Revenge, Confusion and Kumbayah at the TV of Tomorrow 2019 Conference

Between ATSC 3.0, Addressability, live programming such as news and sports and OTT, this year’s NYC TV of Tomorrow conference offered a great sense of anticipation regarding the future of media. From when I first attended the conference in 2012, the ecosystem has gone through a series of seismic changes, lurching forward in one area and contracting in another. Recall the first rumblings of Addressable? Now it is reaching critical mass. Remember 3D TV? Yeah, neither do I. This year, the prognosticators report the following:

Revenge of the Nerds

There is more data than ever which leads to much more complexity in how it is used. “There is a greater need for examining multiple data sources, rather than simply relying on one or two” stated Helen Katz, Senior Vice President and Director Global Analytics and Insights, Publicis. “Given the increased complexity in consumers’ media and purchase behavior over the past five years, buyers and sellers both need to look to more granular data to do their jobs effectively.”

To that end, Julian Zilberbrand Executive Vice President Audience Science, Viacom/CBS, got it right when he said, “If you don’t have your nerds, you’re dead.” Arming your company with the best talent in data science, research and analytics is a must to compete in this ever complex media ecosystem. I have been in the nerd sector of the industry for decades so this evolution in industry attitude is very welcome.

We Are All Confused

As frenetic and confusing as the change is for those who work in media, the world is equally so for the consumer. “There is consumer confusion about how to access content,” stated Julie DeTraglia, Head of Research, Hulu. “We went into homes and found that people don’t understand their own TV sets.” Natasha Hritzuk, Vice President Consumer Insights, WarnerMedia, added, “It is a challenge for consumers. People feel overwhelmed. They have to grapple with the device proliferation and the choice of content.”

Part of the confusion on the media side is the changing ways to do business. “The rules we grew up with are antiquated,” stated Peter Olsen, Executive Vice President Ad Sales, A+E Networks, “It was good when we started because TV didn’t have to sell itself,” but now there is more competition. And even current business rules are not as simple as we may think. Take, for example, calculating attribution. “When I view engaging content, I won’t switch to buy something. I will wait,” explained Radha Subramanyam, President and Chief Research and Analytics Officer, Viacom/CBS. “Half of TV impressions are not counted because they are time shifted. Tons of clients do attribution around live. But no one will stop in the middle of a great program to buy something, especially something expensive.”

A Media Kumbayah

For the first time in our history, there has been a partnering of not only frenemy companies who compete on the same side of the business but also those who compete across the negotiation table. Programmers, networks and content distributors are forming working open partnerships with agencies, brands and advertisers. This cross industry collaboration is a welcome advancement where agreed upon solutions can be facilitated and moved more quickly into market.

David Ernst, Vice President, Advanced TV and Digital Insights, A+E Networks, explained that, “We offer insights as to how well campaigns on our networks are driving results, driving KPIs, drive to the web or retail location. What is changing is the dynamic of media seller and buyer. Once at odds, we are now all in same boat. There is more collaboration with agencies.” Olsen is, “confident in the bigger picture that TV works and we need to get there fast. It will take a couple of years but when we put our heads together we find many solutions.”

Be Careful of Simple Solutions

To mitigate this confusion, there may be a temptation to enforce simple standardizable solutions. But this lack of nuance would be a mistake. Collecting all content into an app, for example, aggregates content from many properties which can be good but, recalling her past experience in CPG research, Hritzuk warned that, “We are on a point of inflection to become commoditized. I worry about commoditization of inventory.”

Bringing different datasets together can solve for the deficiencies in each. Tom Ziangus, Senior Vice President Research, AMC Networks, noted, “There is a level of granularity that we don’t have with Nielsen but a level of information on Individual viewers from Nielsen that we don’t have from big data,” he explained. However, bringing different datasets together is complicated. “We need to ‘de-babelize’ the dataset [into one common language],” noted Jonathan Steuer, Chief Research Officer, Omnicom, “Or we can’t have same buying and selling combinations.” For Andrew Ward, President, Ampersand, the industry should, “move away from panel survey-based to deterministic.”

Remember too that we are not always seeking the same solutions. “PlutoTV is free so we are not competing for money but competing for time. People feel overwhelmed and confused over places to watch things. For many, Pluto is easy, like turning the TV on. We are not trying to get dollars out of people’s pockets. We are competing differently,” explained Colleen Fahey-Rush, Executive Vice President, Chief Research Officer, Viacom.

For Katz, she believes the industry will eventually come together to create a common data platform that incorporates data from multiple sources. How soon that will happen remains to be seen. Stay tuned for TVOT 2020.

