TV political advertising data, available to the public at TV stations and at the Federal Communications Commission, will now be available online -- much to the chagrin of TV stations. In an effort to secure easier public access and to “increase transparency," the FCC has instituted the new rules. It would apply to the top four network affiliates -- ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox -- in the top 50 markets. Other stations will have to comply in two years. But broadcasters say this puts them at a disadvantage -- revealing specific ad rates and details to its competitors, including local cable ad selling groups. Much of this political advertising information had been available in paper form at TV stations since 2002; other so-called “public files” have been available since 1965. Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications for the National Association of Broadcasters, stated: "By forcing broadcasters to be the only medium to disclose on the Internet our political advertising rates, the FCC jeopardizes the competitive standing of stations that provide local news, entertainment, sports and life-saving weather information free of charge to tens of millions of Americans daily." Broadcasters had been vying for an alternative plan -- in the wake of these coming rule changes. It offered more general political advertising details, such as which candidates or groups are buying political advertising, as well as total advertising costs. But broadcasters did not want to reveal specific individual spots costs. Stations are not required to post any older political data online -- just new information going forward. Smaller stations can seek a waiver based on hardship or other reasons.
Ads and messaging in and around smart/Internet-connected TVs can make for a greater impact with consumers. A study conducted in the U.K. says there is an 86% brand lift when it comes to brands exposed to ads on smart TV platforms. Concerning “awareness," 68% of users exposed to ads on smart TV platforms noticed the messaging, with a third of those in the survey clicking through. Rovi Corp., a company that provides electronic program guides and other interactive tools to TV set makers and other entertainment companies, conducted the research. There is higher ad engagement on smart TVs -- two in five connected TV viewers exposed to smart TV ads claimed to have watched the video featured on the brand's microsite, with 79% of ad viewers claiming to have subsequently participated in other product or brand-related activities. When it comes to purchase intent: 47% of connected TV viewers exposed to ads on smart TVs claim they will ask for new information about products. The study says intent to purchase was 2.5 times higher compared to a non-exposed control sample. The “reach” factor: the study says ads on select platforms delivered 6% incremental reach in addition to traditional media channels.
Hammers and nails, small furry animals and toys, and perhaps some beer and pizza -- that’s what we are thinking about while watching some cable networks with strong advertising messaging. DIY Network, PBS Kids Sprout and NFL Network are the top networks when it comes to viewers who are “more likely to buy products advertised on a network," according to a new study. DIY led with a 35% number, followed closely by PBS Kids Sprout at 34% and NFL Network at 33% -- according to Beta Research. All this compares much more favorably to the average broadcast network, which the survey says garnered an 18% score. Other channels that scored well include Food Network (31%); Disney XD (30%); Nick Jr. (30%); HGTV (29%); G4 (28%); and Nat Geo Wild (28%). Beta Research says some big documentary/reality networks score best as overall view favorites: History earned a 56% score; Discovery Channel, 55%; National Geographic Channel, 52%; Food Network, 50%; H2 (History International), 50%; and ESPN, 49%. The average broadcast network takes in a 40% number. What networks do viewers want to see on their smartphones, tablets or computers? NFL Networks was at 36%; Disney XD, 33%; PBS Kids Sprout, 32%; ESPN, 31%; and ESPN News, 31%.
Car-service company GroundLink is looking to build national awareness by appealing to the secret agent that lives within every person who might use its service. “We all have a secret agent on the inside,” Seth Lasser, chief marketing officer of GroundLink, tells Marketing Daily. “That’s who we’re trying to appeal to.” Two videos, which are currently online and will begin appearing on media in local markets this summer, introduce Dan, “a financial planner, devoted husband, father and part-time secret agent for the federal government.” The first 90-second video (which has also been cut down into a television -- and Internet -- video-friendly 30-second clip) shows Dan getting dropped off at his office, entering a GroundLink car and jetting off to exotic locales to fight crime (while also consulting with clients about financial issues). The video also shows him using the company’s mobile app to order a car and track its progress, so he can escape a hail of bullets into a GroundLink car. A second video, which will live online only, further explores Dan’s secret agent side. In the piece, three burly men abduct Dan into a windowless van. Saying one of his partners gave him up, the villains reveal their plans to dump him in the desert, surrounded by “a few hundred miles of unforgiving terrain.” During their monologue, Dan surreptitiously uses his phone to summon a car to meet him at the distant locale. When it does, the bad guys are only left to mutter, “Who the f--- is GroundLink?” The approach, which Lasser describes as “bold, savvy and a little witty,” is meant to bring some excitement and a memorable hook to a category that doesn’t have much traction in consumers’ minds, he says. “We’re trying to create a brand in a large industry [where] there haven’t been strong brands,” he says. “When you communicate a car service, it can fall flat.” In addition to running online and in local spot markets, the company plans on running the ads on the Captivate Network in elevators and they will “live in the social sphere,” Lasser says, teasing them on Facebook and Twitter.
