The future is now in pursuit of a more efficient and effective media strategy

1,002 views
938 views

Published on

At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 Annual re:think convention, David F. Poltrack, Chief Research Officer of CBS Corporation & President of CBS Vision and Kevin Bowen Principal of The Cambridge Group presented a presentation entitled The Future is Now: In Pursuit of a More Efficient and Effective Media Strategy. Advertising effectiveness is discussed with a focus on TV programming.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,002
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The future is now in pursuit of a more efficient and effective media strategy

  1. 1. The Future is Now:In Pursuit of a More Efficient and Effective Media StrategyPresented by:David F. PoltrackChief Research Officer, CBS CorporationPresident, CBS VisionKevin BowenPrincipal,The Cambridge Group
  2. 2. ch  arke ting and ResearESOMAR C onference on Munder a Ne w World Order 992 Tokyo (Japan ), 6th‐8th, July 1  Tele vision Program  Multidimensio nal Approach to tive dve rtiser’s Perspec Evalu ation from the A k Presented by  David F. Poltrac
  3. 3. The Future is Now:
  4. 4. Research Support Provided Across the Marketer’s Decision Making ChainImpact of a 1% Change On a Broadcast Network’s revenues 4. Broadcast Network   = $180,000,000 3. Broadcast ‐ Cable TV   = $200,000,000 2. Advertising ‐ TV Advertising     = $190,000,000   1. Marketing ‐ Advertising           = $220,000,000
  5. 5. Advertising and Marketing Expenditures Total Marketing  Broadcast  Year Spending  Advertising Television Networks % of Total  % of Total  % of Total Television  $ Billions Marketing Advertising Advertising 1997 650 27.2 25.8 28.5 2002 880 24.0 26.7 26.6 2007 1,080 24.0 26.5 24.2 2008 1,065 23.3 27.5 24.6 2009 975 21.8 28.6 25.1Source:  Wilkofsky Gruen Associates, Inc.
  6. 6. Advertising and Marketing Expenditures Total Marketing  Broadcast  Year Spending  Advertising Television Networks % of Total  % of Total  % of Total Television  $ Billions Marketing Advertising Advertising 1997 650 27.2 25.8 28.5 2002 880 24.0 26.7 26.6 2007 1,080 24.0 26.5 24.2 2008 1,065 23.3 27.5 24.6 2009 975 21.8 28.6 25.1 2010 1,015 22.7 29.3 24.2Source:  Wilkofsky Gruen Associates, Inc.
  7. 7. The Role of Advertising SHORT TERM: GENERATE SALES
  8. 8. The Role of Advertising SHORT TERM: GENERATE SALES LONG TERM: BUILD BRAND EQUITY
  9. 9. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the  resources of The Nielsen Company to… – Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool – Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising  medium – Provide advertisers with research resources to:  Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns  Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns  Measure long term contribution of television advertising to the  development of brand equity
  10. 10. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the  resources of The Nielsen Company to… – Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool – Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium – Provide advertisers with research resources to  Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns NielsenCatalina Solutions Single Source Resource – Television Viewing from Set top Boxes & Nielsen panel – CPG product purchase records from shopper cards & Nielsen panel – Data Base= 375,000 Households
  11. 11. Enhanced Analytical Approach  Modeling dollar lifts controlling for penetration produces stable, statistically  significant results that are not driven by outliers.  Key finding: behavioral targeting delivers 2½ times more ROI leverage than  demographic targeting. Behavioral Target           Demographic Target $0.18 $0.18 $0.16 $0.14 $0.13 $0.12$ Per Exposed HH $ Per Exposed HH $0.10 $0.08 $0.08 $0.06 $0.04 $0.03 $0.02 $0.00 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 -$0.02 Delivery Index To Top Category HHs Delivery Index To Women 18-49 Results normalized to average category penetration.
