Brian J King - Thesis Defense Presentation (Prior to giving) - Commercial Media Viewing Habits: Digital Natives Versus Digital Immigrants - 30 July 2009

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

more share options
Embed For WordPress.com

Without related presentations

6 comments

Comments 1 - 6 of 6 previous next Post a comment

+ Brian King 3 months ago
http://bit.ly/bjkthesisdoc

Here is the thesis document link. Cheers!
+ Brian King 3 months ago
Updated as of 18:31h eastern time on 29 July 2009. http://twitter.com/brianjking
+ Brian King 3 months ago
New version coming tonight!
+ Brian King 3 months ago
Updated presentation on 27 July 2009. Will post thesis doc itself to scribd.com account asap after defense on 30 July 2009.

http://twitter.com/brianjking
http://brianjking.emurse.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/brianjking
http://google.com/profiles/brianjosephking
+ Brian King 4 months ago
Additionally you can view the first 3 chapters of my thesis doc here: http://bit.ly/bjkthesisfirst3

Once my final copy of all 5 chapters is available it’ll be posted to scribd as well as available on OhioLink EDT page. This should be around 8 August 2009.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!
+ Brian King 4 months ago
If you want a higher quality version I can send you a high quality PDF or Apple Keynote file, just contact me through twitter or PM me here. Cheers http://twitter.com/brianjking

Cheers!

* Rapid Technological growth + technological immersion = Digital Divide btwn generations (DI & DN) (Prensky 2001a, 2001b)
* media habits - how they view (internet vs. tv)
* viewing habits - are they viewing commercials? are they circumventing them? viewing in an unconventional manner.

* Investigate the difference in media & viewing habits specifically btwn Digital Immigrants & Digital Natives
* Digital Immigrants (30+ years of age)
* Digital Natives (18-29 years of age)

* Media habits - TV vs. Internet (Also DVR, time-shifted viewing, etc.)
* Viewing habits - Do they circumvent viewing of commercials somehow? If so how? Are DI or DN more likely to use a DVR to avoid commercials, view online through Hulu, Boxee, etc.

* The researcher hypothesizes that Digital Natives will show a trend of viewing television commercials online through Hulu, Boxee, Miro, and others.
* According to Prensky (2001a, 2001b) Digital Natives are accustomed to using the Internet for their media viewing habits since they will tend to be online.
* The Digital Immigrants on the other hand will be more likely to view traditional television with different commercial viewing habits than their Digital Native counterparts.
* This is because “. . . like all immigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree, their “accent” that is, their foot in the past” (Prensky, 2001a, p2).

* Conflicting research in this field; no absolute answer.
* Current research doesn’t assess data in a DI vs. DN analysis.
* Current research only shows consumer response to current systems and their coexistence with DVR technologies. (Why significant)

* Quantitative data - measures how much importance each group assigns to viewing modes & methods to circumvent commercials.
* Open-ended (qualitative) responses (Other fields ?s 11-13) provide data to supplement quantitative analysis
* Fulfills mixed-method study methodology.

* BGSU faculty, staff, student only utilized to normalize population sampled.
* Not defining characteristic of study.
* Respond. age ranges categorized into DN or DI group.
* Total 3.3% of population, DN group mainly composed of students, DI group is mostly composed of staff & faculty although also includes 23.8% students.
* Each group (DN & DI) had nearly same # of respondents overall (DN = 306) (DI=307)
* Table 6 - Shows to whom researcher sent survey to
* Table 7 - Shows who responded.

* Following slides will pertain to survey findings & quantitative & qualitative analysis from researcher created survey instrument. Table & Figure #’s correspond with thesis document.

