Nielsen continues to evaluate problems that impacted results for the May sweeps period, including errors in the diary printing process, sources said. The misprinting affected how people could properly fill out the documents, which are the sole ratings drivers in 150-plus local markets. The data collection for the May sweeps was also affected by issues with Nielsen’s call center operations, where employees interact with diary users and look to ensure that they fill out the material properly. Frustrated station executives have complained to Nielsen and issues were discussed at a Media Rating Council (MRC) meeting on Wednesday. May sweeps data is still coming out, so it may be some time before the full extent of the problems -- such as how many misprinted diaries were distributed -- is known. Nielsen, however, says it made adjustments in a timely enough fashion so that May sweeps data is sound and station executives can be assured that ratings are reliable. “Nielsen ensures that any data provided to clients meet or exceed the requirements set by the industry for representative results,” the company said in a statement. The MRC is looking into the matter and its CEO George Ivie said in an email that the organization has asked Nielsen for various data involving the May sweeps. The MRC revoked accreditation for the Nielsen diary-only measurement service in late 2010, and a Nielsen appeal was turned aside. Nielsen pins some of the blame on issues encountered while trying to improve the diary system. Areas include communications with households and “upgrading the recruitment calling platform,” the company said. Wayne Friedman contributed to this story.
Every image tells a story on television, but not a complete picture without real-time tweets connecting TV with online, says Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, speaking at Cannes Lions. The biggest challenge, it seems, is that broadcast TV needs a dependable partner -- but by Thursday the added tweet volume from the ad festival appears to have sent the site offline. Earlier in the week, the site boasted that there were more than 15,000 online posts across social media referencing #CannesLions, with 95% coming from Twitter. On Thursday, as of 12:40 EST, the site went offline. Remember #failwhale? Broadcast TV needs a reliable social media partner. While it all began with lower thirds serving up at the bottom of TV screens during broadcasts, Twitter pushed the concept of using the site to bring TV viewers online and connect them with other socialites to create a community in real-time. A producer's guide explaining best practices for connecting TV audience through tweets went up on the Twitter's site in early June. TV shows have tapped the social site to raise ratings. The company developed an analytics package to track the continuous tweets during television broadcasts. The sharp spikes correspond to major moments in a show. Last year, Twitter and technology partners stepped up following tweets to TV, bringing real-time content to TV shows. But the interaction between viewers and TV content presents another dynamic that makes the big screen more relevant to marketers. Costolo also said Twitter would begin offering promoted advertising in 50 additional markets this year, reducing its reliance on revenue from the U.S. Twitter's worldwide ad revenue should rise 86.3% to nearly $260 million -- up from $139 million in 2011 -- and $45 million in 2010, eMarketer estimates. About 90% of Twitter's revenue comes from the United States, but this year, $26 million in ad revenue could come from overseas, the research firm said. Earlier this week, Twitter introduced Cards, making it possible to attach media to tweets that link to content through a few lines of HTML code on the Web site. A "Card" is added when site visitors tweet links to the content. It automatically attributes content to the site. There are three types of Cards: summary, photo and player.
Jiffy Lube is launching the first franchisee-funded national ad campaign in more than two decades. The campaign for the Houston-based retailer emphasizes the brand's mission to help make vehicle preventive maintenance a worry-free experience. Created by JWT Atlanta, with media buying handled by Mindshare, the integrated campaign includes TV, radio, print, digital and social media components. The digital activation includes strategic buys on top online properties such as MLB.com and MSNBC.com to coincide with the 2012 Olympic Games. Additional activations will follow and the campaign creative is available to Jiffy Lube franchisees to support local marketing efforts. Insight used in developing the campaign was gathered from drivers to help shape campaign direction and to help inform about changes to the businesses. The company recently completed a system-wide store re-image program to create a more modern and comfortable customer experience. Additional changes are being implemented to support the Jiffy Lube commitment to worry-free car care. For example, a new Jiffy Lube pledge -- which outlines the "Leave Worry Behind" promise -- is now clearly visible in service centers across North America. The brand will also expand its social media presence with a new Jiffy Lube Facebook page, designed to provide fans with helpful tips and information, and to more directly engage with customers and solicit feedback in real-time. With drivers holding on to their cars longer, preventive maintenance is more important than ever, said Jeffrey Lack, Director of Brand Marketing for Jiffy Lube International. "Jiffy Lube wants to be the provider for drivers looking to maintain their vehicle and keep their ride on the road for the long-haul,” Lack said in a release. “The new 'Leave Worry Behind' campaign hits on just that -- the Jiffy Lube commitment to providing a high-quality, worry-free service experience that gives customers peace-of-mind, and reassures them that we get the job done right."