  12. 12. More Intuitive, Impactful Results A 20% increase in media delivery to   Campaign impact doubles with a 41%  heavy category users yields an  increase in media delivery to heavy  additional $47 per thousand exposed  category users, vs. a 103% increase in  households, compared to $19 for a  media delivery to women 18‐49. 20% increase in media delivery to  women 18‐49. Impact of 20% Increase in Media Delivery Increase in Media Delivery  Dollars per Thousand Exposed Households Needed to Double Campaign Impact $47 2½ times more  103% targeting leverage $19 41% Heavy Buyer Target Demographic Target Heavy Buyer Target Demographic Target
  13. 13. Targeting Heavy Category Buyers  vs. Age/Sex Demos Top 50% Heavy Snacks  Snacks Adults 18‐49 C3 A18-49 C3 Households Household Program Index Program Title Index 48 HOURS MYSTERY 139 FAMILY GUY 176 CLEVELAND 170 MIDDLE-WED 8PM, THE 140 AMERICAN DAD-SUN 7P 169 LAW & ORDER:SVU-THU 141 SIMPSONS-SUN 7:30P 168 DATELINE SUN-7PM 142 FAMILY GUY-SUN 9:30P 165 PLAIN JANE 142 VAMPIRE DIARIES 165 COUGAR TOWN 144 SIMPSONS 163 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS 145 SHAQ VS. 160 MEDIUM 147 MASTERCHEF 157 GOOD WIFE, THE 148 AMERICAS TOP MODEL-9 155 SMALLVILLE 149 90210 147 PARENTHOOD 149 GOSSIP GIRL-MON 147 ROOKIE BLUE 152 SUPERNATURAL-FRI 147 OFFICE 156 HELLCATS 142 OFFICE 142 GLEE 160 WIPEOUT-TUES 142 LIE TO ME-MON 9P 167 AMERICAS TOP MODEL-8 8PM 138 HELLCATS 180 PRMTME:WHT WOULD U DO-TUE 132 CSI: NY FRIDAY 181 NIKITA 132 PERSONS UNKNOWN 186 GLEE 127 FLASHPOINT 188 SUPERNATURAL-FRI 193Source: Nielsen NPM, A18‐49 C3 Rating over HH C3 Rating and Nielsen Catalina Single Source datafor Heavy Snacks HH over All HH; Primetime, Regular; No Sports or Specials or Single Telecast Shows; 8/16/10‐9/18/10
  14. 14. A18‐49 As a Percent of Total Adult Population 2002‐03 2010‐11Source: Nielsen Universe Estimates
  15. 15. A18‐49 As a Percent of Total Adult Population 2010‐11 2015‐16 (Est.)Source: Nielsen Universe Estimates
  16. 16. A18‐49 is a Stagnant Market Year‐Over‐Year Growth A50+ A18‐49 ProjectionsSource: U.S. Census Bureau
  17. 17. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the  Research Resources of the Nielsen Corporation to… – Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool – Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium Provide advertisers with research resources to – Measure the short‐term ROI from their TV advertising campaigns – Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns The Right Message in the Best Environment – Nielsen IAG Research findings on the performance of television  advertising
  18. 18. Higher Program Engagement Yields  Stronger Ad Recall When viewers are more engaged with a show they are  also more likely to remember the ads within the show 70% 60% Correlation = .81 General Recall 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% Program EngagementSource: Nielsen IAG; includes PE and GR for every regularly airing non‐sports programs measured Q1 2005 through Q2 2007;includes repeats and originals, by day‐of‐week and network; limited to sample >=200; <5% of cases removed as  outliers; final analysis based on 1,307 cases
  19. 19. Primetime 2010‐11 Nielsen IAG  Program Engagement Scores Average PE Scores A 18‐49 Average PE Scores A 25‐54 Original Original Quintile Airings Quintile Airings 1 84% 1 85% 2 79% 2 79% 3 74% 3 72% 4 66% 4 63% 5 49% 5 43%Source: Nielsen IAG, Primetime Originals Only, Regular – No Sports; 9/10/10‐2/27/11 Page 20
  20. 20. Same Creative Performs Better  in High Engagement Shows Brand “A” ‐ Retail Store Target=W18‐49 x 123 Inde Program EngagementSource: Nielsen IAG 1.1.08 – 6.8.10, Non‐Sports Programming only; Women 18‐49
  21. 21. Same Creative Performs Better  in High Engagement Shows Brand “B” ‐ Snack Brand Target=W25‐54 de x 130 In Program EngagementSource: Nielsen IAG (measures combined impact of copy & placement) 10.1.09 –9.30.10. W25‐54
  22. 22. Same Creative Performs Better  in High Engagement Shows Brand “C” ‐ Soft Drink Target=P13‐49 x n de 4 I 20 Program EngagementSource: Nielsen IAG 1.1.08 – 8.29.10, Non‐Sports Programming only; People 13‐49.