* Traditional TV is most widely utilized for both groups (DN = 77.5%, 84% = DI)
* DN = more than twice as likely as DI to utilize online viewing methods DN = 57.2 % vs. 26.1 = DI).
* Data provides affirmation to researcher stated hypothesis that DN will be more likely to utilize new viewing methods & technologies.
* DI Group gave a 9% higher response for traditional TV usage over DN group.
* Hypothesis confirmed (‘accent’ foot in past - Prensky)

* Figure 2 displays a double bar depicting % of people in each option (# of hours of media viewed online per week)
* Not only do more DN’s utilize online viewing as shown in figure 1, additionally when they view through this method they view more hours per week then their counterpart the Digital Immigrants.
(SHOULD HAVE HAD A CATEGORY OF 0 hrs, this could distinguish non-users & not ask them about Q13 re: circumvention w/ online viewing)

* Another aspect of study was to analyze the importance & frequency of circumventing a commercial through a particular viewing method.
* Quantitative analysis to determine importance of circumventing a commercial & determines if Digital Natives & Digital Immigrants are statistically the same or different in their media viewing habits.
** Conducted chi-test based on chi-squared, degrees of freedom (DF), which determines p-values (probability)
*** selected cut-off of p-value of 0.05 provided 95% confidence level.
* Qualitative (supplemental) data also collected in questions 11-13 & categorized & analyzed for trends.
* Removed N/A (I don’t have or use this service) from analysis, if they don’t have a service or use it then they don’t matter and only skews analysis.

* For the following Questions 10-13 analysis data will be shown in this stacked layout with the Digital Natives 1st, Digital Immigrants group data below, and last quantitative statistical findings & interpretations.
* Q10 - Traditional TV & Online Viewing groups are statistically the same in distribution of level of importance),
* Statistically different for DVR/TiVo (very low p-value) This will be further analyzed in Q 11, 12, 13 w/ qualitative trend analysis as well. Very high ratings (means) DN (n=156, rating 0.67) DI (n=125, rating = 0.79) for DVR/TiVo.

* The summary is people (both Digital Immigrants & Digital Natives) find high levels of importance to circumvent commercials especially when utilizing DVR/TiVo devices, because of features specific to device.

(LINK TO CHI-SQUARED EXPLANATION - BACKUP SLIDE)

* (Q11 - Circumvention methods for Traditional TV) “P” values from chi-test show DI & DN are different for all 3 options w/ traditional TV.
* Ratings (mean value) are important here. Appendix C in doc. explains ratings (mean) values & importance.
* The “mute TV” option rating for both the Digital Natives (n=280, rating=0.26) and Digital Immigrants (n=275, rating=0.35) show it was the least important circumvention method for traditional television.
* The options of “Channel Surf/Change Channel” (Digital Natives n=287, rating=0.61; Digital Immigrants n=285, rating=0.51) and “Walk away from TV” (Digital Natives n=281, rating=0.50; Digital Immigrants n=278, rating=0.47) both have ratings that for using these means of commercial circumvention that are between “occasionally” to “often” values for the Digital Immigrants and the Digital Natives.

* Overall the researcher gets the impression that Digital Immigrants are more likely than Digital Natives to mute tv and are less likely to channel surf or walk away from the TV with this mode of viewing.
* Despite that the distribution of importance is different btwn groups the order of importance of the methods is the same (surfing, ignoring, & then muting).
* Muting = very low ratings for both groups, Channel Surfing & Walk away from TV has fairly similar ratings for both groups w/ aforementioned options.

Traditional TV ONLY!

* Overall the two groups reported the same number of qualitative responses (n=26). The overall qualitative analysis btwn two groups showed trends of turning to an alternative task.

* The Digital Natives open-ended qualitative responses (n=26) had a different series of responses in their trends when the researcher categorized them for trend analysis. 20 (DN) respondents fell into the multitask category with responses ranging from doing homework, obtaining food, using the restroom, socializing with friends that are also viewing the program, and cleaning.

* n=11 for DI group “reading” (perhaps because they are academics?)
* n=20 for DN multi-task/alternate task (perhaps because they are more likely to multi-task as Prensky states then their counterpart group the Immigrants.

* Q12 - Comm. Media w/ DVR/TiVo - Ratings (mean values) are important here. The ratings depict the level of importance for mute TV, channel surf, & walk-away compared to FF options (specific feature to a DVR/TiVo).
* Distribution of 1st 3 options (mute, channel surf, & walking away) for both DI & DN are very strongly to the left (low frequency of use or importance)
* Distribution of options 4 & 5 (Fast-forward w/ DVR/TiVo) & Time-Shifted viewing w/ DVR/TiVo for both DI & DN tend to occur very frequently in the often to always options (aligned to right).

