Forgot your password?
Thank you for sharing the insights, Artie. If it's okay with you, I was wondering how many observations where included in your controlled lab studies. Is it possible significant differences weren't found possibly due to studying a small number of observations? I was also wondering if findings may be different in real-world scenarios, vis-a-vis the lab scenarios. Lastly, to what extent did the studies take into account buffering in the digital environment that may not exist in the TV environment? While there may be a lag time in running addressable commercials in TV, I'm not sure how that compares to targeted ads in digital, because the lag will depend on the tech, and buffering/load time of commercials will affect whether or not a percentage of viewers will tune out during the ad or even end the session/channel switch before the commercial has a chance to initiate. Thank you very much. One final point--I was wondering to what extent non-targeted ads in your experiments were successful at targeting. Even though they are not designed to target in the same manner, they still have a degree of success targeting the consumer segment. Look forward to hearing from you.
We went from "Muscle cars" to "tech-moibiles" in 50 years. With the current generations that can't function without scanning a phone day & night, it's no wonder the findings. We have no interaction with humans anymore, they must be entertained, knowing people "liked" their comment provides validation. It's a very sad way to live. So let's make sure we drag into the car, and for goodness sake let's make sure the kids don't have to have any down time between the TV Screen at home and the one in the car.Look around in traffic. every passenger in the front seat, (usually a woman) is scanning a device. Silence..........is golden, I guess. Watch families at a restaurant, everybody's head burried. I watched a a man with his 3 kids (age 7, 9 12?) in Craker Barrel a few months ago, have a hard time getting away from his phone to order, the waitress had to keep waiting. She delivered the food, he ate the whole time on his phone without ever speaking to his kids.The check came, and he was still at it. I got up to leave first, and I stopped at his table and said, "Sir , you can take this any way you want, but you need to dump the phone when you're with your kids, they won't be this age vcery long. Think about."He looked at me without a word, maybe shocked that I spoke up.Anyway, this sucks that cars are not chosen by reputation, performance, or design,but whether you can get facebook................Just remember, all this imported circuit board technology has a 10 year shelf life , then the collapse of the system.
Chinese manufacturing = the 6-12-12 ethic which is working 6 days a week, 12 hours/day, 12/mo/yr. Cheap labor, heavy schedule. Does anyone really think manufacturing is going to return to the US when they know no one, people who love their $10 shirts won't do it, in the US would work that schedule for $80/wk? Indentured servitude is not a stranger to the US and is still used e.g. chicken rendering plants or strawberry farms or housekeepers. Meanwhile, there are oligopolists who oppose the minimum wage so they can pay less and workers can work longer. The problems you outline bleed into every life, into every level of industry. Why do you think is is and what do you think we can and should do about it ?
"Terms like in-housing, added Kaplowitz, are “often used without a thorough understanding of the work and the value of agency partnerships.” Sory Ms. Kaplowitz, that horse has already left the barn. And it's only going to get a lot worse.Cheers/George "AdScam" Parker
The question is ... what is 'original' and when is 'original' not original?Take NetFlix's 1,500 hours of original content. Does that refer to their entire slate? Netflix has been around for 20+ years, but it wasn't until 2011 that started acquiring original content.Does that mean that the 1,500 hours of original content is the nett result of 8 years of acquisition? That's around 200 hours per year - a fine performance.But from a consumers perspective that is around a half-hour of original content per day. If consumers are THAT wedded to original content then that could loom as a big business issue for any streamer or broadcaster (which is why broadcasters carry so much news and sport - it is all original). Do they REALLY turn their back on content that was 'original' a week, or a month, or a year, or a decade ago?'Original' to the viewer means that they haven't seen it before. Plus, just because they've seen it doesn't mean they won't watch it again (I can watch Peter Sellers in 'The Party' time and time again ... or The Marx Brothers 'Duck Soup ... just as two examples.)I contend that most viewers are more focussed on quality content - old or new, original or third-party, never-seen or seen-before. Two laments that are often heard are ... not that show again, and, .... that's rubbish turn it off.So focussing on 'all original' (depending on how you define it) could be a ricky strategy.
