the greater the differential between average minute ratings and total program reach, the lower the loyalty and this usually means that it has relatively fewer hard core fans---which is why its average minute rating is so low.
I'm with Mark Reasbeck on this one. While it could be argued that self-driving trucks would be safer than many of the truck drivers we now have, some of whom are driving while half-asleep, or worse, or under-trained for emergency situations, it will take more than a few tests to convince me.Aside from that, don't we already have a reasonably safe way to move things cross-country, called "trains"? And why was there a police car following the truck? ... to quickly identify and tag the bodies should the truck run over an SUV or two? But the real reason that myself and others are dead-set against driverless trucks and cars is that we'll feel even more foolish when we attempt to flip-off those "drivers" when they do something that offends our too-short road-rageous tempers. Or have the driverless program builders already considered adding a "Screw you, too, pal !" response to those truck's exterior audio systems?
Great discussion.In fact you could say that all personal electronic measurement have an element that is recall based ... do they recall that they have to wear or carry the device!I haven't written off recall yet, as it includes an element of cognition, which as Ed points out is vital.One thing I am certain of though is that a single methodology will not cut it. I'm all for a hybrid solution where you use the best tool for the 'component' of the measurement.
Ed, I was referring mostly to cable off-network shows like Big Bang Theory on TBS and Criminal Minds in ION. They air the show all night and people watch them all night. That a Criminal Minds reaches only 15% of all A18-49 in a full season with only a 0.3 average rating and is still the in the top 10 based on time spent viewing represents an extraordinary amount of binge viewing among a small group of viewers.
The columnist's name Richard Whitman is also the birth name of Don Draper in the Mad Men TV series about advertising. Is this column a joke?
Thoroughly agree with your points, as well. Having started my career in tech, I think a part of the problem we have is that tech folks, even tech marketing folks quite often, have a far better sense of tech than of human nature. And the true chaos and fun of consumer lives frustrates them rather than enlightens them.
Those are broad suggestions and there are clearly exceptions. But I spent my 10 years inside the geekiest of tech, did human-computer interaction work, then evolved my way out through sales then marketing. And have continued to work with many tech companies. It's a struggle for any company in tech to develop a healthy sense of truly human behavior.
Thjanks, Doug for those comments. My issue with this kind of research, aside from technical reservations about response reliability, etc. is the implication that the findings apply---on average---to every set of ad exposures. Imagine the way it would work. The millennial is happily walking down a street chatting away on his/her smartphone, when an ad appears. Suddenly---within minutes?---this causes the smartphone user to stop the call in order to research the advertiser's ad, go to its website and/or make a purchase. Meanwhile another ad appears, then another, and another and almost every time, these ad exposures trigger some sort of response. Tha's a nightmare scenario. People don't operate in such a disjointed manner and ads aren't that effective at stimulating a response. Also, with so much disruption using smartphones--prompted by knee-jerk reactions to so many ads---I suspect that most users would either go nuts or, if they wanted to continue using their devices for their own personal use, they would stampede to install ad blockers.
Steve, the original and rather fanciful definition of "binge watching" was, in effect, that the series episodes were viewed one after the other in the same sitting. This was later cut back to watching at least three episodes back to back when it became obvious to those promoting the concept of binge viewing as the new "norm" for TV that this happens so rarely in a typical person's life that, in volumetric terms, it is fairly insignificant. In this context, your comments about time spent with a series over, I assume, a full primetime season, are interesting but leave me puzzled. We, too, have done some work in this area, using program cumes and while it is true that the total season's reach of a popular primetime series may, indeed, be 30% even though the average minute rating is only 4-5% this is a far cry from the corresponding situation in the pre-cable, pre-rating fragmentation era. Then, a typical primetime hit series, with an average minute rating of 15%,would cume to around 60% over a full season. Comparing the average minute vs. the total reach stats, this meant that viewers were considerably more loyal to their favorite primetime---and other ----shows in ancient times then they are now. I guess that what I'm saying is that viewer loyalty to a weekly series, carried over for a full 26- week program cycle----or longer, counting reruns---is not the same thing as "binge viewing" which, under whatever definition one uses, refers to watching one episode after another all at once.
Here's what they say: "Results from the 3rd Annual U.S. Mobile Path-to-Purchase Study are based on data from an online survey of 2,000 U.S. smartphone and tablet users and actual observed consumer behaviors from Nielsen’s Smartphone Analytics Panel of 6,000 Apple and Android users." http://www.telmetrics.com/news/xad-and-telmetrics-release-mobile-path-to-purchase-study-revealing-mobile-dominance-in-consumers-purchase-decisions/
First, online research only. Second self reported. And using this panel to attempt to make it more solid. "Actual observed data" is quite the classic sounds important but probably isn't data. Ed might know what they are talking about. I don't know the content of those panels...
Net out: Its a study I recommend we ignore.
I think the problem here, Ed, is that this appears to be self reported. And we have decades of experience that consumers are horrendous at giving accurate reports of the behavior that led them to purchase.My guess is that cell phones are their mental fall back for what they did - that stock answer to give the researcher something to write down.What really happened? If I'm right, we certainly won't find it out here. And we can be certain it's far far different from what's reported in the research summary.
Matt your column makes way too much sense can you please cloud it up with some acronyms and discussions about attribution :) -- nice job man we need more clear thinking like yours in this business
Phew, glad we cleared that up. Ed, personally, I don't agree with unilateral declarations like "advertisers do not evaluate media based on..." I've found there are all kinds of advertisers in the business we cover and they have many different reasons and methods for evaluating things.
I agree with marlene, especially based on "Seventy three percent of respondents blame leadership for low morale followed by 45% who say it's lack of advancement, 38% who are dissatisfied with the work…" Leadership can control these three factors. Telling people to suck it up only exacerbates the first and third responses.
Good point, Chris. Rereading Joe's piece it does seem that the 7.4 hours per week figure refers only to streaming, in which case my comment about the discrepancy between these findings and Nielsen's for "TV" is not relevant. Joe, I think that we should reboot on this and take up the question of time spent as a media planning indicator, which is a whole other kettle of fish. As I pointed out, advertisers do not evaluate media based on the total amount of time various segments of the population devote to them. Many other, far more brand-specific considerations-- ad effectiveness, reach, targeting capabilities, compatible content, merchandising, etc.--- are at play and all of these trump general time spent trends.
Great commnetary, Zach. Oh, and we live in Playa Vista or Silicon Beach. I just gave a talk at USC on the "Demystification of Communication." Plenty of examples from West Coast, L.A. and Playa Vista. Loved your piece and examples.
I guess not, sorry for misreading you.