According to Journal Communications, which publishes the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel among other newspapers, total revenues fell 1.9% to $82.3 million in the first quarter of 2012. This was due to a 9% decrease in publishing revenue to $38 million over this period, more than offsetting a 5.4% increase in Journal’s broadcast revenues to $44.4 million. Within the publishing division, revenue declines were spread across all the major advertising categories, with retail down 9%, classifieds down 17.1% and interactive down 1.6%. Revenue from community newspapers and shoppers fell 22.2% to $5 million. Total circulation revenues fell 2% to $12.3 million. Revenue from Journal’s radio stations increased 1.5% to $14.9 million. As noted, Journal is just the latest in a series of newspaper publishers reporting weak results. Gannett Co. saw total publishing revenues decline 6% to $874 million in the first quarter of 2012. This was due largely to an 8.3% decline in advertising revenues to $551 million, with retail ad revenue down 7.6%, national ad revenue down 13.3% and classifieds down 6.6%. Within Gannett’s U.S. classifieds business, automotive slipped 2.4%, employment was down 1.5%, and real estate tumbled 14.2%. The New York Times Co. saw total advertising revenues slip 8.1% to $238 million, including a 6.1% drop at its news media group. NYTCO’s national ad revenues dropped 6% to $146 million, while retail slid 0.8% to $34.3 million, and classifieds tumbled 10% to $30.3 million. Within NYTCO classifieds category, automotive fell 7.4%, employment 5.5%, and real estate 16.9%. On the plus side, the decline in ad revenues was mostly offset by increased circulation revenues from NYTCO’s online paywalls at The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Boston Globe. Finally, Media General saw total revenues increase slightly, growing 0.4% to $150 million, due to improved results from its broadcast TV stations and online properties. These were mostly offset by a decline in print ad revenues. Print ad revenues fell at the Richmond Times-Dispatch and Media General’s Charlottesville group, with classifieds down 12%, national down 1% and local down 2.8% in this market segment.
Happy Friday, folks! Today's VideoDaily Roundup starts with a skeptical take on video's Digital Content NewFronts. Next, reports claim that a major investor is preparing to offload its Hulu stake for $200 million. Next up are several reasons why it's too soon to write off Netflix -- and finally, TubeMogul beats the RTV video drum. Wieser: NewFronts Notwithstanding, Digital Video Still a Drop in TV’s Bucket Amid all the hoopla surrounding this week’s Digital Content NewFronts, sometimes it takes a sobering perspective to bring us back down to earth. In his weekly Online Spin column, Dave Morgan -- who sold behavioral targeting pioneer Tacoda to AOL in 2007 -- points to a number of observations by Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research about the TV and video markets this year. For starters, Wieser believes that TV will have a strong upfront, despite all the concerns over shrinking audiences and attention spans, because alternatives to big TV ad buys (including cable) are still some time away. This is mostly because buyers, who depend on TV’s scale and ease of use, don’t have anywhere else to turn to. Moreover, Web video isn’t big enough -- or growing fast enough -- to matter to them, Wieser says: at under $2 billion last year, online video is less than 2 percent of TV spending. And when you look past the numbers of Hulu and Google’s YouTube, which combined account for nearly 40 percent of the online video ad market, the rest of the industry only grew 10 to 20 percent last year. In other words, Wieser doesn’t expect the digital video spending to realistically dent TV’s advertising hegemony anytime soon. Providence Equity to Sell Hulu Stake at $2 Billion ValuationBloomberg reports that Hulu stakeholder Providence Equity Partners, which owns 10 percent of the joint video venture, is preparing to sell its stake to principal owners News Corp, Comcast Corp, and Walt Disney Co for $200 million. This is a price that values the company at $2 billion, according to unnamed insiders, who added that Providence originally invested $100 million when Hulu launched in 2007, and that the media company owners will also allow Hulu employees --including CEO Jason Kilar -- to sell some shares. Both Hulu and Providence Equity declined to comment on the story. Don't Count Netflix Out- Yet Netflix can still win, says paidcontent.org.'s Daniel Frankel -- but after this week's 15 percent slide, he warns that investors have finally woken up to Netflix's limited earnings potential. The company faces all kinds of competition in the streaming entertainment business: Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, HBO Go, Verizon, Redbox's forthcoming streaming service, and various other TV Everywhere offerings. But investors may have overreacted, too, Frankel says. For starters, Netflix has an early lead as the most proliferated over-the-top programming provider. From apps on Xboxes and Wiis to smart TVs that come with remote control featuring dedicated Netflix buttons, the company is on every screen, it seems. Frankel adds that Latin America expansion is a huge opportunity, and even though it has been delayed, it will be worth the effort, because Netflix will be the first streaming service to market there. Frankel also points out that the content situation is better than it looks. Right now, the company is