  23. 23. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the  resources of The Nielsen Company to… – Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool – Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium – Provide advertisers with research resources to:  Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns  Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns  Measure long term contribution of television advertising to the  development of brand equity
  24. 24. New Market Segmentation Approach
  25. 25. The Case for a Demand‐Driven Model for Advertising The media environment is increasingly  complex and fragmented We now have an  Traditional demographic‐driven buys  opportunity to  often are not in full alignment with  better understand  advertisers’ core prospects individuals both as  – Consumer targets are increasingly  defined by attitudes, motivations,  consumers as well  psychographics, and other demand  as media viewers – characteristics leading to better  There is an emerging perspective that  advertising  programming context and engagement  can enhance effectiveness alignment
  26. 26. Holistic View of the Prime Prospect Prime Prospect as a Consumer Synergistic Impact on: Defined beyond pure  demographics Ad Efficiency Target Rich  Environment + Ad Effectiveness ROI+++ Higher Program  Prime Prospect  Engagement Results in  as a Viewer Higher Performing Ads TV • Online • Radio • Print
  27. 27. Demand Landscape Segmentation Was Developed Based on a Comprehensive Research Study of TV Viewing + Online BehaviorQuantitative Research Overview  7,000 respondents ages 18‐65 who watch at least one hour of TV  Sample Sample programming per week – Quota sample of 600 for five major markets  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas  14,000 TV viewing occasions profiled  A 45 minute 150+ question survey covering lifestyle attitudes, cross  platform media demand, technology involvement/viewership  Demand  Demand  behavior to define Demand Profit Pool segments Profiling Profiling  Benefits sought and situational viewing to define Need States  Characteristics of favorite TV programs to define Program Palates  Typing tools to overlay participating advertisers’ core prospects  Extensive additional profiling on TV viewership, technology ownership  and interest, demographics, etc. Media  Media   Linkage to actual TV viewing behaviors through Nielsen National  Behaviors Behaviors PeopleMeter panel.  Online, radio, and print are also being integrated
  28. 28. Creating the Demand Landscape We then clustered consumers on their overall  demand for media – Level of involvement – Media channel alignment . . . TV vs. online vs. other – Technology adoption – Programming affinity – Time shifting habits
  29. 29. The Viewing Demand Landscape consists of Demand Profit Pools  and the Need States They Experience Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools  “To Whom ” Consumers grouped by their underlying  Need States  motivations for media consumption “For What” Viewing occasions with a  distinct combination of  rational and emotional  benefits  Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  30. 30. Programming Palates Identify Where Different  Types of Content Play and Interact Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools  Programming Content C Programming Content A Need States  Programming Content B Programming  Content D Programming Content E Programming Content F Programming Content GSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  31. 31. We Can Understand How Advertisers’ Targets Align With the Viewing Landscape to Improve Advertising Precision Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”) Illustrative Snacking Enthusiasts High Value Economy Telecom Car Vulnerables Prospects Need States  Craft Beer Experimenters Badge Conscious Drinkers Snacking Luxury Enthusiasts Car High Value Prospects Telecom VulnerablesSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  32. 