Tony JarvisMember since April 2006Contact Tony
- Research Architect Olympic Media Consultancy
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-jarvis/12/b3a/a45/
- 638 Crane Prairie Way
- Osprey Florida
- 34229-7812 USA
As proprietor and Research Architect for the Olympic Media Consultancy we serve global clients in 3 key areas: Provide expert leadership, analysis, planning and strategic thinking to optimize the value and usage of available media/marketing and data/systems information. Generate increased marketing ROI (revenue, profitability and brand equity) by providing relevant insights through designing, executing and interpreting superior advertising research. Evaluate and improve advertising and media effectiveness for agencies and their clients by understanding, developing and managing meticulous consumer research and applying "leading edge" models and concepts
Meet Tony at MediaPost Events
Future of Media, September 25, 2013
New York University Kimmel Center
Creative Media Awards, January 16, 2013
The Yale Club
OMMA Global at Advertising Week, September 26, 2011
New York Marriott Marquis
Articles by Tony All articles by Tony
- Q&A: MRC's George Ivie Weighs In On Duration Weighting in
The Media Rating Council's proposed Cross-Media Audience Measurement Standards, especially its plan to implement "duration weighting" in 2021, has produced confusion and concern. George Ivie tries to set the record straight.
- 'Reporter's' Notebook: ARF Conference, Day Two in
JERSEY CITY, NJ -- The second day of the Advertising Research Foundation's Audience X Science Conference began with the empirically based "Rules of Marketing Effectiveness in a Digital Era," presented by Les Binet from the U.K. office of adam&eveDDB.
- 'Reporter's' Notebook: ARF Conference, Day One in
Advertising Research Foundation President-CEO Scott McDonald underscored importance of unified, independent, third-party measurement across each media platform.
- 'Code Of Conduct' Needs Real Teeth in
The ARF's new Code of Conduct uses a seal of approval to give some "self-regulatory teeth" to companies that comply, but the use and interpretation of this code requires very careful review and assessment.
- 2019 'Erwin Ephron Award' Winner: Leslie Wood in
Leslie Wood, Chief Research Officer, Nielsen Catalina Solutions, has been announced as the winner of the 2019 ARF Erwin Ephron Demystification Award. She joins an elite group of past winners - Bill Harvey, David Poltrack, Irwin Gotlieb, Jim Spaeth and Gian Fulgoni - that reflect the brilliance, qualities and legacy of Erwin Ephron, who passed away in October 2013.
- My CIMM Summit Sum-Up in
CIMM's cross-platform measurement summit Thursday reminds the industry that some of the issues are leading edge, while some are, quite frankly, old chestnuts. However, solutions for both have become ever more difficult to solve in our rapidly changing and ever more complex data and digital video worlds.
- T-Mobile Ran 4 Ads In The Super Bowl - Why? in
Television News Daily on
T-Mobile ran the ads to heavily influence various federal government departments and commissions it needs to approve the $26 billion T-Mobile/Sprint merger.
- Steele Offers Experience, Marketing Savvy As 'Real' Republican in
In the new world of Trumpers, who sometimes misguidedly refer to themselves as Republicans, many of whom serve in Congress, Steele's observations and candor were refreshing. The increase in the ease of consumer data access and manipulation brings out positive and negative attributes of political marketers, he noted.
- Is Microsoft Too Big To Give A Damn? in
Digital News Daily on
Could it be that Microsoft knows its customer-service processes and procedures are so dishonest and appalling (and evidently low cost) that they can simply get away with an 80% software solution?
- ARF Evolves To Enhance Member Value in
The advertising and media research data and insights world has grown exponentially in the digital era, accompanied by hairy complexities at almost every turn.