This isn't limited to the tech industry -- and it isn't just the "Protestant work ethic," either.Check out this article (Toyota): https://www.ien.com/regulation/news/21098367/toyota-engineers-suicide-ruled-workrelated-after-harassment?lt.usr=12918523
As you noted, Wayne, all original content might be too much of a good thing. Indeed, most of the licensed shows that accounted for so much of Netflix usage but are being withdrawn by their owners, consisted of former hit TV series. Which is why they garnered so much usage on Netflix. These were top quality programs which attracted many new fans in their recycled mode.Going the all-original route---including a huge percentage of shows designed for foreign consumption----is a very costly operation and a risky option as many of the shows--or movies---will simply not be very good, hence, not very attractive to potential subs.
Wayne, of course average commercial minute ratings will continue to fragment. However if you take a show with 10 million average commercial minute "viewers" per airing that stat does not tell you how many watched that episode. For example, if you add those viewers who zapped the commercials, the figure can rise to 15 million and if you stretch out the time frame to two months ---- "C-60"--- and toss in digital exposures another 4-5 million may be added. Also, if you take all viewers who watched, say, 6 minutes of the program, but not a given minute---the per airing the number can increase to 25 million. Finally, across a full season still more people will see one or more episodes--- raising the number who, at some point, watched the show to 60-75 million---or more. My point is that commercial minute ratings are merely a narrowly focused metric for time buyers and sellers to use as a "currency" for guaranteed GRP deals. They don't necessarily tell you how popular a show is with consumers who know nothing about GRPs, CPMs, etc.
Should have been labeled the "Mock 1"Regardless of electric or gas, A MUSTANG IS NOT A 4 DOOR!!
Right on, right on!I have a good football mind. Sometimes family and friends get frustrated with me because I'm fairly accurate in what will happen next, and how a NFL game will turn out. Along with that, I'll point out "fishy" things. For example, an offense will have a critical 4th down and three yards to go, and suddenly the highly rated cornerbacks will play 9-11 yards off the wide receivers thereby giving up an easy slant pass play for the first down.I agree with Tom S (above), it is mostly the ref/s. However, I believe sometimes head coaches are told by their owners/ franchise to lose. Again for the most part, they are allowed to play, while the refs keep it close. I'm thinking of the Atlanta - New England game a few years back when I think Atlanta was up 25 points at halftime. Halfway through the 3rd period I predicted a NE victory, as I turned it off. Then the next fall I saw my MN Vikings get pounded by Philly. The defense was coached to lose. This was obvious as they did not do the things that got them to the playoff game, like disguising the defense, blitzing, bump n run, etc.I felt hustled, deceived, cheated. I loved the game then realized I had been cheated. I admit it, but also realize most fans don't want to admit it because they would feel ashamed, guilty, foolish etc. I have friends that get angry with me when I put the proof in front of them. They just don't want to admit they've been taken.It's about entertainment. Heck, lotsa' people love the WWF - good for them. The NFL is becoming more n more similar to the WWF.ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
These are good points Ed. There are clearly specific roles for emotonal and rationale messaging through the funnel - to build long-term brand equity with emotion and also to nudge short-term sales with motivation. Our data is simply telling us that marketers should not assume that addressability based on product relevance is a magic panacea for engagement with TV advertising. Good ads can impact all consumers. So while addressability is a great advancement for efficiency in targeting, marketers should leverage that capability for a balanced approach - including reaching light and non-buyers in the category which are key to growing market share.
At a cost of $400,000 per self driving car, they can build 165,000 units
Erudite as ever Maarten.What's the bet that the next 'innovation' will be a streaming aggregator service. I still have its predecessor - my Foxtel (an AU brand) box (satellite not cable) with several hundred diverse channels from all over the world, which bundles with our telco so we get a fat-pipe for any streaming outisde of he channels they have.And as a matter of interest, any data on the allocation of the increased ad-spend? Is it TV-heavy?