* Options 1-3 have very low ratings (mean values) compared to options 4 & 5.

* Despite this range of options the only ones that appear important with this viewing mode (DVR/TiVo), for either the Digital Immigrants or Digital Natives, are the options that include a DVR/TiVo related option of fast-forwarding—options 4 and 5. The other options are low on a relative basis.
* If the respondent has a DVR/TiVo then the added commercial circumvention options that it provides are the ones that either group apparently chooses to circumvent.

* This view is supported by the rating tool which is described in the appendices (see Appendix C). The rating values for the various options are shown in table 11 (on this slide).

* What the above table shows is that there are various circumvention methods that are not statistically the same but they are so relatively unimportant as to be discounted in the discussions.

* The key methods are numbers 4 and 5. Both are related to fast forwarding and circumventing the commercials, a feature unique to the technology, and they dominate as circumvention methods. The survey results for Digital Immigrants and the Digital Natives are found to be the same by the chi-test results for these two methods.

* Low # of qualitative responses, reported “as-is” in thesis document.
* Findings were relatively unimportant, 1 DN summarized the high ratings in question 12 for the fast-forwarding options w/ a DVR/TiVo in their qualitative response.

* Q13 - Online Commercial Circumvention The researcher hypothesized that Digital Natives would be more likely to utilize newer technologies and view their media online more frequently than their counterpart the Digital Immigrants. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 2 in the thesis document. (Slide 11 (p 23 in doc)
* From the ratings in Figures 9 and 10 above for Question 13, the researcher was able to draw the conclusion that neither walking away nor muting their viewing device when viewing online was utilized often or always.

* The ratings for each of the options are low indicating that neither option was particularly important or frequently utilized.
* Table 12 shows that despite the low level of importance both the Digital Immigrants and the Digital Natives utilized the circumvention methods in a similar fashion. (p-values much larger than 0.05).

Q 13 - Online commercial circumvention * The qualitative categorical data provided for this online viewing method provided similar data for the Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives.
* Slide 13 shows that it is important to circumvent when using online viewing.
* Above qualitative data shows that neither walking away from Computer/Viewing Device or Muting Computer/Viewing Device are important nor frequently utilized circumvention methods.
** This qualitative data shows the method of circumventing is to take on other tasks.

* The irrelevant category was created because there were respondents that included qualitative data referring to the Mozilla Firefox AdBlock plugin (that does not work for these types of commercials), asked “what ads?” or stated that “they simply do not view online” among other comments not relevant to the survey question nor the overall scope of the study.

* Hypothesis is confirmed
** DN group views more online in terms of # hrs/week.
** DI group still utilizes traditional TV alone w/o a set-top box such as a DVR/TiVo 9% more then counterpart.
* Digital Immigrants still have ‘accent’ from their counterpart the digital natives; although they are still progressing forward and utilizing new technologies, just not to the same degree or pace.
** DN still going forward in technological advancement adaption rates using online viewing more frequently, and doing this at a much more rapid rate.
* As the above table displays the method of circumvention appears to be dependent upon viewing method & this determines the frequency & importance of utilizing a particular mode of viewing & method of circumvention for both the DI & DN groups.

3 Favorites

yazid jibrel, med student at Astro, favorited this 3 months ago
Volney Faustini, Evangelista da Transformação at FIT - Faustini, favorited this 3 months ago
Tags habits digitalnatives media
Brian King, Digital Media Technologist/President/CEO at KIWI Communications LLC., favorited this 4 months ago
Tags thesis dvr prensky king academics commercial digital immigrants tivo brianjking media bgsu marketing natives brian j