Comments by Tony All comments by Tony
- Industry Leaders Weigh In On MRC's Final Cross-Media Standards
(Advanced TV Insider on
Some internationally recognised media research industry leaders have expressed very different technically based POVs on these proposed cross-media audience measurement Standards (Phase I Video - which are focussed primarily on digital!) rather than offering "politically correct" observations. It is disappointing that these expert positions, reflected in extensive comments on an array of articles on these Standards in Media Post, were not captured in this article. Notably the concerns with "Duration Weighted Viewable Impressions" plus the disconnect that until such Standards can comprehensively embrace ALL major media platforms (which the current Standards have NOT been designed to accomodate without huge challenges) they should not be released. Interestingly while agreeing with Greg Stuart's rejection of DWVI, the cognoscenti have done so for very different reasons. Notwithstanding, effectiveness and its measurement, as Greg states, are driven by a myriad of complex factors that have non-linear relationships. These Standards attempt to address cross audience measurement primarily for diigital video NOT effectiveness and do NOT include other major media platforms, e.g. press, magazines, OOH, radio (non digital), cinema, etc. As a reminder, DWVI as proposed, is included solely a pre-measurement control factor although no audiences are reported at the second by second level! Perhaps Media Post should hold an industry Summit on this vitally important opportunity to fully move the entire industry forward towards a MRC required common media currency? That currency should simply be "ad exposure" or "contacts" rather than all the varieties of gross impressions currently offered. The value of those actual measured ad exposures or contacts to a target audience based on campaign duration, ad size, medium, time of day, propinquity, environment, context, creative (huge!), etc. etc. etc. can be subsequently adjudicated as to the effectiveness of the various attributes to the entire campaign and the overall effetiveness in total. Surely it is only with a true common media currency base of ad exposures or contacts that such effectiveness evaluations can ultimately be made?
- MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach
Ed, as usual, is spot on regrarding how these Standards including even the revised version of 'duration weighted viewable impressions' will, or possibly more likely, will not be readily applicable to linear TV and certainly problematic to other major media platforms in view of their focus on digitial video. Raising "what is meant by outcomes" and the complexities of what dimensions of that arena to measurement entail are unlikely to achieve any meaningful consensus from any MRC Committee. Once again Ed underlined the fundamental difference and importance of requiring measurement of ad exposure or "eyes-on" and its complexities as any first step before addressing ad impact. Surely measurement beyond gross impressions to ad exposure needs to be mandated by MRC in order to earn an accredited media currency before considering the pursuit of any Standards for the measurement of outcomes or 'impacts'?Geroge Ivie in a recent interview in Media Post correctly, I believe, recognised that incorporating other major media platforms into the current proposed Cross Media Audience Measurement Standards (Phase I Video) would be "much more challenging". I suggest that this is a huge understatement. As such, should other major media and critically advertisers investing in complex mixes of media be asking the MRC not to release the proposed Standards until the myriad of "challenges" that incorporating other major media will drive based on the current "final draft" are fully identifed along with solutions for incorporation at least in principle. Otherwise the industry could be accused of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. As the new head of the ANA's new "Measurement for Marketers" perhaps these issues are a top prioriity for ANA EVP Bill Tucker and his "Measurement Advisory Board"?
- MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach
Just for clarification:As stated, my comments were solely those of OMC and not on behlaf of the MRC Working Committee whose deliberations are and remain confidential. The cognoscenti referred to were as referenced: the media reserch gurus that have extensively commented in Media Post on 'Duration Weighting' articles including Ed Papazian; Dorothy Higgins; Nicholas Schiavone; John Gruno; Joel Rubinson; and myself as just a gnu; among others.As to my "rubbish" suggestion made with the greatest respect, it merely, but I believe importantly, was directed to underline Ed's initial comment regarding your piece, that this Standard does not require audience exposure or ad impact measurement a critcal missing dimension in virtually all audience measurement today. Further it is clear that MRC staff are committed to duration weighting of viewable impressions as you reported despite its rejection by some of the best media researchers in the business - the flip side of this story!I would add that "duration weighted viewable impressions" remains significantly misunderstood and is per Geroge Ivie (Media Post) no more than a preliminary control factor prior to any actual audience measurement being executed. As such no different say, from excluding men in proceeding with a survey of women. As video audiences that generate an actual exposure (versus commonly inadequate gross impressions) are not measured or reported at the second by second level it appears the the entire duration weighting concept is irrelevant and should be dropped from the proposed Standards.
