Forgot your password?
On one hand, I can’t imagine our life without banks. Yes, many of them are unstable and bring problems to our life but still! Banks have its function in the economy and we have nothing to do with that. But I think that young people don’t really care about it. They don’t think they need services provided by banks. But we can see that relatively many people trust their banks. And at the same time many people understand that to get money assistance or fast cash advance online it’s not necessary to go the bank and use alternative lenders.
Nobody of relevance saw the real estate market dive coming or the reasons why. Yeah.
The self-checkout already in place at the stores is quite quick, Naomi.
Spying on more levels. You would be lucky to find someone who immediately acted upon an ad, let alone remember 1 or 2. How many people name advertisers from the Super Bowl that weren't there and vice versa ? And for how long ? Not to mention you are all assuming the creative is soooooooo terrific, that it moves men to tears. This all sounds like a MediaPost Hyperbabble of the Day. Back to cannibalizing each other by over saturation of ads in the article.
Agree with Jeremy. In the past, the data signals for CPG marketers were quite weak. What is possible today is a major leap forward, and more leaps are coming. Exciting times for CPG marketers -- and IMO there needs to be more communication acros the shopper marketing and brand group silos.
Absolutely. And while measuring foot-traffic is far better than looking at traditional digital marketing metrics like CTR & secondary actions, the best is to measure shopper's path-to-purchase action at a SKU level using in-store SKU availability, SKU path-to-purchase guidance & in-store SKU sales lift impact analysis. This is becoming easier and easier as more Ad-Tech companies integrate this as a simple add-on to campaigns. The opportunities to trigger activation will expand further with in-store beacons. Just ensure you trigger product messaging for SKUs that are actually in-stock in-store! ; )
Great comments so far. A few thoughts. 1) Viewability, especially for video and especially for brand advertisers is simply not optional. 2) The "yeah, but people ignore TV" argument is silly and unworthy of the digital media business. People ignore ALL media, but the baseline requirement is that it is possible to SEE it. 3) We can throw all the numbers that we like at attribution, but it will never be perfect. For a start, success will always have a million fathers, and executives will always have biases about what really works and what does not. Additionally, we should take care not to mistake the map for the territory: just because we have spreadsheets and attribution models does not mean we have the truth. Lastly, even if we had a flawless understanding of the past (e.g. we knew precisely what worked and did not work last quarter) it is not necessarily predictive of the future. It is in our nature to hunger for crystal balls and alchemy, but we will never really have either. At best, all we will really have is a better set of guesses about the truth.
John, Ed, great stuff. I think that it would be great to back-up the declared data with lots of matched, but de-identified actual purchase behavior. Finally, there are lots of set of credit card and shopper card data available, and in near real time. Plus, lots of retailers and brands are finally working with first party purchase data and digital interaction data in a systematic way. With big sets of privacy/safe matchable set-top box data, you can now truly tie attribution off at the household impression level. Exciting times are ahead.
John, I think that it would be quite easy to obtain the kinds of mindset information I am thinking of from an existing panel of cooperators, as well as an indication of their product usage for a fairly large number of categories---say once a year in a 25-35 page questionnaire. In my experience, once a person---or household---agrees to participate in a panel, the "respondents" tend to be quite cooperative as most of those who are disinclined, or too busy, were weeded out in the original recruitment process. Regarding the product use information, I believe that this could be handled in a fairly simple manner, using one or two lines per category---without trying to obtain brand by brand detail. The idea could certainly be tested to determine what the cooperation rate was for various lengths of questionnaire, types of questions, etc.
That's a very nice idea Ed. Are you aware of anywhere it is in use. Being pragmatic, how do you see the data being collected? I assume a self-completion questionnaire at time of recruitment. As we are talking about a panel rather than a sample, the questions (well actually the panellists responses) would need temporal stability. In my experience this tends to make the questions 'less sharp. I work on another currency where we have gone down the 'slimmed down' route of doing that (using a sample and not a panel) and the questionnaire has blown out to 90 minutes already - though that is a blend of mindset and product usage. What sort of questionnaire length do you think would be needed. If it is long. I would be concerned about co-operation rates and maybe introducing propensity bias (i.e. you may end up with too many 'light' consumers). We have clients who want/demand customised product usage recency questions in return for financial co-operation - in a TV panel that data quickly becomes irrelevant if not wrong and misleading. Despite this potential misgivings ... a really nice idea!
One more factor we have to remember is the distinction between a campaign and any given commercial exposure in the campaign. Most advertisers try to evaluate the effectiveness of their total ad campaigns as they garner awareness, build momentum and then level off or wear out. Invariably, any per-exposure measurement will show a diminishing effect over time, as regards the ad's ability to build awareness and selling power, even though the campaign, in its entirety, is performing as expected----mainly by reinforcing the convictions of those it has motivated. This being the case, I think that any new audience measurement that attempts to improve upon what we have now--- primitive demos----should focus on the media targeting aspect, more so than on ROI, as the latter is very difficult to handle on a per-exposure basis. Among the new metrics I would regard as critical, the most important, aside from product usage/interest, would be the mindset of the viewer. Is the viewer into quality, ecology, health/fitness, convenience, self image concerns, etc. or is price the primary motivator? Mindsets such as these are frequently the basis of product positioning and creative treatment ploys in TV campaigns and these cut across demos, in many cases. It would be a fairly simple matter to define the mindsets of any TV rating panel, then produce ratings for each show or channel by mindset grouping as well as product user and demo segments. MRI and Simmons both have such indicators in their studies, but these are rarely used in TV time buying as they are dated and the information for many shows is lacking.
