• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
Social TV Viewing, Word of Mouth, and Ad Effectiveness
 

Social TV Viewing, Word of Mouth, and Ad Effectiveness

on

  • 783 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
783
Views on SlideShare
783
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
17
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Social TV Viewing, Word of Mouth, and Ad Effectiveness Social TV Viewing, Word of Mouth, and Ad Effectiveness Presentation Transcript

    • Social TV Viewing, Word of Mouth, and Ad EffectivenessCo-viewing and out-of-home viewing  Gregg Liebman, SVP Turner Broadcasting  Brad Fay, COO, Keller Fay Group
    • Two Rival Models for Watching TV Together(aka “Co-Viewing”) “Distraction” model – The presence of other people distracts people from on-screen content, reducing value to advertiser – See “How Co-viewing Reduces the Effectiveness of TV Advertising” (2011) by Steven Bellman et al. “Social Influence” model – The presence of other people leads to more emotional engagement and the sharing of advertising content, leading to higher ad effectiveness – See The Face to Face Book, by Ed Keller & Brad Fay, forthcoming from Free Press in May 2012 Which is (more) correct?
    • The Distraction Model 2011 Australian study by Bellman et al – Literature review includes studies back to 1965 on detrimental effects of co-viewing – New study found one-third lower day-after ad recall for commercials co-viewed vs. viewed alone – Explanation was “loss of [mental] processing” when others present – Suggested advertisers “demand that they pay a lower price for co-viewed spots” Caveats – Only metric to show deterioration was “delayed” ad recall after 24 to 36 hours; nothing about intent or actual purchase – Study acknowledged enhanced ad recall when viewers talked about the commercials, suggesting opportunity to “fine tune and ad’s creative so that it deliberately generates talk among co-viewers”
    • The Social Model  Has a long “pedigree” as well – Personal Influence (Free Press: 1955) by Katz & Lazarsfeld suggested that ads work by fostering conversation (“two step flow”) – Word of Mouth Advertising a strategy offered by psychologist Ernest Dichter in 1966 HBR article More recent indications at ARF conferences – NFL audiences have billions more conversations about advertisers than non-audiences, during broadcast season – Much higher advertiser WOM levels for “out of home” 2010 World Cup audiences – Sports & out of home audiences involve more “co-viewing” than usual— could this be the reason why?
    • 2011 Turner Study Tested Social Model Directly Study related NBA Eastern Conference Finals – Six game series, Chicago vs. Miami, May 2011 Keller Fay’s TalkTrack® WOM survey expanded to measure WOM for ECF advertisers – With a booster sample, responses collected from 2,240 males ages 18-54 during series – Comparisons made to WOM levels during off season (4,232 interviews); NBA regular season (5,209) and early playoff rounds (1,071) As with all TalkTrack® surveys – Representative sample of consumers kept track of category/brand conversations for 24 hours – Brands recorded in a diary on open ended basis – Survey collected details on conversations, media exposures (including NBA viewing), and demographics
    • Focus on Advertiser WOM during ECF Broadcast Examined WOM levels for ‘$750K+ Advertisers’ and ‘Top 12’ according to ad spend – Top 12 Advertisers  T-Mobile, Adidas, Miller Lite, State Farm, McDonald’s, Hyundai, E-Trade, Disney Studios (Cars 2 & Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Microsoft (Microsoft Windows & Windows Phone), Chrysler/Dodge, Sprint, and Progressive. – $750K+ Advertisers:  In addition to the Top 12 Advertisers, those spending $750K+ include Apple (iPhone & iPad), Gatorade, Taco Bell, Unilever (Degree & AXE), Coca Cola, and Heineken.
    • FindingsTurner NBA 2011 ECF Social ViewingStudy
    • Talk About Advertisers Increased During Playoffs Projected Weekly Mentions of NBA Playoff Advertisers Among Men 18-54, in Millions Off Season NBA Regular Season Early Playoffs Eastern Conference Finals +39.9 Million Overall +30.1 Million 335.0 Overall 295.1 295.3 303.8 193.1 163.0 163.6 165.5 $750K+ Advertisers Top 12 AdvertisersBase: Brand Mentions Among Males 18-54 (Off Season, n=40,097; NBA Regular Season, n=52,162; Early Playoffs, n=10,812; Eastern Conference Finals, n=19,529)NOTE: $750K+ & Top 12 Advertisers according to ad spend. Includes advertisers that were tracked during the entire time period examined.Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, Off Season Reflects June 14th – Oct. 24th, 2010; NBA Regular Season Reflects Oct. 25th, 2010 – Apr. 10th, 2011;Early Playoffs Reflects April 11th – May 15th, 2011; Eastern Conference Finals Reflects May 16th – 29th, 2011.
    • 38% Followed NBA Playoffs Closely % of Men 18-54 Following NBA Playoffs During Eastern Conference Finals Very Not At All, Closely, 20% 43% Viewers – 38% Somewhat Closely, 18% Only Slightly, 19%Base: Respondents (Males 18-54, n=2,240)Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Over Two-in-Five Viewers Watched The Playoffs Outside of Their Own Homes, In Social Settings Specific Location of Eastern Conference Finals Viewership Among Male Viewers 18-54 At Home 93% At Home Only (NET) 57% At A Bar/Restaurant 28% At Someone Else’s Home 24% At Work 7% Out of Home (NET) – 43%While Traveling Between Places 3% Someplace Else 3% At An Airport 2% Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882) NOTE: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Percentages do not add to 100%, as respondents may have watched the NBA playoffs in multiple locations. Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Viewers Watched the Playoffs By Themselves andSocially % of Male Viewers 18-54 Watching NBA Playoffs “Very Frequently” With/Without People During Eastern Conference Finals By Yourself 48% With Family/Friends 29% With Acquaintances/Strangers 14%Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882)NOTE: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs.Figures in the chart represent those who reported "very frequently" watching playoffs with or without people, therefore, percentages will not add to 100.Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Viewers Watched the Eastern Conference Finals in a Variety of Scenarios Dynamics of Eastern Conference Finals Viewership Among Male Viewers 18-54 At Home & Social* 29% At Home & Not Social* 21%Out of Home & Not Social* 20% Out of Home & Social* 17% Varied Viewer** 38% Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882) Note: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Percentages do not add to 100%, as respondents were able to indicate multiple viewing scenarios. *Defined as respondents who watched at specified location (or net of locations) and indicated they were “very frequently” by themselves, with friends/family, or acquaintances/strangers. **Those who were not frequently watching by themselves, with friends/family, or acquaintances/strangers Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®: May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Men Who Followed the Playoffs Were More Likely Than Non-Viewers to Talk About Advertisers % of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to TotalNon-Viewer Viewers (NET) Follow Somewhat Closely Follow Very Closely 114 121 111 109 113 107 89 85 $750K+ Advertisers Top 12 AdvertisersBase: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922; Viewers (NET), n=882; Follow Somewhat Closely, n=425; Follow Very Closely, n=457)NOTE: Viewers (NET) includes those who “very” or “somewhat” closely followed the NBA playoffs, but not those who “only slightly” followed the games.Non-viewers includes men who reported “not at all” following the playoffs.Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Out-of-Home Viewers of NBA Playoffs Far More Likely to Talk About Advertisers, Especially the Top 12 Spenders % of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to TotalNon-Viewer At Home Out of Home (NET)*At Someone Else’s Home At Work At A Bar/Restaurant 186 151 157 151 145 145 139 132 113 115 89 85 $750K+ Advertisers Top 12 AdvertisersBase: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: At Home, n=823; Out of Home (NET)*, n=378; At Someone Else’s Home, n=204; At Work, n=60; At A Bar/Restaurant, n=240)*Out of Home (NET) includes At Someone Else’s Home, At Work, At a Bar/Restaurant, At an Airport (insufficient base size to show alone),While Traveling Between Places (insufficient base size to show alone), and Someplace Else (insufficient base size to show alone).Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Social Viewing Led to Much HigherWOM Engagement for Advertisers % of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to Total Non-Viewer Frequently Watch By Yourself Frequently Watch With Friends/Family Frequently Watch with Acquaintances/Strangers 157 161 141 138 108 115 89 85 $750K+ Advertisers Top 12 AdvertisersBase: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: Frequently Watch By Yourself, n=421; Frequently Watch With Friends/Family, n=239;Frequently Watch With Acquaintances/Strangers, n=103)Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Combination of Social & Out-of-Home Drove Greatest WOM Engagement for Advertisers• Social viewing at home produced WOM engagementNBA Playoff Advertisers,than those viewing alone out of home. % of Men 18-54 Talking about only somewhat higher Indexed to Total Non-Viewer Viewers (NET) At Home & Alone Only Varied Viewer Out of Home & Not Social At Home & Social Out of Home & Social 192 170 159 142 146 132 111 114 105 99 89 87 85 88 $750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: Viewers (NET), n=882; At Home & Alone Only, n=196; Varied Viewer, n=345; At Home & Social, n=237; Out of Home & Not Social, n=168; Out of Home & Social, n=134) Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011
    • Implications Co-Viewing delivers a clear “word of mouth” benefit – Increases engagement with ad content – Social context probably raises “emotional” response, even if there is some cognitive sacrifice Implications – Media buying:  Value of co-viewed formats may be higher than solo viewed formats – Creative strategy:  Creative for co-viewed program formats should be designed to drive conversation – Programmers:  A new reason not to give up on programing that appeal to the whole family – Social Media:  Opportunity to deliver “co-viewing” even when people are not physically together – Research:  Need to study other program genres (in addition to sports)
    • Thank You!Gregg Liebman (gregg.liebman@turner.com)Brad Fay, COO (bfay@kellerfay.com) 18
    • TalkTrack® Methodology Keller Fay Group’s TalkTrack®, a national syndicated Mode of Conversations program measuring word of mouth in all forms – Across All Categories face-to-face, over the phone, and through the Internet. Face-to- Face – Over three-quarters of all conversations occur 77% face-to-face, as depicted in the pie chart. Other 2% The study involves 36,000 online consumers annually, yielding approximately 360,000 Online 6% conversational mentions of brands. Phone Respondents are representative of the US population 15% aged 13 to 69, use a diary to keep track of their brand conversations, then complete an online survey to gather detailed information about these conversations.