Watching paid video content on mobile devices is climbing -- but gaming consoles remain the overall leader when looking at all new digital devices.Now, 29% of consumers watch paid content on a handheld device, while viewing on laptop/desktop computers has declined to 39% from 48% in 2011, according to J.D. Power and Associates Reports.Tablets are the most popular. The study finds that 18% of consumers use tablets for viewing paid video content, up from 11% a year ago. Mobile phone usage is not far behind -- 16% of consumers have been watching video on phones, an improvement from 14% in 2011.The study also notes that nearly one-fourth (23%) of customers view paid content via gaming consoles, compared to those who view paid content via handheld devices (29%).Overall gaming consoles continue to be a high usage device when viewing video -- 6.3 hours per week, compared with 5.3 hours on a laptop/desktop, 4.9 hours on a wireless phone, 4.5 hours on a music player, and 4.4 hours on a tablet. “These findings illustrate that while customers appreciate the convenience and value that gaming consoles provide, the TV screen is still a preferred viewing media,” stated Frank Perazzini, director of telecommunications at J.D. Power and Associates.“On the other hand, average viewing times for mobile devices and computers are likely impacted by battery life and screen size," he noted.Overall satisfaction with pay-to-view video service providers averages 750 -- on a 1,000-point scale -- up from 743 in 2011.
We all know it was Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and one or two others that got the social media wagon rolling. The first two dominate both share of mind and huge shares of active users in the space today. But why should they be allowed to have it all their own way? Why isn’t there room for a little fragmentation? Presumably, that was the question asked and answered by Louise Mensch, a Conservative Party Member of Parliament in the UK. Having gained a high profile as a result of her tweets, the otherwise minor political figure has launched the almost-eponymous “Menshn” (pronounced “mention”) -- a social-media venture that focuses conversation on specific issues. As referenced in MediaPost's Online Media Daily Europe last Tuesday, the service is currently available in the U.S. and the subject for discussion is the election. It is expected to be up and running in the UK in time to host Olympic discussions. Leaving aside what might perhaps be seen as an irony -- a Twitter copycat being established by someone who, at best, has had a very public love-hate relationship with Twitter and its users (she uses it, she’s called for it to be shut down, she’s been the target of abuse via Twitter etc.) -- there is an interesting notion lurking here. Menshn’s biggest challenge, of course, will not be to get people talking about either the election or the Olympics. It will be to engage in any of that discussion within its domain (having forty more characters to play with than on Twitter is unlikely to do the job). However, the idea of content-related social domains is something that has occurred to me before. Whether sports, news, politics or entertainment-related, there are major media brands (and maybe others) that have the audience, the content rights and the pulling power to have a pretty good shot at convening their own social networks around subjects and vehicles that have already proven their worth. We already know, for example, that food is basically the new rock 'n' roll in TV programming terms and that it’s one of the most popular subjects in social media. Just look at Pinterest, Facebook and how Twitter lights up when "Next Food Network Star" or "Iron Chef America" is on. Why hasn’t Scripps sought to capture this? It could put together a fully-fledged, Food Network-wide social hub that leverages the audience desire for involvement, the ability to provide additional content and engagement beyond the broadcast and – of course – the opportunity to create and leverage new online inventory. The same could be said of the home décor side of things on HGTV. ESPN could grab this one by the throat and own it for sport. Various news channels could go the same way. Some prime-time drama and comedy might even have the legs to make a go of the idea. The tools to make this sort of thing come together are no longer complex or expensive (if they ever were). All that’s needed is the imagination and a bit of creative thinking to bring the “Conversation” back to where the content comes from in the first place. And a few bright college graduates in the team probably wouldn’t go amiss. Certainly, plenty of dialogue will always continue outside of any one social space. But if broadcasters are looking to monetize social media, I’d be prepared to bet they’ll get there faster and achieve a better rate of return than only using Facebook, et al. After all, if a minor UK politician can at least launch something in her spare time, just think what major media brands with marketing and management talent and an array of content rights could do. And remember, back in the dot-com days, broadcasters were written off by Yahoo, AOL, Netscape and the rest as dinosaurs that were doomed to extinction in the face of the Web. That obviously never came to pass; major media owners have simply embraced the Web as part of what they do. Maybe we can expect a similar evolutionary process to happen with regard to social media and the rise of Own-Label Social Networks.