enduring a lean period in terms of big movies being available on its service, he says -- but in Q2 several of the content deals it recently purchased with the likes of The Weinstein Company, DreamWorks, and Epix, will start bearing fruit, and could help Netflix get its mojo back. TubeMogul Claims to be Largest Buyer of Real-Time VideoTechCrunch was one of the few industry pubs to report on the new statistics that TubeMogul released earlier this week in which it claimed to be the biggest buyer of real-time video ads. That message was corroborated by several big sellers, including LiveRail and Google, who said that TubeMogul was either their biggest -- or one of their biggest -- buyers. According to the most recent comScore Video Metrix report, TubeMogul’s ads were viewed 537 million times in March, reaching 16 percent of the U.S. population, which is more than sites like Hulu or ESPN. It’s also the only company on comScore’s list that is focused entirely on real-time video buying. TubeMogul’s last big claim was that every auto and media company in the Fortune 100 list had run a campaign on its platform in the last year.
Television never ceases to amaze me. Just when I think I’ve seen it all, along comes a new drama series about a masseuse that features happy endings in every episode. Then another show, one that couldn’t be more different and is widely regarded as one of the best in the history of the medium, offers up a hand job of its own. The first of these is Lifetime’s “The Client List,” about a woman starting over after her husband leaves her and their two small children. It’s actually a decent little show, even with a dramatic component some might call naughty, if not indecent. Jennifer Love Hewitt brings the unparalleled ability to cry on cue and look beautiful doing it that she perfected on “The Ghost Whisperer” to her role as Riley Parks, a Texas wife and mother who suddenly finds herself in dire financial straits and takes a job as a “therapist” at an upscale “spa” known as The Rub of Sugarland. Before the first episode was over, Riley learned that there was much more money to be made at work if she were willing to offer her male clients “special treatment.” Fortunately, all of them to date (at least those the audience has seen) have been well-built, handsome, smart, sensitive guys, which must make the task at hand somewhat easier to, um, handle. Riley isn’t just good with her hands; she’s also a caring and sensitive listener and pleased to offer the men on her table some friendly advice about how to fix whatever is wrong in their lives (most of their problems involve women). This part of the show is nicely balanced with her home life, which is shared with her two children, her mother and her brother-in-law, a swell guy who does all he can to help Riley and the kids after his brother bolts. It’s impossible to talk about this show without making it sound sleazy and ridiculous, but the truth is it often feels as warm and wholesome as a Hallmark Channel movie. Further elevating “The Client List” is its fine supporting cast, which includes a nicely understated Cybill Shepherd as Riley’s mom, Loretta Devine as her boss and Colin Egglesfield as her brother-in-law, plus hunk-of-the-week guest stars who are required to strip, lie down and let Jennifer Love Hewitt move her hands all around their bodies. I imagine a guest shot on this show is currently one of the more sought-after jobs in Hollywood for every young male actor (and maybe a few older ones, too). There isn’t another show quite like “The Client List” anywhere on television. As adult as it is, it never feels salacious or vulgar, perhaps because Riley never takes things beyond the hand action, and she’s just so sweet and sincere about it all. If it were on pay cable, “The Client List” would probably go too far and lose whatever easygoing entertainment value it has. Conversely, if it were watered down for broadcast there would be nothing much to talk about here. But it gets the basic-cable balance is just right. All that said, a collective three weeks' worth of happy endings on “The Client List” haven’t been nearly as impactful as the handy a stoned Peggy gave that guy in the striped pants during a matinee of “Born Free” in last Sunday’s episode of “Mad Men.” (Thankfully, we saw her washing her hands afterwards.) Roger and Jane’s life-altering adventure with LSD was a trip, and there was something absolutely epic about Don and Megan’s marital meltdown at that Howard Johnson’s (and their rough runaround later at their apartment). But it was the sequence in which Peggy sought refuge in a movie theater during a very bad day at the office that stretched the ol’ content barrier. As the scene began, I was briefly transported back to the Saturday afternoon in 1966 when my friends and I went to see “Born Free” at the once glorious Community Theater in Fairfield, Conn. But as it continued, any memories about what it was like to watch “Born Free” at the movies were forever tainted by Peggy and her movie “companion.” After smoking a joint or two, the smell of which didn’t seem to offend or attract anyone else in the theater, Peggy added to the enjoyment of this stranger's movie-going experience -- right after Joy and George Adamson first released Elsa the lioness into the wild! To this day, just thinking about “Born Free” stirs a number of emotions in me, from sadness to compassion to sweet nostalgia. But after last Sunday’s episode of “Mad Men” it is entirely possible that thinking about “Born Free” is going to make me feel a little bit dirty, too.