People are attracted to a discourse of discourse, of destruction - boom goes the building - controversy, sex, lies and video tapes. The blathering doesn't have to be true, just tintalating, riling, and feed the fodder. Religion has been doing this since the first person banged a stick on a rock to scare away a predator. It's all based on fear and hate for power and control of the purse.
* Do not allow any kinds of advertisements on that portal no matter what. * Security, real tight IT security so the information cannot be tracked for any purpose outside of the office. Shared results with coordinating doctors must have the same rules. Data collected and used cannot be tracked back to the patient and the patient's contact info is completely sealed.
Triple posting the same comment... Were you just watching a play about multiple commenting syndrome? Just taking the piss, as is my wont.
Cheers/George "AdScam" Parker
Maybe the issue is that there isn't much ROI. That wouldn't be surprising. Doesn't mean the medium isn't useful - it's just nowhere near the panacea that the venture capital funded hype claimed it would be. After all, consumers DON'T want to be a brand's friend... They wan to be their friend's friend.
The networks have more fear of being wrong that getting it right. All the programs moving back a half hour wouldn't collapse their numbers as much as they think they would and therefore not devalue their spots. Wonder how much backroom dickering was done with other super powers.
I'm with you John. Average minute audience is critical for true comparability, and server-based measurement has lots of issues if it's the only measure. We still need to have gold standard panel data, no matter how much direct measurement we utilize.
I totally agree Dave. But with one caveat. That we continue with "Average Minute Audience" as the most core and basic measure. We do not want to go down the 'count the streams' route of the interactive world. Sure that data can be utilised, but it needs to be average minute. Buyers and advertisers, not knowing when a broadcast ad will occur, rely on the average as a 'fair bet' of what audience their ad can get (if only their creative was as good as the programme). We also can't rely on 'machine-based' metrics - we can use them but not rely on them - to provide viewing data.
Dear Adam & MediaPost:
Given all the facts that were not at your disposal when you wrote your article, I would consider preparing a new, complete, and comprehensive article -- and not just an edit to correct your factual errors of commission and omission. Sincerely, Nicholas P Schiavone - The national viewers of PBS and the Hispanic Networks await your thoughtful and responsible response.
Adam: Your article left out a few critical facts about what the Broadcast Networks did and didn't do last night, Thursday, November 20. In addition to overlooking the broadcast network coverage by the PBS NewsHour at 8 PM ET, you also failed to reflect the interests of another "minority" audience: Spanish-speaking Americans. Just read TVNEWSER or talk to Nielsen:
Obama Immigration Remarks Draw 6.8M on Spanish-Language TV
By Chris Ariens on November 21, 2014 3:15 PM
Pres. Obama’s immigration remarks drew 6.85 million viewers on two Spanish-language U.S. TV networks last night, according to Nielsen overnight time-period data.
With 5.055 million viewers, Univision saw a +49% increase in viewership from Wednesday’s 8pm half hour, while NBCU-owned Telemundo’s 1.8 million viewers was a jump of +38% from the night earlier.
With a 2.1 rating and a 9 share in the A18-34 demo, Unvision was second only to CBS’s “The Big Bang Theory” in the half hour. It was fourth in total viewers, behind CBS, ABC and NBC.
The broadcast networks chose not to carry network-wide special reports at 8pmET, but that didn’t stop many local stations in big markets from producing their own specials. That alone will dent the national ratings, especially for NBC and ABC. (Final numbers will be released Tuesday.) FOX, too, will see an effect as many stations in big markets carried a Shepard Smith-anchored report" (from the FOX News Networks).
Another interesting note for Univision, following the president’s remarks, anchor Jorge Ramos wrapped up the news at 8:18pm. At that point the network moved on to the Latin Grammy Awards broadcast. The 8:30pm half hour actually lost viewers: from an average of 5.055 million to an average of 4.799 million. The younger demos (18-49 and 18-34) also each dropped one tenth of a ratings point from 8 to 8:30pm.
Program: Viewers (Millions) / A18-49 / A18-34
The Big Bang Theory (CBS)….14.647 / 4.0 / 2.6
Informe Especial (Univision)……5.055 / 2.2 / 2.1
Grey’s Anatomy (ABC)………….8.242 / 2.3 / 1.8
Bones (FOX)……………………..5.001 / 1.3 / 0.9
The Vampire Diaries (CW)……..1.721 / 0.8 / 0.8
The Biggest Loser (NBC)………5.324 / 1.3 / 0.7
Accion Ejecutiva (Telemundo)…1.800 / 0.7 / 0.5
I think there's a reason that it is hard to read, it's because (for CPG's, grocery especially) the ROI (a term I hate) isn't really there. There are no reliable data to shove into an already collinearity-laden Marketing Mix. I can see a person measuring it in the right environment, but as soon as you try that methodology somewhere else, it falls apart. Either that, or the whole subject is about to burst, like so many bubbles before. Then the ARF conferences will be bereft of content!
He is in it for the money for himself. Period.