Innovative Audience Measurement Tools

Steve Weaver

Australian Broadcasting Summit 2009

The future- oh my god!

Unprecedented transformation

Image courtesy of Group M

The end of tv? As we know it now

Then Now

Central programming Self programming

“One price fits all” content / channels

Time-based release windowing

Central scheduling / TV adjacencies

Content freed from time and place

Linear-only advertising with CPMs Tailored interactive advertising

Content networks’ oligopoly Internet and mobile aggregators

Monopoly/oligopoly for access Access form telcos, Internet, others

Primarily ad-supported broadcasts

“Anywhere” screens

Platform-based release windowing

Subscriptions and PPV revenues

TV set as the only screen

Tailored content / channel bundles

Image courtesy of IBM

A Taste of the Future Present

The new generation of viewers

Buying Connections, Not Audiences

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 challenged

Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint

WFA Blueprint

1. Quantitative, passive measurement systems

2. Multi-media audience research

3. Large sample sizes

4. Better target group descriptions

5. Flexible and adaptive approaches

6. Single-source, with a link between multi-media use and

purchase behaviour

Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint

Consumer Centric Holistic Measurement

Source: Robert Dreblow- WFA Blueprint

Media Owners Need to

1. Get closer to Agency CCHM’s via • sharing of knowledge

• complimentary research using each others products

2. 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

Engagement

Program Engagement Power (PEP)

PEP Correlates with Ad Recall

Correlation Between PEP and Ad Recall

y = 0.6499x - 0.1606

R2 = 0.4646

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Program Engagement

Ad

Re

ca

ll

PEP Case Study

Applying PEP- Cost per Engaged 000

Cost Per Q- Claimed Engagement

Uses normal Q Scores Data (claimed program engagement)

Combines this with Ad recall data

Cost Per Q

Recall by level of engagement- 4’s recall 26% higher than average

19%

24%

20%

14%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Overall Ad Recall 4's recall 3's recall 2's recall 1's recall

Ad

Re

ca

ll %

100 126 105 74 37 Index

Cost Per Q

Claimed Program Engagement is weighted by Ad Recall and indexed

50%63%

36%

38%

12%

9%

1%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Must Watch % Weighted Must Watch %

4's 3's 2's 1's

x 1.26=

x 1.05=

x 0.74=

x 0.37=

Applying Cost Per Q

Use the weighted Q to re-calculate the CPM

1403

1488

1539

1190

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

CSI Gladiators

000s

000's Reweighted by Q Recall

Program A Program B

Other Engagement Approaches- IAG

IAG Engagement Services

Summary

Image Courtesy of IMMI