- MRC Finalizes Cross-Media Standard, Revises Duration Weighting To 'Relative' Approach
Joe:Sorry but in my opinion you have this giant MRC mis-step element of the new Standards mis-represented and as such keep falling into the trap that Ed clearly and correctly identified. Your words: "... a Standard for accounting for Ad exposure" with the implication that duration weighting is an important part of the new Cross Media Audience Measurement Standards. Surely rubbish? I believe this position is confirmed by the cognescenti that have commented extensively on several previous articles on "duration weighted visible impressions"! Some of the cognoscenti have also recommended that duration weighting, which remains misunderstood and misinterpreted, shoud be dropped from these Standards; and further, that "outcome" based measurement or "impacts" as some of us call it should be be left well alone by MRC. At least until they require as a Standard the measurement of actual audience "contact" or "ad (or content) exposure" versus merely gross impressions. And even then this level of measurement standards may be a bridge too far? "Contacts" are very very different from "impacts" as the global OOH industry fully understand. Cannot wait for further comments from Media Post's readers. Disclosure: I am privildeged to sit on the MRC Working Commitee for these proposed Standards but these particular comments are strictly the position of Olympic Media Consultancy.
- MSNBC Ascends In TV News Trust: Fox News, 'Trump' Plummet
Well said David! For the record, based on comparisons of political Manifestos from other major countries (reported by the NY Times June 30th), I would remind everyone that the Dems and virtually by association MSNBC are a little left of the median and closely positioned along the "political center of gravity" with the Liberal Democrats in the UK and the Liberals in Canada. Of note, neither of those parties in Canada or the UK would be called "socialists". The Republicans (are there any left in Congress?) are significantly right of the median as distinct from the Party of Trump which is unequivocally further right along with the Trump Network which embraces neo-fascism regularly. So merely referencing"left" versus "right" is misleading. As researchers we always have to be careful with our terminology, positioning and interpretation but even more assiduously in the political arena. For example the difference between (white) nationalists and patriots in the US has become stark. Charles De Gaulle reminded us that: “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” Is it the far right or the slightly left that truely understands the value of the difference for the US, for humanity and for democracy? I suggest that Dr. Rachael and her outstanding network collegaues certainly do. And if that is "biased" - "bloody marvellous" as we say over the pond.
- Q&A: MRC's George Ivie Weighs In On Duration Weighting
Grateful thanks to Ed & Josh and of course George Ivie. I am planning a folllow-up piece and hope to include other POVs on this tricky and still confusing area. Based on George's answers, I do not believe that MRC intended to change the construct of audience metrics - GRPs, reach or frequency - all audience measurement based terms but apparently it is believed that MRC is proposing to do just that. My undersatdning is that duration weights would apply to "viewable impressions", a dreadful confusing term, that are solely a proof of performance metric - was the ad/content rendered on a given screen per the media vendor specification and if not complete over time by how much. As such, the proposed "duration weighted viewable impressions" have nothing to do with audience measurement or campaign effect per se only as a qualifyer that an ad/content was rendered and that consequently an audience impression of a specified ad/content could be legitimately counted.I tend to agree with Josh that as proposed duration weighting appears to introduce an adjustment based on a single video dimension - duration (of very very many - what about screen size!!!) concerning the quality of the potential experience of the rendered ad/content to a subsequently exposed audience. Surely reporting that an ad/content was rendered on specific screens for the specified duration (or partial therof) should be separated as an independent POP reporting metric for the audience measurement company, media agency and media vendor. These POP dimensions can simply be considered along with many other media & campaign attributes when evaluating traditional audience metrics (GRPs, Reach & Frequency) and the relative "value" of those metrics across media platforms when presented to advertisers as is current practice? Stay tuned!