Brian J King - Thesis Defense Presentation (Prior to giving) - Commercial Media Viewing Habits: Digital Natives Versus Digital Immigrants - 30 July 2009 - Presentation Transcript

commercial media viewing habits: digital natives versus digital immigrants Thesis Defense by: Brian J. King 30 July 2009
Background & Context of Problem ! Digital Immigrants & Digital Natives Different commercial media and viewing habits Media Habits - method of viewing Viewing Habits - commercial circumvention
Statement of Problem The problem of this study is to analyze the difference in media and viewing habits of Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants. The study will include an analysis of viewing habits for Digital Natives (18-29 years of age) and Digital Immigrants (30+ years of age) and how they respond to commercial television. Many options exist to consumers when viewing television and commercials; this study aims to assess the options that consumers have in media viewing mediums (Internet vs. traditional television broadcast) and speciﬁcally their viewing habits of commercials.
Study Objectives Assess commercial viewing habits of DI & DN Assess how the media is consumed between DI & DN Assess the tools, technologies, and methods these groups are using to circumvent commercial viewing.
Hypothesis Digital Natives Digital Immigrants Show a trend of media Favor Traditional Television consumption online. media habits (DI Accent)
Literature Review Market Research/Technology Use Reports Mintel Digital Natives/Digital Immigrants Educause, Prensky, Frand, etc. Advertising publications Advertising Age
Methodology Researcher created survey instrument Likert-style scale questions regarding habits of respondents (DI & DN) Mixed-method study (incorporate both data types) Quantitative data (primary) Qualitative Data (supplementary)
Survey Response Survey instrument distributed 15 June 2009 - 20 June 2009 Population & Respondent details ! Table 6 - p. 20 ! Table 7 - p. 20
Findings & Analysis
Television Viewing Modes (Q10) Figure 1 - p. 22 !
Online Viewing, Hours/Week Figure 2 - p. 23 !
Commercial Circumvention How important is it to circumvent viewing a commercial? To what length will each group go in order to circumvent viewing a commercial when using various tools & technologies to view? This method of analysis fulﬁlled the objective of the study to use a quantitative method to determine the importance of circumventing a commercial, and determines if the methods each group uses to circumvent are similar or different.
Figure 3 - p. 25 ! Figure 4 - p. 26 ! Table 8 - p. 26 !
Figure 5 - p. 28 ! Figure 6 - p. 28 ! ! Table 9 - p. 29
Question 11 - Qualitative Trend Analysis Diversion/ Digital Natives Digital Immigrants Circumvention (n=26) (n=26) Method Internet, Email, n=4 n=3 Facebook Some form of n=2 n=11 reading Multi-task/Alternate n=20 n=12 Task or Activity
Figure 7 - p. 30 ! Figure 8 - p. 30 ! Table 10 - p. 31 !
Relative Importance of Circumvention Methods with DVR/TiVo Options using Rating Scale (Appendix C.) (Q12) ! Table 11 - p. 32
Question 12 - Qualitative Trend Analysis Digital Natives (n=4) & Digital Immigrants (n=4) Low # of responses of qualitative data, relatively unimportant ﬁndings reported by respondents. 1 of the n=4 Digital Natives qualitative responses provided a summation of the DVR/TiVo options (4 & 5 - Table 11) “There is no point in circumventing through muting TV because I can simply fast-forward through the advertisements.” (Anonymous)
Figure 9 - p. 34 ! Figure 10 - p. 35 ! ! Table 12 - p. 35
Question 13 - Qualitative Trend Analysis Diversion/ Digital Natives Digital Immigrants Circumvention (n=28) (n=20) Method Other Task n=2 n=2 New Tab/Browser/ n=19 n=11 Comp. Activity Turn Down/Mute/ n=2 n=3 Ignore Irrelevant n=5 n=4
Summary & Conclusions Hypothesis regarding viewing modes was conﬁrmed. Circumvention of commercial media is important to both the Digital Immigrants and the Digital Natives, especially when DVR/TiVo or similar set- top boxes are available. The method of circumvention seems to be dependent upon viewing method. Each mode provides various circumvention tools and/or strategies to circumvent. this seems to determine the level of importance & frequency of circumvention.
Recommendations Larger population than BGSU (More info about global populations media & viewing) Remove N/A column from survey instrument Use screening questions because only those that have & use a particular media viewing method can select an importance. Market already utilizes pull based methods from TiVo - would be interesting to analyze effective/intrusiveness to consumer for this Personalization, interactivity and contextual aspects included in survey instrument & study scope.
Thank You & Questions/ Feedback