This article first appeared in www.MediaVillage.com

Being More Explicit with Consumer Data to Improve Content & Ad Experiences. An Interview with Turner’s Natasha Hritzuk

Natasha Hritzuk, Vice President of Consumer Innovation Research at Turner has deep roots in market research, analyzing consumer motivations and attitudes. Her work experience includes stints at research vendors before moving over to the brand side at General Mills U.K. and later at Microsoft. 

Now at Turner, Hritzuk’s research work began in support of Ignite and recently expanded to include, as she explained, “more of a pure consumer insights role that sits across the business,” with the intent to “bring a consumer perspective to the media industry.” 

Hritzuk recently completed a study that focuses on building a consumer culture of data sharing by delivering explicit benefits around improved content and ad experiences. She will be presenting her findings at the ARF CONSUMERxSCIENCE Conference in New York on Wednesday, March 28. I sat down with Hritzuk to dive into the findings: 

Charlene Weisler: What did you want to accomplish from this study?

Natasha Hritzuk: Initially, I came at this research from a very philosophical perspective. Data is currently thought of in the broader corporate sector as a corporate asset rather than a consumer asset. As someone representing the voice of the consumer, this is overtly one-sided.

Certainly corporations can derive benefits from data, but it’s actually a consumer asset. As individuals, we produce data footprints that companies need, acquire and use, but often without our explicit consent or without clear articulated benefits. I believe at some point there is going to be a correction or re-balancing, where consumers come to the realization that companies are selling and making money from their data, and they’re not entirely clear on what they’re receiving in return.  I think data will become recognized more as a currency, which means that we as media companies need to be very clear about what our policies are around data acquisition. We also need to be clear and transparent about what we are explicitly providing back to consumers in exchange for their data.

Weisler: How close do you think we are to that consumer tipping point?

Hritzuk: I think we are still in a position where consumers are aware, but complacent. With the way information is spread today through social media and other consumer driven platforms, we may witness something in the world of consumer data similar to the activism we recently experienced around gun control. Instead of assuming that the status quo will be complacency, my recommendation is that it’s better to be on the forefront of developing transparent, consumer centric data policies rather than being reactive when and if there is some sort of backlash. 

Weisler: What were the major takeaways of the study and were there any surprises?

Hritzuk: What was particularly surprising to me is how willing people are to share most data that is vital to the media industry.  In fact, consumers are willing to share roughly 17 of the 23 different data types we listed.  This includes data around show and genre preference, what is watched and when, and even mood.  The data consumers are more reticent to share is generally more sensitive and personal – fingerprints, financial information, calendars and appointments, facial scans. 

Why are people so willing to share most data types?  A lot of it is because of habituation. The more consumers regularly share data, and at least implicitly see a benefit, the more willing they are to share in the future. Years ago, we might have been worried about typing our credit card information into a digital retail site. Today, we do it without a question. Why? Because the benefit is that sharing this data streamlines the purchase process. There is an implicit benefit, so we now share without thinking. Sharing your location used to be really touchy territory. Now we share fairly regularly and reflexively because companies like Uber have habituated us.  I need to share my location so a driver can reach me; the benefit of providing location data to Uber is clear.  

But are we really comfortable with a long term view that consumers will remain passive and complacent about data sharing?  It just doesn’t jibe with the current culture of consumer awareness and activism – particularly with younger generations. We need to shift from habituating to empowering consumers to share their data with a clear understanding of the benefits they’re receiving in return. By being transparent with consumers that the data they are providing delivers a very clear set of benefits that are valued, both companies and consumers win.

Weisler: We might be unwittingly sharing data like loyalty cards where all of sudden it is being sold somewhere else.

Hritzuk: That is definitely part of this broader consumer/data discussion. The evolution of data sharing is fascinating. For a long time, many people weren’t aware that data was an active currency in the corporate world. Now they are certainly aware of it. 

Consumers are even more acutely aware of their data being used when the outcome is a negative experience. Consumers regularly complain about irrelevant recommendations or “ads that stalk you.” In these instances – which are far too common – consumers know that their search and purchase data has been tracked, but what they get back is irrelevant or, even worse, irritating.  For example, say I bought a pair of shoes, and I continue to see a targeted ad for those shoes over the next six months.  Consumers increasingly view these experiences as a misuse of data – about as far away from a benefit as you can get. 

This is an opportunity for media companies to be more proactive about asking consumers to share data and deliver an explicit, valued benefit as a result.  Only a conscious effort to provide explicit and meaningful benefits in exchange for data will lead to a true data sharing economy. And, in many cases, the benefits consumers value are organic to what media companies are already offering: content on demand, recommendations, content playlists.  So, we’re moving into low hanging fruit territory in terms of what companies need to do to live up to their end of the bargain. 