Los Angeles-based IC Places Inc. has agreed to acquire Hollywood-based Punch Television Networks, including TV stations, licenses and rights to all TV programming on its roster. The deal is expected to close the first week of July, and Punch TV Network President Joseph Collins will become CEO of IC, and will become joint chairman of its board along side current IC President-Chairman Steven Samblis.
I wonder if “The Glass House” will actually last through the summer, or if it will become such an embarrassment that ABC might pull it off air and let it play out online (or, perhaps worse, move it from its current Monday time period to the wasteland of Saturday night). It’s been a while since I have referred to a so-called reality series as truly “toxic.” I mean, given the mountain of unscripted product out there, much of it trash, it seems near-ridiculous to single one out as somehow worse than the rest and label it poisonous. But this cruddy clone of CBS’ sporadically absorbing human zoo series “Big Brother” is that bad. Sometimes all it takes is one episode for a series to make clear that it has absolutely nothing exciting, engaging or entertaining to offer. There was no questioning the absence of these qualities or the potential for their eventual development in the show I watched Monday night. There was, however, much to question about the current thinking at two networks. I couldn’t help but wonder what ABC sees in “The Glass House,” and I couldn’t understand why CBS was so worked up about ABC’s decision to go forward with it. I would think someone in the ABC or Disney hierarchy would have stepped up to kill “Glass House” after getting a good look at it, if only to preserve the integrity of the network and its relationship with the television audience. And I would think CBS, upset from the beginning that another network was producing a variation of one of its signature shows, would have waited to see the show itself before pursuing legal action. Take comfort, CBS: “The Glass House” will very likely suffer and die without the involvement of your legal department. Further, it makes ABC look bad, and it makes your own “Big Brother” look glorious by comparison, so it’s a win for you all the way around. That said, the big fuss about “The Glass House” and its similarities to “Big Brother” begs the question: Since when is it unusual, let alone potentially unlawful, for a television network to develop programming that bears a ridiculously close resemblance to other shows? Remember all those copies of “Friends”? How about all those talent competition shows with affable hosts and three-judge panels that came along after “American Idol” became an instant phenomenon? Why, it was only two years ago that CBS offered up a live daily talk series in which five women sit around a table discussing the hottest topics of the day and interviewing celebrity guests. I don’t recall ABC kicking up a fuss and declaring that the CBS series was too much like its own live daily talk series in which five women sit around a table discussing the hottest topics of the day and interviewing celebrity guests. Here’s the 411 for those readers smart enough to have not watched “The Glass House”: It offers the sorry spectacle of people (14 at the start) living in a house-like structure located on a soundstage and filled with cameras and microphones. They are cut off from the outside world, except for feedback from viewers. They get information from graphics on a flat screen and take orders from a disembodied female voice (like Mother in “Alien,” but not as much fun). “She” sets them to participate in challenges designed to land the loser in “limbo.” At the end of each installment, the players determine who else should be in limbo, and then the home audience decides which of the two will stay and which one must suffer the obligatory painful elimination that keeps reality competition shows moving along. “The Glass House” is the most miserable and depressing new broadcast series of the summer season, if not the year to date. (It makes even those dumb dating shows on Fox look good.) Adding to its unpleasantness is a player who wants to be known as “the most epic villain in the history of reality TV.” Well, he’s a long way from that, but he’s already in the running for biggest douche. He’s a 25-year-old bail bondsman from Dallas named Alex who refers to himself as Primetime 99 Alex Stein. Right from the start Alex sets out to be nasty, goading people about their appearance, strutting about in particularly unflattering underpants and complaining about the smell of one competitor’s poop. (Yes, that’s happening this summer on ABC!) At the end of the first episode, Alex and his dimwitted pal Jacob, who hails from Oregon and didn’t realize his home state was located in the western portion of the United States, ended up in limbo – and even before viewers could vote one of them off the show, Jacob up and quit! (Maybe he isn’t so dumb after all.) Happily, the producers decided to keep Alex in limbo and to let viewers decide if they want him gone. At first blush, it might seem desirable that Primetime 99 Alex Stein get the boot next Monday. But that would mean once again letting him loose in the real world. If “The Glass House” is to have any true value this summer, it will be to keep this jack-hole off the streets for as long as possible.