32. To Whom… Demand Profit Pools Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools  “To Whom ” Consumers grouped by their underlying motivations for media  Need States  consumption “For What” Viewing occasions with a  distinct combination of  rational and emotional  benefits  Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  33. 33. Six Distinct Demand Profit Pools Define the Rangeof Consumer Media Engagement and PreferencesDemand Profit Pools Role and Relationship with TV and TechnologyTV Companions Media  Sports Program  Surfers &  TV Moderators Trendsetters Enthusiasts Passionates StreamersLove TV  Early adopters of  Interest  Dedicated to   Select  Seek to for the  content and  anchored in  favorite  content  minimize companionship, technology.  sports. Extends  programs.  across  usageon in the Social diffusers to other action‐ Willing to  multiple background oriented  time shift to  “screens” programming watch% of Population 16% 21% 15% 18% 15% 15%Average # of Hours of TV Watched Per Week 43 42 36 35 30 24Average # of TV Shows Watched Regularly 10 11 7 11 8 6
  34. 34. Demand Understanding Adds to the Traditional  Demographic Knowledge of Viewers Demographic Skews by Demand Profit Pools TV  Media  Sports Program  Surfers &  TV  Companions Trendsetters Enthusiasts Passionates Streamers Moderators% of Total Pop 16% 21% 15% 18% 15% 15%Demographic Older, women, Middle age, higher Men, older Younger, women Younger Older, higherSummary lowest income income, with kids with kids, highest income incomeMale 34% 58% 80% 33% 49% 42%Female 66% 42% 20% 67% 51% 58%Age 18-24 9% 12% 9% 9% 31% 11% 25-44 31% 51% 34% 54% 46% 32% 45-64 60% 37% 57% 37% 23% 57%% African American 16% 18% 11% 8% 14% 11%% Hispanic 11% 21% 10% 10% 18% 14%% Children in HH 37% 60% 32% 52% 42% 42%Avg. Income (000s) $51 $71 $69 $77 $58 $71
  35. 35. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits Top Genre Skews by Demand Profit Pool TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts – Game Show (163) – Science & Technology (136) – Sports (241) – Soap Opera (160) – Investigative/News Magazine  – National/World News (158) – Local News (139) (135) – History (141) – Suspense/Crime Drama (128) – Movies (127) – Game Show (129) – Late Night Show (124) Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators – General Drama (178) – Adult Animation/Cartoon (197) – National/World News (160) – Reality Show Drama (174) – Adventure/Action (131) – Home and Garden (144) – Reality Show Competition (168) – General Drama (129) – Local News (142) – Soap Opera (160) – General Documentary (124) – General Documentary (123)Note: Self‐reported data; Types of programs watched last 7 daysSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis
  36. 36. The Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct  Viewing Habits (cont.) Top Program Skews by Demand Profit Pool TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts – The Young and The Restless  – Boardwalk Empire (179) – Cable Sports (162) (133) – Dexter (168) – Broadcast Sports (147) – Good Morning America (124) – Cable Sports (117) – NBC Nightly News (121) – CSI (121) – Sons of Anarchy (116) – 60 Minutes (119) – The Good Wife (114) – How I Met Your Mother (93) – Undercover Boss (90) – NCIS (112) – The Big Bang Theory (90) – NCIS (88) Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators – Desperate Housewives (155) – Teen Mom (149) – Extreme Makeover Home  – Grey’s Anatomy (153) – Jersey Shore (148) Edition (138) – The Good Wife (147) – The Walking Dead (132) – 60 Minutes (126) – Hawaii Five‐0 (141) – iCarly (130) – Dancing with the Stars (133) – The Big Bang Theory (138) – Glee (121) – Good Morning America (129) – Rules of Engagement (103) – NBC Nightly News (128) – The Mentalist (116)Note:  Skews among programs that are generally within top 80 overall and top 35 within the Demand Profit PoolSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis
  37. 37. For What… Need States Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools  “To Whom ” Consumers grouped by their underlying motivations for media  Need States  consumption “For What” Viewing occasions with a  distinct combination of  rational and emotional  benefits  Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  38. 38. Consumers Have Different TV Viewing Need States for Which They Seek Distinct BenefitsTV Viewing Need State Summary Authentic &  Action &  Family  Inform & Relax & Escape Inspirational Sports Companion Equip