This is a special time in the ad industry. What happens in the second quarter's upfronts will go a long way toward determining industry economics for the rest of the year. Now is when we will see whether the cyclically down first quarter will be a memory or a portent of the future. Now is when we see who who controls pricing in the $70 billion annual U.S. TV ad market, and who will leverage the subsequent spot market. Perhaps a preview can be seen in NBC’s asking almost $1 million for a 30-second spot in its new Thanksgiving-night NFL broadcast featuring the New England Patriots against Tim Tebow (er, I mean the New York Jets). This week was the coming-out party for Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Hulu and their Newfront to see if Web video can get a seat at the "adults table" within the context of the upfront market. What will have happened when this week and quarter play out? To answer that, I will borrow a Jack Welchism and try to look "at the market as it is, not just as we would like it to be." To do that, I will call on the analysis of the smartest observer of the ad market I have encountered, Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research. In his recent "Madison and Wall" Report, Brian had a number of observations on the current state of the ad market. Here are those that struck me as both sobering and on-target: TV will have a strong upfront. TV sellers will do well in this upfront, if for no other reason than the structure of the market continues to favor TV broadcast networks that can deliver large packages of audience reach. TV ad buyers and marketers are not yet ready to reduce this scarcity by better assessing the actual business outcomes they drive with these TV ad products. Alternatives to big TV ad buys are some time away. As Wieser sees it, TV ad buyers won't have leverage in the pricing and packaging of the TV ad inventory they buy until they have a "credible ability to walk away." Today, no other medium, not even cable TV, has demonstrated the ability to deliver the same quantity and quality of audience reach as broadcast TV. Web video not big enough -- or growing fast enough -- to matter. While the category of online video is fast-growing, it was only $1.8 billion last year, less than 2% of the TV ad spend. And, as Wieser notes, if you look past the numbers for the two largest players in video advertising sales, Google's YouTube and Hulu, there is very little growth. The rest of the market only grew 10% to 20% in total last year. Online display in trouble. Wieser notes that when you look past search, video and mobile, the best thing you can say about the rest of the online ad market "is that it wasn't negative." The commoditization of display inventory, and the transparency that online ad buyers and marketers have into its actual value to drive business outcomes, has meant very little growth in display. You have to wonder how much that was a factor in super fast-growing Facebook's recent claim that its first quarter ad revenue (below its fourth quarter last year) was due to old-style cyclicality. Many of us would like to believe that the ad market is approaching a digitally driven "tipping point" that will empty buckets of TV ad spend into digital alternatives, and that the upfront market will collapse. Wieser doesn't see these events happening anytime soon. Do you?
For many years, broadcast viewer erosion due to cable grabbed big headlines. Now we lump all TV viewing together in one brew. That’s because there’s a new alternative in the land – those crazy digital video platforms looking to make hay. At first, we assumed digital video would foster continued viewer erosion for the old TV media. But those rumors were quickly quashed. TV executives said the reverse was true -- the Internet was helping viewership grow by functioning as a marketing tool, most recently through social media. Now we might be focusing on erosion again for one particular demographic: young kids. More than a few analysts have recognized that these viewers like watching the same stuff over and over. Enter Netflix. It seems that Netflix has caused some lowering of traditional kids’ TV viewership – with Viacom’s Nickelodeon in particular, and perhaps with a few other places. Right now Netflix is having some real issues according to some media analysts. They wonder if it is going to be around past the next couple of years. "Turns out, Netflix Streamers watch just as much traditional TV as Non-Streamers," Todd Juenger, a former TiVo ad exec who’s now a Sanford C. Bernstein analyst, wrote recently. "However, there is a significant share shift among Streamers. Kids' networks (not just Nickelodeon) and syndicated shows are getting severely whacked." Should one be worried that slightly older TV viewers might go in the same direction? No. As consumers get older, they realize they can get bored easily. Everyone wants new stuff. We might now be entering a new experimental stage in the TV-to-digital business transformation. According to Juenger, that means companies like Viacom and Disney may reverse their strategy and leave Netflix, costing them each some $75 million a year. That sends a new signal in this marketplace: We tried to make stuff available everywhere. But some of our services are eating into others. That’s not good. We only wanted to do business with the likes of Netflix if it is additive. We don’t like subtraction. We don’t like erosion. It’s not TV Everywhere. It’s TV Almost Everywhere.