For those enterprises still receiving substantial cash from the traditional television business model there is no need to question the issue of bundling – the packaging of large numbers of TV networks into a cable or satellite subscription. Traditional television producers (national broadcast and cable networks, local stations/channels) and distributors (Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, etc.) really have no desire to go to what they assume would be a less lucrative model -- one where consumers don’t pay for content they don’t watch, and advertisers don’t pay for ads that aren’t seen. Cable and satellite systems smartly offered bundled subscriptions to their customers from the get-go. With hundreds of cable networks to choose from, it would have been burdensome and technologically unwieldy in the 1980’s and 1990’s to sell pay-as-you-go, “a la carte” offerings. By bundling networks in different tiers (basic, sports, premium, pay cable) the cable/satellite operators could over-deliver content desired by viewers, and in turn promote sampling of networks the viewer might not know about. This built-in marketing engine increased the perceived value to consumers and justified rate increases every few years. The producers of content (cable networks, production studios) love this model, because they get paid for content by the distributors on a per-subscriber basis. So if a cable network was watched by only 10% of a cable system’s subscriber base each month, and ignored by 90%, they would still receive rights fees based on all subscribers. This gives content producers cost certainty with which to develop and produce programming. But in the emerging business model of T/V (Television/Video), it takes four to tango. Bundling works for 1) content producers and 2) distributors, but no longer serves today’s 3) media consumers and 4) advertisers. Consumers end up paying for networks they do not care about or watch. Bundling sustains the linear television approach where programming and its advertising are thrown up against the wall of network scheduling, and what sticks, sticks. Unfortunately for viewers and advertisers, what sticks and gains audience is a small proportion of the total universe of programming and ads paid for through subscriptions. Add the fact that cable and broadcast networks have continually expanded their commercial loads over the last 20 years, and we see how viewers now pay high tolls in terms of time and attention to get “free” content (which by the way is no longer free due to escalating subscription costs). Advertisers have tolerated this model over the years around the ideas that more supply would keep costs down, and because no one ever got fired for buying national or local television. Without commercial ratings, there is no reliable measure of how much channel switching and ad avoidance takes place in ever-expanding commercial breaks, allowing the media “emperors” to rarely be criticized by advertisers for their scanty “wardrobes." Yet linear ratings continue to decline. Consumers have long shown a desire for on-demand programming. The first “video on demand” platform -- video stores -- was neither digital nor electronic. Film and television viewers would pay $3-4 a night to select and rent a video they could view on their time schedule. The in-store experience of browsing for titles was for many their first “search engine” for media content. It was also the first time that the film and television industry could earn revenues after the scheduled run of a program. Advertising for the most part wasn’t part of the equation. Consumers were happy with more control over their viewing and the “long tail” was born. In the 1990s the internet arrived – seemingly out of nowhere – and soon search and on-demand information and entertainment delivery was available at levels never imagined, though only now is streaming and downloadable video truly viable due to increased bandwidth. Media consumers, particularly younger ones raised on the internet, love the instant gratification of clickable content. Now, consumer electronics manufacturers are building/marketing smart or “connected” TVs that along with ancillary gadgets like Roku are able to connect viewers to high-speed internet streaming. Content sellers like Amazon Plus, Netflix, Hulu and other OTT or “Over the Top” services, along with expected entries from Apple and Google, can bypass cable company subscription offerings a-la-carte and at lower total price points, with or without advertising. Meanwhile cable and satellite distributors have pressured their content suppliers to withhold programming from Netflix, Hulu and the like, and the U.S. Justice Department is investigating restraint of trade accusations against those distributors. As a counter-strategy, the OTT providers are beginning to develop original programming to compete. The infrastructure has shifted to the point where cord-cutting and movement to a VOD T/V world is possible. When consumer and advertiser demand catch up with what is possible, content providers and distributors will have no choice but to compete in a new, unbundled T/V world. I would offer that this is not the end of the world for media providers. An “a la carte” model would not necessarily be less lucrative for content producers and distributors. Adjustments would need to be made in the viewer payments and advertising costs for video-on-demand content delivery and verified interactive ad delivery respectively in order to sustain the quality content that consumers and advertisers demand. Since there would be greater value to both viewer and advertiser for actual delivery of the elements they want most, those cost increases would be justified and willingly paid. The win/win/win/win is that consumers/advertisers will pay higher per-consumption costs and benefit from a lower total aggregate spend, while producers/distributors will receive higher per-consumption payments. Lucrative revenues will be there for providers, tied to real media consumption rather than the current linear system where consumers and advertisers pay for programs and ads that are never seen.
