Innovative tv audience measurement tools

1,142 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,142
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Innovative tv audience measurement tools

  1. 1. Innovative Audience Measurement Tools Steve Weaver Australian Broadcasting Summit 2009
  2. 2. The future- oh my god!
  3. 3. Unprecedented transformationImage courtesy of Group M
  4. 4. The end of tv? As we know it now Then Now Central programming Self programming Central scheduling / TV Content freed from time and adjacencies place Content networks’ oligopoly Internet and mobile aggregators Linear-only advertising with CPMs Tailored interactive advertising TV set as the only screen “Anywhere” screens Primarily ad-supported broadcasts Subscriptions and PPV revenues Platform-based release windowing Time-based release windowing “One price fits all” content / Tailored content / channel channels bundles Monopoly/oligopoly for access Access form telcos, Internet, othersImage courtesy of IBM
  5. 5. A Taste of the Future Present
  6. 6. The new generation of viewers
  7. 7. Buying Connections, Not Audiences
  8. 8. Media Measurement Evolution Advertisers: 1. CFO driven decision making- ROI 2. Fragmented attention 3. Changing retail landscape 4. More sophisticated targeting of consumers Media Owners: 1. Increasingly own multi silo’s 2. Traditional measures can be slow to adapt- losing money to other platforms 3. Share of budget can only be grown by looking outside silo 4. Seeking direct partnership with client- know/access their tools increases chance of share of budget Agencies 1. Planning now infinitely more complex 2. The agency model is being challengedSource: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
  9. 9. WFA Blueprint1. Quantitative, passive measurement systems2. Multi-media audience research3. Large sample sizes4. Better target group descriptions5. Flexible and adaptive approaches6. Single-source, with a link between multi-media use and purchase behaviour Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
  10. 10. Consumer Centric Holistic Measurement Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint
  11. 11. Media Owners Need to1. Get closer to Agency CCHM’s via • sharing of knowledge • complimentary research using each others products2. Maintain, Enhance, Evolve their own currencies • TV – timeshift viewing to be included in ratings from 2010 – Global developments in tv/online metering technology – Return path measurement modelled on panel data • Radio – Moving from home- based, to people-based diary – 24hrs, and includes how you listen eg Internet; DAB; AM/FM • Outdoor – MOVE – Likelihood to see
  12. 12. Engagement
  13. 13. Program Engagement Power (PEP)
  14. 14. PEP Correlates with Ad Recall Correlation Between PEP and Ad Recall 0.45 y = 0.6499x - 0.1606 R2 = 0.4646 0.40 0.35 0.30Ad Recall 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Program Engagement
  15. 15. PEP Case Study
  16. 16. Applying PEP- Cost per Engaged 000
  17. 17. Cost Per Q- Claimed Engagement Uses normal Q Scores Data (claimed program engagement) Combines this with Ad recall data
  18. 18. Cost Per Q Recall by level of engagement- 4’s recall 26% higher than averageIndex 100 126 105 74 37 30% 24% 20% 20% 19% Ad Recall % 14% 10% 7% 0% Overall Ad Recall 4s recall 3s recall 2s recall 1s recall
  19. 19. Cost Per Q Claimed Program Engagement is weighted by Ad Recall and indexed120% 1% x 0.37= 9%100% 2% 12% x 0.74=80% 38% 36%60% x 1.05=40% x 1.26= 63% 50%20% 0% Must Watch % Weighted Must Watch % 4s 3s 2s 1s
  20. 20. Applying Cost Per Q Use the weighted Q to re-calculate the CPM 1600 1539 1500 1488 1403 1400000s 1300 1190 1200 1100 1000 CSI Program A Gladiators Program B 000s Reweighted by Q Recall
  21. 21. Other Engagement Approaches- IAG
  22. 22. IAG Engagement Services
  23. 23. SummaryImage Courtesy of IMMI

×