CIMM is taking a proactive role in advancing new media nomenclature and processes with both its Lexicon(terms and definitions associated with return-path-data measurement) and Asset Identification Primer (glossary of asset terms). These documents form the basis of this column, which offers a common language for RPD nomenclature that can expedite the rollout of the data for its many industry applications. For cable operators, the return-path transfer of the data is done via the Internet. The speed by which the data transfer occurs depends on the amount of available bandwidth. The greater the bandwidth for this process, the faster the transmission. But bandwidth is used for a variety of deliverable services – content, internet access, VOD – and the use of bandwidth for certain services will use up bandwidth for other services. Solutions to managing bandwidth include Qip Boxes and QAM Tuners. Both are defined below. It should be noted that telecos, which also use data connections, and satcos, whose upstream data can come from either phone lines, the internet or an upstream satellite connection, also must grapple with the issue of bandwidth optimization although not necessarily via Qip or QAM. Qip BoxesSee also: QAM, Internet Protocol CIMM DEFINITION : A hybrid Set-Top Box from Motorola that offers QAM and IP at the same time and connects through the internet. QAM abbr Quadrature Amplitude Modulation CIMM DEFINITION: A method of modulating digital signals onto a radio-frequency carrier signal involving both amplitude and phase coding. A modulation scheme used by telecommunications providers. More advanced modulation offers increased capacity (e.g., 256 QAM offers greater capacity/transmission speeds than 64 QAM). (Source: CableLabs) 2: The format by which digital cable channels are encoded and transmitted via cable television providers. QAM tuners can be likened to the cable equivalent of an ATSC tuner which is required to receive over-the-air (OTA) digital channels broadcast by local television stations; many new cable-ready digital televisions support both of these standards. (Source: Wikipedia) QAM TunerSee also: Bandwidth Optimization, Switched Digital Video CIMM DEFINITION: A device in some digital televisions or other devices that enables direct reception of any unscrambled digital cable channels with the use of a Set-Top Box. QAM stands for quadrature amplitude modulation, the format by which digital cable channels are encoded and transmitted via cable television providers. QAM that uses 6 MHz bandwidth carries 38.47 Mbp/s @256QAM (Source: Wikipedia) Definition currently under review by CableLabs. Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
National advertisers this time of year might be feeling the push and pull of networks promising fresher, original material. This provides the patina of more value for marketers -- though not always. Network upfront presentations talk up lots of stuff. But with almost any cable network, one refrain keeps coming: “We are increasing our original programming development.” You don't hear this cry from broadcast networks. It’s assumed they will offer new programming every year -- either from returning or new series. What you don't hear about during upfront presentations are all the reruns those networks will air during the course of a season. Mind you, cable networks also rerun tons of programming in prime-time slots -- including shows that originally aired on broadcast networks like "NCIS," "Big Bang Theory," "The Office" and "House." Oxygen, Bravo and TNT are just some of the networks saying they’ll increase original programming to as high as 50% for the upcoming season. Digital video platforms that are also TV/video wannabes -- like AOL, Yahoo, YouTube and Netflix -- are talking up their original programming efforts, most of which have been disclosed during their “Newfront” presentations. Nothing is wrong with repeat programming. While original programs grab the headlines, cable network reruns are the financial backbone of their operations. Broadcast networks do their part as well. CBS, for example, gets the best results of all broadcast networks by re-airing programs. This is one reason -- along with good-performing first-run series episodes -- why national advertisers like CBS’ consistency. For all networks, reruns – including time-shifted programming -- will be the bedrock of new digital business. For its part, the co-owners of CW say a deal to re-air programming on Netflix will make the network instantly profitable. And reruns can be of big value digitally. Advertisers wind up paying three to four times the cost per thousand (CPM) for shows that have already aired on traditional TV (but with lower out-of-pocket total cost). And there’s another factor to consider with reruns: Sometimes less original programming on networks makes us want it that much more. How many years was “Mad Men” off the air -- only to come back to record ratings? Viewers and advertisers need to pick their spots.