- Scandalous, Contrite High-Performance Athletes Find Their Way Back To TV
(TV Watch on
As an Olympian I suggest you are perhaps on tricky ground. I suggest that unfortunately it is the "bad boys and girls" of elite sports that help drive ratings by both detractors and supporters. While one would argue that the "worst" crimes of these "scandalous, contrite high-performance incredible athletes" are the ones that use PED's, as its Wimbledon week, who did not want to watch John McEnroe or now watch Serena Williams plus, as already proven by the audience in the stands, Nick Kyrgios whose outbursts have entertained us one way or another? The audiences in the stadiums and on TV to the recent Women's World Cup football set all- time records with huge increases. And yet as a former certified FA referee and in consultation with a couple of experienced US soccer coaches we concluded that the refereeing was generally appalling. There were disallowed goals that should have stood; penalty kicks that should have never been awarded; and the most significant crime - that certain games were essentially decided by the referee on iffy calls at best, even if we were generous, extremely late in the game. Were the losing teams in these cases cheated out of a possible decision? Officials should always do everything possible not to essentially decide games! This raises the eternal question from elite athletes across all sports. Why are the officials that are responsible for egregious errors rarely vilified by commentators or the press unlike the athletes? So, Wayne, there is another story to tell! After the Olympic gold medal drug scandal involving Ben Johnson of Canada (100m track), I shared time with a lifelong sportswriter for the British quality broadsheet press who was covering the Federal Inquiry of the Ben Johnson case in Toronto that actually gave the athletic world a performance drugs lesson. I have never forgotten his hypothesis from this completely unacceptable but sad behaviour by a superb sprinter and his coach. If there were an Olympics with drugs allowed and one with proper bans, which one would generate the largest audiences? It was a rhetorical question but perhaps Media Post sports enthusiasts should weigh in on this and perhaps the Women's World Cup refereeing and the use of VAR?
- Why Mary Meeker Kills Radio's Star
Dorothy: You are far too polite. John: You should have gone further? That the Bond Partners behind this report did not pick up this egregious error is shameful. As we are aware, based on delivering the most conducive parameters radio can be a powerful medium to drive brand sales or brand equity depending on the creative. Radio's inclusion in the campaign's media mix has virtually nothing to to do with average time spent with radio per adult per day although it likely has a great deal to do with the propinquity of the ad delivery to an optimal time of day!
- Duration Weighting Could Lead To Better Creative
(Media Insider on
Ed and John have nailed it! However, John, "watched" infers exposure or contact (versus merely gross impressions or OTS) which are rarely reflected by media currencies at least in the US which are typically just gross impressions based. These positions on Duration Weighting were also echoed by Nicholas Schiavone and Dorothy Higgins in their comments on earlier articles. Duration weighting has little to do with the ultimate campaign value or effectiveness and ANY attempts to link value with duration will be specious. Hopefully the MRC Working Group on the Cross Media Audience Standards are listening?? We all certainly understand the strong desire for a simple composite media metric that ties to campaign outcomes and effectiveness (per Joe Mandese). However, if you fully understand the foundations of the ARF "Making Better Media Decisions" model it will be clear that campaign effectiveness and ultimately sales response is well beyond the media contribution. Yes, the 1961 ARF model was revised in 2003. Yes, its tenants still hold in the digital age of 2019. The only duration weighting that could be considered is whether the ad rendered fully on the required screen for the entire time as specified, i.e, an ad "completion" index. As you see in that recommendation, nothing about audience to the medium concerned nor audience exposure, nor campaign outcomes. QED? Albeit with kudos to Ed and John. Now let's ensure every medium is measured at the ad (or content) exposure or contact level for the universe of people (not devices) surveyed. It would make media comparisons so much more meaningful.
- Duration-Weighted Impression: Is It Worth It?
John: At the agency we always checked that the content was delivered to spec as part of reporting to the client. Not an audience measure of course. There is another article on this subject by Joe Mandese with some great comments. Commended to you! Needs your further insights. https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/337405/duration-weighting-shouldnt-be-controversial-but.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=114359&hashid=m1KG0ratr5oQVJUGsEAKemLsvUI