The public airwaves and indecency: We all know where we stand on that. But do we know exactly what marketers think? For the most part they don't want to piss off customers, which can include parents and morally minded adults. The truth is that 90% of U.S TV homes get TV stations via paying for cable, satellite or telco. It's really about paid airwaves and indecency. If we are now paying these TV distributors and if those distributors are paying to carry TV stations, where is the “public” in all this? The Supreme Court has knocked down fines for "fleeting expletives" and "brief nudity," but that doesn't mean fines can't be levied in the future by the Federal Communications Commission. The high court said some previous transgressions have to do with the timing of the then newish FCC rules over "fleeting" stuff -- and even then, for the most part, those rules were "vague." So going forward, perhaps more stuff will be “specific” and more “timely.” But the key question remains: What is protected under the First Amendment? That wasn't addressed. Network executives were maybe quietly high five-ing on Thursday. But this isn't the end. Advocates say parents should be the deciding factor when it comes to what TV shows with sketchy content run in their homes. But what parents can be around TV and media 24/7? Where does that leave the FCC? Still as a monitoring, protection, and enforcement agency? In these times, that sounds vague to me. All this fuss still concerns a decreasingly small part of the media world. If you are a parent, perhaps you should worry about "fleeting" stuff on social media areas, YouTube and emails. And why just concentrate on broadcast TV when cable TV, video on demand, and subscription video on demand services (like Netflix) have been the real growing issue. Marketers have been leery of YouTube’s user-generated video because it's still the “wild West” to them, so they’ve given better play to online viewing of premium TV (consisting mostly of catch-up viewing of traditional TV series). Even with incredibly limited schedules, parents still need to be there for their children -- because difficult conversations are coming. I'm reminded of a story someone told me while walking on La Croisette in Cannes at one of the TV markets years ago. The first day of the event, a young boy walking with his father, a U.S. TV executive, is wide-eyed, amazed at the unclothed bodies on the beaches. The second day, and another stroll, the boy raised an eyebrow -- but no more reaction than that. By the time the third day came, he was merely shrugging his shoulders. Already jaded. Familiarity not only breeds contempt but sometimes boredom. This goes double for indecency.