With me paying $14.99 for HBONOW, the new HBOMAX would seem like an enhancement for the same price if the hype is correct.
Good article and interesting updated findings, Artie. Many years ago I got a peek at the results of a huge nuumber of telephone based 24-hour commercial reecall studies done for an advertiser with 15-20 packaged goods brands. Subsequent research verified my observationsw.The point that struck home was that proven message recall scores were only 20% above the norm among brand users---as opposed non-brand users. I interpreted this as an indication that most commercials served as an affirmation of the consumer's own brand selection--reinforcing that decision---in effect. However, it was clear in this rather extensive data set that many non- brand users were also effectively reached by messages from other brands. While I continue to see merit in the kinds of targeting that "addressable TV " advocates keep promising, I believe firmly that the way to get at this is not simply by "reaching" product category users but trying to do that in the context of how the ad is hopes to get its message across and the mindset---or sets---it is appealing to. Some ads promise specific benefits ranging from superior efficacy to a lower price or ease of use, handy or extra safe packaging, products that are good for your health, the environment, products that are the last word in technology, or the height of fashion, etc.etc. These mindset appeals are hinted at by demographics but are not the domain of any single sex, age or income group. They spill across demos and can not be so easily defined as all adults aged 18-49 with incomes over $50,000.Which is why so many TV advertisers see no need to go beyond obvious targeting metrics---like men or women or very young vs very old---which they can do now via traditional media buys, but otherwise allow their ads to single out their own audiences within the larger numbers of folks that are exposed.
Where is the study of asking the same people what their opinion is about what they would like to be done about it and how....in their own words ?
Ed, perhaps the branding and video/TV will come next. Seriously, I wouldn't put it past them. I spent several days in Bentonville in the early to mid-2000s interviewing folks in their IT department. Their tech operation is very sophisticated. https://www.informationweek.com/wal-marts-way/d/d-id/1027448?page_number=3
While I applaud the effort and recognize that you must keep things simple if you want to get the attention of young people, the video, while, snappy and easy to take, is pretty vague and, in my opinion, is appealing mainly to those who might like to be "Madmen" ---or "creatives" with a passing nod to those into "data". I would have liked to see something---however simply stated ---that explained the three basic types of jobs---"account handling, "creative" and media. For exapmle, I suspect that there are a lot of college types who might like the idea of account management and many who might respond to the idea of recommending which media a client uses, getting involved with TV networks, publishers, etc.
Adam, TV is still a very powerful medium and communicator of ideas and impressions---only its audience is fraggmented and, as you say, there's a lot else that people can watch---which wasn't true for those old hearings which you cited. Also, average minute viewing is not a true reflection of the hearing's reach---nor of their impact. These days, people have much lower attention spans---especially the younger folks. They don't need to sit there hour after hour, watching pompous speeches and political brawling as well as what those testifying have to say to get the point---and form an opinion.
George, considering that the average consumer devotes something like 70-75 days per year "watching" various forms of "TV" content, perhaps spending 5-6 days a week trying to find something worth viewing isn't such a waste of time after all. Our own analysis--per "TV Dimensions 2020"--is that a typical episode airing of a given show has less that a one in a thousand chance of being watched. If we already knew what we wanted---or there was a magic app that made sampling ---or searching----obsolete, most shows might never get seen at all.
Joe, I find it amazing that Nielsen doesn't even bother to identify these numbers as average minute rarings in its own tables. The real audience for these telecasts was far greater, obviously, when you count those who sampled the procedings sufficiently to get an idea of what was going on..
Laurie, I take it from your report that Wallmart's new initiative is mainly a sales promotion facility---not a branding opportunity that would require a content-supported platform that could exposue consumers to video/TV commercials.
So you recommend people to spend money on an extremely unsecured Chinese channel (via MP) ? Who is paying you to support this ?