Weisler: Looking forward, what do you see as the most critical data issues three years from now?

Hritzuk: Companies need to reflect on their philosophy regarding data transparency and the relationship they want to cultivate with consumers and data. Trust and transparency are important as a proactive measure. Opt-in terms and conditions written in language that is consumer friendly is a basic starting point. Making clear what the terms and conditions are – why data is needed and what benefits will be accruing back to the consumer is also key. And communication back to the consumer celebrating how data has improved consumer products and services is basic, but incredibly meaningful. You provided us with ‘X,’ so we could give you ‘Y.’ If we as media companies can provide a better consumer product because of the data that consumers share, everybody benefits. 

This article first appeared in www.MediaVIllage.com

Digital Placed Based Media Makes Its Big Move

As if the current television environment isn't challenging enough with flat expected revenue, expanding linear viewing choices, audience fragmentation, cross platform viewing, VOD, DVR, and commercial ratings, there is apparently a new set of challenges eroding potential ad dollars according to the DPAA at its recent conference.

This challenge to media ad dollars may be coming from the most unlikely places - a taxi, an elevator or even a gas pump.  In this ever expanding and developing area of digital placed based media, any place where the consumer journey takes place is an opportunity to reach them via a screen. And digital placed based media is already recognized by brands and advertisers as valuable opportunities to reach their target consumer.  As Jack Haberman at Colgate Palmolive says, "Video is the new day part". That means that viewers are no longer tethered to the home screen… or any one based device... or by any time of day. Prime time can be any time and any place; morning at the gym, lunchtime at your desk, commutation in a cab or train.

Consumers Rule

The proliferation of screens into all aspects of everyday life, both inside and outside the home, presents both opportunities and challenges for media companies, advertisers, brands and data companies. According to Francois De Gaspe Beaubien, chairman of the DPAA, "Consumers are spending most of their time out of the home. People are interacting with screens outside of their homes." That means that there is more competition for attention and more of a consumer driven environment for placing content. And with prescient content owners like HBO deciding to go OTT, it looks more and more like the content delivery chain, like everything else in media today, is fragmenting and morphing. More native advertising, more binging, more multi-tasking is coupled with less reliable measurement, less concentrated viewer attention and less control of the chain by the old television guard.

Who is to Blame?

There is certainly enough blame to go around. Technology certainly plays a large role in this disruption. Jack Myers gave an inspiring talk about how technology is forever changing media habits. He says, “The fundamental culture of our business is changing. Every minute of every day, consumers’ media habits are radically different than they were last year, two years ago, ten years ago and certainly dramatically different than they were 20 years ago.”

But in addition to technology, traditional media’s way of doing business also contributes to the viewers’ changing habits. Ad time within a TV program can be more than 25% of the program run time. Commercial pods are getting longer, encouraging viewers to find ways to avoid ads. BTIG’s Rich Greenfield noted that “Binge viewing drives more binge viewing. We are learning to watch in a certain way. We are training consumers to avoid ads.”

Challenges – Measurement, Privacy and Fraud

However, digital placed media has a few challenges as well. For one, there is no standard accredited measurement across all OOH platforms. The current Nielsen measurement consists of audience studies that are conducted as proprietary research with each study funded by the measured network. Nielsen then takes these studies across all measured nets and compiles into one report that is issued quarterly to the marketplace. According to MediaVest’s David Shiffman “A few years back, the DPAA issued specific guidelines for their members to follow for audience measurement with the goal to help ensure some standardization in what gets measured and how it is measured.”

There is also the privacy concern. Deutsch’s Anush Prabhu noted that “there is a lot more data available today. We can tell your geo location from your phone which is cool but also creepy.” Microsoft’s Natasha Hritzuk added, “Consumers are aware that their data is being collected. It is the lack of transparency as to how we are using the data that is the problem. We need simple conditions that we can opt into and a clear value exchange.”

Fraud is another concern. As Barry Frey, President and CEO of the DPAA remarked, “Kraft has said that 75-85% of their data is fraudulent and they will not use it.” Companies are responding to this challenge. According to MEC’s Shenan Reed, “We are going to 100% viewable which is higher than the industry standard. We will only pay for something that is 100% viewable.”

Ultimately, the DPAA conference was a high note for digital placed based media. As Frey concluded, "We received terrific feedback on this year's Video Everywhere Summit from many of the record 700+ people in attendance. The sessions covered not only issues specific to the rapidly growing digital place based media sector, but those of importance to the overall media and advertising ecosystem as well. It's always rewarding and exhilarating when so many months of planning coalesce into a worthwhile day for so many people." See a video of some of the highlights of the DPAA conference here. (insert link or embed)