Every year we get one of these: a high-rated new TV show that’s still canceled. This year's honor goes to CBS' "Unforgettable," starring Poppy Montgomery. At a healthy 12 million overall average viewers and a very decent 2.5 rating among key 18-49 viewers, it would seem a no-brainer to stay on the air. As a measure of comparison, very few individual episodes on cable TV networks have reached this lofty 12 million goal -- some Disney Channel "High School Musical" specials, The History Channel’s recent mini-series "Hatfields & McCoys," an ESPN "Monday Night Football" game. But you say: "Oh, that's cable. They have a dual-revenue stream. They can support lower-rated TV shows in general." But now so do network television series, with retransmission revenues that are growing. You might say, "network shows still cost more than show on cable networks." Yes, but the gap is getting smaller. Sure, there are obviously bad TV shows that are poorly produced and low-rated. But even those shows -- in retrospect -- always seem not so pathetic in the rear-view mirror. New shows replacing canceled network shows almost always do worse than the shows they replace. Why did CBS make this decision? Too many older viewers? Not enough upside trending of those remaining viewers? Advertiser rejection of some sort? CBS executives would only say that it wasn't what was wrong with "Unforgettable," but what was right with the new stuff. If that doesn't sound too clear, you should understand this: The show might return for a summer airing in 2012 with a 13-episode slate. We have seen this kind of network hedging before concerning popular shows that have been abandoned. Warner Bros. moved its "Southland" show from NBC to TNT; former ABC "Cougar Town" will go to TBS. Former Fox show "Arrested Development" will now get a shot on Netflix. TV producers -- like Sony Pictures Television in the case of "Unforgettable" -- also believe that the money sunk into a series shouldn't go to waste. After around four seasons of episodes, a show can theoretically make back its investment should there be some sort of aftermarket -- syndication, cable, or new digital platforms. What isn't clear is what becomes of development for future TV shows and their renewal process. Where do advertisers fit into this? Perhaps that doesn't matter. Unless there is some specific branded entertainment association in these shows -- mostly in scripted TV series -- there isn't much advertiser loss. We like to think our networks are a consistent bunch, especially CBS. It doesn't seem to replace many TV shows year in and year out. Still, in a more perfect world, perhaps, TV shows with some decent level of audience association -- and especially those with a big value of some 12 million regular viewers -- should continue.
San Mateo-based Adap.tv Thursday announced its Campaign Optimizer for video, a "first-of-its-kind technology" that predicts the results of a campaign before running a single impression. The Campaign Optimizer will utilize historical data to analyze the impressions and predict results, which Adap.tv says will be accurate. Media buyers will be able to use Campaign Optimizer to predict the effects of specific changes to a campaign. For example, buyers can adjust their goals for a specific ad and see the projected trade-off between price and performance, as well as the impact on available inventory. "[Our] Campaign Optimizer takes the mystery out of video advertising performance by providing media buyers with the information and tools they need to create the results they want," said Toby Gabriner, president of Adap.tv in a statement. Capaign Optimizer will be available to platform and marketplace buyers in July 2012.
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. Standardization, whether of terms, definitions, edit rules, measurement protocols or watermarking remains an important consideration in RPD measurement rollout progress. To that end, CableLabs has developed EBIF, a format that standardizes content formats to facilitate not only better use of the data for measurement, but also in addressable advertising and interactivity. Here are all the terms and definitions associated with EBIF: EBIF abbr Enhanced TV Binary Interchange Format (EBIF Enabled STBs) CIMM DEFINITION: A multimedia content format specification that supports the efficient interchange, distribution and decoding of an ETV application across the cable industry’s universe of both legacy and advanced set-top boxes that support the Tru2way® specification. (Source: CableLabs) 2: Standard set-top-box software that enables advanced TV applications (including interactivity and addressability). Industry standard for all STB manufacturers. 3: A CableLabs-defined standard interactive application format for software and data, adopted by all the large MSOs and many smaller operators. EBIF applications and data are interpreted by EBIF User Agent software deployed by MSOs in STBs. EBIF is the emerging standard for the implementation of interactive advanced advertising, programming enhancements, and third-party software (e.g., TV Widgets). (Source: FourthWall Media) NOTE - Hand in hand with the EBIF standard is the CableLabs Application Messaging (AM) standard, which defines how EBIF programs and data are packaged and transmitted to and from set-top boxes, and how bound applications (e.g., interactive advertising enhancements embedded in a video spot) are “triggered” for execution. (Source: FourthWall Media) EBIF User Agent CIMM DEFINITION : The software platform/middleware deployed on both legacy and advanced set-top boxes to execute applications written with conformance to the EBIF standard. (Source: FourthWall Media) Definition currently under review by CableLabs.Boxes Using EBIF CIMM DEFINITION: set-top boxes that are EBIF-enabled and can present Enhanced TV applications and interactive advertising. (Source: CableLabs) 2: Percentage of Advanced or Legacy set-top boxes executing an EBIF user agent software supporting interactivity. (Source: FourthWall Media) Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.