  39. 39. How…Programming Palates Viewing Demand Landscape Demand Profit Pools  Programming Content C Programming Content A Need States  Programming Content B Programming  Content D Programming Content E Programming Content F Programming Content GSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  40. 40. Nine Distinct Palates Characterize Viewers’ Programming  Preferences Programming “Palates” (% of Population Having Each Preference) DRAMA ACTIVE/COMPETITIVE Mystery &  Edgy Drama Relationship  Action Packed Competition Suspense 15% 12% Drama 11% 10% 8% – Mysteries with  – Innovative  – Romance with  – Keeps me on  – Showcases great  unexpected  fantasy or fiction well developed  edge talent twists – Gritty and  characters – Full of action – Fast‐paced – Intelligent  intense – Episodes linked  writing by continuing  story line COMEDY Inspirational  Intelligent  Slapstick Informational Reality 11% Comedy 11% 11% 11% – Real people with  – Witty and light‐ – Silly style  – Serious and  inspiring stories hearted comedy objective – Easy to follow – Easy to relate to – Makes me laugh – Believable true  storiesSource: CBS Demand Landscape (2011), Q36, Q31; TCG Analysis
  41. 41. The Palates Encompass Distinct Groups of Programs Programming “Palates” (% of Population Having Each Preference) DRAMA ACTIVE/COMPETITIVE Mystery &  Edgy Drama Relationship  Action Packed Competition Suspense 15% 12% Drama 11% 10% 8% – NCIS (218) – Walking Dead  – Private Practice  – Sports (129) – The Apprentice  – The Mentalist  (280) (278) – Criminal Minds  (191) (213) – Boardwalk Empire  – Parenthood (225) (127) – Sports (190) – Bones (201) (273) – Grey’s Anatomy – CSI: Miami (125) – The Amazing Race  – Law & Order SVU  – Mad Men (184) ( 211) – CSI: NY (122) (176) (180) – Fringe (181) – The Good Wife  – Survivor (167) (164) COMEDY Inspirational  Intelligent  Slapstick Informational Reality 11% Comedy 11% 11% 11% – Extreme  – Raising Hope (232) – The Cleveland  – CBS Sunday  Makeover: HE  – Modern Family  Show (260) Morning (209) (154) (218) – Family Guy (215) – 20/20 (170) – Biggest Loser (152) – Mike & Molly  – The Simpsons  – National/World  – American Idol  (197) (187) News (152) (142) – Big Bang Theory  – Two and a Half  – Local news (114) – Dancing w/ Stars  (184) Men (134) (126)Source: CBS Demand Landscape (2011), Q36, Q31; TCG Analysis
  42. 42. Viewing Demand Landscape Frames Complex TV Media Market  and Identifies How to Win in Precise Areas of Demand Viewing Demand Landscape – Programming “Palates Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”) Relationship  Relationship  Relationship  Drama Drama Drama Edgy Drama Comedy News/ Mystery &  Comedy InformationNeed States (“For What”) Mystery &  Sports/ Suspense Suspense Competition Edgy Drama Mystery & Suspense Comedy Relationship  Drama News/ Information News/ News/ Information Information Note: Programming Palates based on significant volume and index skews of shows at each intersection Source:   Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  43. 43. By Overlaying Advertisers’ Targets with the Viewing Demand  Landscape, We Can Identify Target Rich Programming Environments Viewing Demand Landscape  We are also integrating online, radio and print to enable integrated optimized media buys Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”) Snacking Enthusiasts High Value Economy Telecom CarNeed States (“For What”) Vulnerables Prospects Craft Beer Experimenters Badge Conscious Drinkers Luxury Snacking Car Enthusiasts High Value Prospects Telecom Vulnerables Note: Programming Palates based on significant volume and index skews of shows at each intersection Source:   Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis
  44. 44. Advertiser Targets Can Share the Same Demographics but Have Very Different Attitudes and Therefore Media Buys Consumer Packaged Goods Consumer Durables Segment A Segment B Segment 1 Segment  2DemographicsFemales 18‐49 49% 47% Females 18‐49 26% 29%Females 50‐65 23% 24% Males 18‐49 25% 22%Males 28% 29% Adults 50‐65 49% 49%Media Demand Profit PoolsPrimary Surfers &  Program  Primary TV  Media  Streamers Passionates Moderators TrendsettersSecondary Program  TV  Secondary Program  Program  Passionates Companions Passionates Passionates
  45. 45. The Potential Power of Insight Into the  Viewership of Core Targets… Top Genres Watched among High‐Spend Mobile Phone Vulnerables  (Percent Indicating as Top 3 Favorite; Index)  Balancing Overall Reach with Quality Reach High Spend  Total  Adults 18‐49 Mobile Phone  Population Vulnerables  Situation Comedy 29% 95 87 Suspense/Mystery/Crime Drama 23% 88 78 Sports Programming 23% 88 152 Movie 20% 103 118 Local News 18% 72 102 Adventure/Action 15% 100 82 General Drama 12% 107 131 Adult Animation/Cartoon 12% 138 108 Reality Show Competition 12% 91 24 National/World News 11% 61 152 Science Fiction 11% 88 64 Cooking/Food 10% 77 123 History 6% 102 176 Home and Garden 6% 78 137 Game Show 5% 80 126 Reality Show Drama 5% 122 53 Soap Opera 5% 85 81 Late Night Show 5% 88 55Notes: Boxed =Significantly above average; Self‐Reported Data; Top 3 favorite genres among those watched in the last 7 days; Total  Penetration must be 3%+Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011), Q59; TCG Analysis
  46. 46. For Each Advertiser, We Will Also Be Able to Quantify  the Potential Efficiency Gain from Reallocating Spend GRP Growth By Reallocating Existing Prime Time  Spend Based on Demand‐Driven Approach +20% Disguised +10% Current Schedule Recommended  Schedule Total Adults (18‐65) Advertiser Target  Customer Advertiser GRPsNote: Impact of reallocating existing media buy to align with advertiser target Demand Profit PoolsSource: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen and TCG Analysis
  47. 47. Impact of Reallocation on Ad Effectiveness Ad Performance Improvement by Reallocating Existing  Spend Based on Demand‐Driven Approach Illustrative 54% Current Schedule Recommended  Schedule General Recall Brand Recall Message Recall LikeabilityNote: Impact on Ad Performance of reallocating existing media buy to align with advertiser target Demand Profit PoolsSource: Nielsen IAG
  48. 48. The Vision…Create a System Which Enables Advertisers to:  Go beyond Pure Reach to Quality Reach…Target  Rich Environments  Define programming arenas of high engagement  Define the power of advertising to convert  prospects & build brand equity  Assess ROI implications
  49. 49. Next Steps Append online, print and radio behavior Deep dives with select advertisers to determine insights  and implications Sharpened media buys for core prospects Explore ad effectiveness results within target rich  environment Assess interplay between TV and online viewership  and behavior As appropriate, test alternative mix shifts and impact
  50. 50. Program Selection Process Concentration
  51. 51. Program Selection Process Concentration + Coverage
  52. 52. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits Top 25 Primetime Programs by Demand Profit Pool Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators GREYS ANATOMY 10.5 - 173 GLEE 5.3 - 97 DANCING WITH THE STARS 6.2 - 91 MODERN FAMILY 9.6 - 154 MODERN FAMILY 5.3 - 84 NCIS 6.1 - 80 BIG BANG THEORY, THE 9.6 - 157 GREYS ANATOMY 4.9 - 81 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS 5.7 - 93 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES 9.4 - 169 HOUSE 4.3 - 82 NCIS: LOS ANGELES 5.1 - 79 HAWAII FIVE-0 8.7 - 150 FAMILY GUY 4.1 - 120 MENTALIST, THE 5.0 - 79 GLEE 8.5 - 156 OFFICE 3.8 - 95 MODERN FAMILY 4.9 - 79 GOOD WIFE, THE 8.1 - 162 HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 3.7 - 90 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES 4.4 - 80 HOUSE 8.1 - 155 SIMPSONS 3.6 - 115 GLEE 4.3 - 79 CASTLE 8.0 - 161 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 3.4 - 87 HOUSE 4.3 - 82 SURVIVOR: NICARAGUA 7.6 - 149 COUGAR TOWN 3.3 - 87 CASTLE 4.2 - 84 PRIVATE PRACTICE 7.3 - 170 