• by John R. Osborn , Op-Ed Contributor, December 7, 2011

The Advanced Advertising Media Project (AAMP) released some results from its Phase II Video On Demand (VOD) research on November 16^th. This much-needed look into the mind and behaviors of the T/V (Television/Video) consumer promises valuable insights into consumer acceptance of advertising on the Free VOD format.

It’s good news -- excellent news-- - that such a study has been done, supported by a host of varied constituencies invested in the emerging MIA (Multi-platform, Interactive, Ad-supported) T/V business model (The American Association of Advertising Agencies, BlackArrow, ABC, A&E, AMC, CBS, Comcast, CTAM, Digitas, Discovery, Horizon, Intel, NBC Universal and NDS.)

The design of the study is very smart and thorough.  “More than 1,000 consumers – all likely targets for VOD – watched 30 minutes of television in a highly realistic context within sophisticated media labs in New York City and Los Angeles. A custom-built VOD platform offered a choice of 19 television shows across the comedy, drama and reality genres from 11 networks.”  The sample was split between test (VOD) and control (Linear TV) experiences, with sub-samples broken into categories such as DVR / Non-DVR for linear TV and fast-forward enabled / disabled for VOD consumers.  Four different VOD ad loads were used against the 8 minute per ½ hour standard linear ad load.

The bad news is that only portions of the study’s results have been released, and those results seem to have been chosen to support the idea that VOD consumers don’t really care how many ads run in their VOD content, and most aren’t even interested in fast-forwarding (click on links to see published examples).  Additionally, there is little reporting of what went on in what I feel is the most intriguing area of study: the fast-forwarding enabled vs. disabled behaviors.  Even if there was something that might argue against the linear ad model, and even if the laboratory setting may have compromised natural behaviors with fast-forwarding capability, these results are important and need to be shared.

This brings us to the ugly. Once again for our industry, releasing limited, selective pieces of data on consumer behavior is used to justify continuing on the path of the failing system of interruptive linear television.  Just because cherry-picked bits of research in a controlled environment can be interpreted this way, doesn’t mean they should, nor that wide swaths of data that could get to a realer sense of what consumers want should be ignored.

The four key findings of the Phase II AAMP study (with my comments, including my Good, Bad, and Ugly research ratings in parentheses) are:

1)    VOD is fundamentally a television experience, but with heightened attention and engagement compared to linear TV. (Good research: This is intuitively right, and is supported by compelling metrics within the study.  More choice = more investment in the experience.)

2)    Consumers accept advertising on VOD. (Good research: This also makes sense, and is supported by metrics. Consumers understand that advertising helps pay for content.)

3)    Ad load on VOD does not affect key measures, such as viewer enjoyment of the show, engagement with the advertising, brand recall, interest, and purchase intent. VOD ads are equally effective and viewer engagement is equally strong across light, moderate and heavy (linear-style) ad loads. In addition, respondents in the heavier ad loads were no more likely to fast-forward through ads than those in the light ad load.”  (Bad/Ugly research: Numbers seem to be used here to directionally support this statement, and I believe there are some serious flaws in the thinking which led to the following conclusion found on page 14:  “…The implications of these findings suggest that agencies, pay-TV operators and programming networks have an opportunity to leverage heavy linear-TV ad loads in VOD.”  How do ad agencies think cluttered ad loads are a good thing?)

(Not only is a 30-minute laboratory setting quite different from the 3 + hours a day, 7 days a week high linear TV commercial load that average consumers normally endure, but the whole set-up for the viewer is likely focused on the simple act of watching a single and short -- 30-minute -- T/V program without the distractions of phones, cell phones, tablets, computers, refrigerators, bathrooms, other people in the room, other media -- print, radio, pencils, crosswords e.g. The laboratory set-up eliminates the things that most of us use to avoid ads, even without DVR.  Also, the viewers wouldn’t know how long their commercial pod would be in the variable load design, so in the lab they might keep watching VOD expecting short ad loads as currently found, only they wouldn’t end in an expected VOD time frame.) 

(I wonder whether these DVR study participants were even aware of their ability to fast-forward in this controlled environment, or perhaps they felt the set-up and instruction to watch TV for 30 minutes to be just that – to watch TV including ads.)

(And how do these particular and very general conclusions reflect the age 35 and under group that grew up with the internet and increasingly consumes video in a non-linear form?)

4)    VOD creates opportunities for different ad formats. (Good research: Well supported notion that a 90-second VOD spot generates an increased (+64%) level of interest in the advertised brand, relative to linear TV.)

The mention of the bad and the ugly here does not discredit or throw out the good work that AAMP has done. This is just the kind of research that will help the industry in creating a more functional business model for MIA T/V.  Phase III can provide important understanding of the drawbacks and opportunities of the major delivery method for multiple platforms: VOD. 

If the leaders behind the AAMP effort are willing to share fully the breadth of data being assembled, and if the results can be presented without the presumption that maintaining the current, high-load linear ad model is the gold standard against which everything ought to be judged, it should be one of the most important pieces of media research coming out in 2012.