CLEVELAND 3.1 - 123 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-WED 4.1 - 85 BLUE BLOODS 6.9 - 152 AMERICAN DAD 3.0 - 128 UNDERCOVER BOSS 4.0 - 84 BROTHERS & SISTERS 6.8 - 169 HELLS KITCHEN 3.0 - 89 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-TUE 3.9 - 83 AMAZING RACE 17 6.8 - 155 RAISING HOPE 2.9 - 101 60 MINUTES 3.7 - 87 BONES 6.6 - 151 BIG BROTHER 12-WED 2.8 - 87 BLUE BLOODS 3.6 - 79 CSI: MIAMI 6.6 - 153 WIPEOUT-TUES 2.7 - 94 PRIVATE PRACTICE 3.4 - 80 DEFENDERS, THE 6.5 - 149 HELLS KITCHEN-WED 8P 2.7 - 89 BROTHERS & SISTERS 3.4 - 84 HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 6.4 - 156 OUTSOURCED 2.6 - 89 EXT. MAKEOVER:HOME ED. 2.9 - 93 LAW AND ORDER:SVU 6.2 - 165 BIG BROTHER 12-THU 2.5 - 84 DETROIT 1-8-7 2.8 - 82 COUGAR TOWN 6.1 - 162 BETTER WITH YOU 2.5 - 84 MIDDLE, THE 2.8 - 79 CSI: NY 6.1 - 151 EXT. MAKEOVER:HOME ED. 2.5 - 81 LAW & ORDER:LA 2.7 - 80 OFFICE 6.0 - 150 30 ROCK 2.4 - 89 PARENTHOOD 2.5 - 82 EVENT 5.7 - 157 MASTERCHEF 2.4 - 103 BIGGEST LOSER 10 2.5 - 83 RIZZOLI & ISLES 5.6 - 166 BIG BROTHER 12-SUN 2.3 - 82 LIE TO ME 2.5 - 87 PARENTHOOD 5.2 - 169 COMMUNITY 1.8 - 82 BACHELOR PAD 2.4 - 95Note: Excludes Sports, Specials, programs with less than a 1.0 Rating and programs outside of the top 40% of the highest Indexing shows.  Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis, 8/30/10‐11/28/10 
  53. 53. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits (cont.) Top 25 Primetime Programs by Demand Profit Pool TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts NCIS 9.9 - 130 MODERN FAMILY 7.3 - 117 NCIS 7.4 - 97 DANCING WITH THE STARS 9.5 - 138 BIG BANG THEORY, THE 6.9 - 113 60 MINUTES 5.5 - 130 NCIS: LOS ANGELES 8.7 - 135 GLEE 6.2 - 115 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-WED 4.8 - 98 MENTALIST, THE 8.6 - 136 OFFICE 4.7 - 117 UNDERCOVER BOSS 4.7 - 97 CRIMINAL MINDS 8.3 - 133 HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 4.6 - 113 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-TUE 4.5 - 97 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS 8.3 - 136 FAMILY GUY 4.5 - 131 AMAZING RACE 17 4.3 - 99 CSI 8.1 - 139 EVENT 4.3 - 119 OFFICE 3.9 - 99 HAWAII FIVE-0 7.4 - 128 COUGAR TOWN 4.3 - 113 SIMPSONS 3.6 - 114 MIKE & MOLLY 7.3 - 138 NO ORDINARY FAMILY 4.1 - 121 FAMILY GUY 3.6 - 104 GOOD WIFE, THE 7.0 - 139 HELLS KITCHEN 4.0 - 120 EVENT 3.5 - 98 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-WED 6.5 - 134 SIMPSONS 3.9 - 124 WIPEOUT-TUES 3.2 - 110 BLUE BLOODS 6.5 - 142 LAW & ORDER:LA 3.9 - 114 CLEVELAND 2.7 - 109 CASTLE 6.3 - 127 RIZZOLI & ISLES 3.9 - 115 CHUCK 2.7 - 103 CSI: MIAMI 6.2 - 145 FRINGE 3.7 - 128 UNDERCOVERS 2.5 - 99 AMERICAS GOT TALENT-TUE 6.2 - 134 HELLS KITCHEN-WED 8P 3.7 - 124 AMERICAN DAD 2.4 - 103 CSI: NY 6.2 - 154 COVERT AFFAIRS 3.6 - 125 MINUTE TO WIN IT-WED 2.4 - 113 $#*! MY DAD SAYS 6.0 - 132 BIG BROTHER 12-THU 3.4 - 116 OUTLAW 2.4 - 109 DEFENDERS, THE 6.0 - 138 BIG BROTHER 12-SUN 3.4 - 121 MINUTE TO WIN IT-TUE 2.3 - 108 BROTHERS & SISTERS 5.2 - 127 OUTSOURCED 3.3 - 116 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS 2.3 - 100 DETROIT 1-8-7 4.8 - 140 LIE TO ME-MON 9P 3.3 - 116 SONS OF ANARCHY 2.2 - 116 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HM ED. 4.5 - 145 RAISING HOPE 3.3 - 113 COMMUNITY 2.1 - 97 RIZZOLI & ISLES 4.3 - 128 30 ROCK 3.1 - 113 DATELINE FRI 2.1 - 103 BIG BROTHER 12-WED 4.2 - 129 AMERICAN DAD 3.0 - 128 COPS 2.0 - 126 MEDIUM 4.2 - 150 CLEVELAND 2.9 - 118 WWE ENTERTAINMENT 2.0 - 126 FLASHPOINT 3.9 - 150 MASTERCHEF 2.7 - 116 AMW: AMERICA FIGHTS BACK 1.9 - 113Note: Excludes Sports, Specials, programs with less than a 1.0 Rating and programs outside of the top 40% of the highest Indexing shows.  Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis, 8/30/10‐11/28/10 
  54. 54. The Future is Now… Open Source Offer Advertiser Experiments Cross‐Media Extension Local Adaptation for Major Markets
  55. 55. The Future is Now… Open Source Offer Advertiser Experiments Cross‐Media Extension Local Adaptation for Major Markets
  56. 56. ADVERTISING10 0 RESEARCH Years1936 • 2036 F O U N D A T I O N
  57. 57. Thank You

×