Media Researchers: Politics Ruins Everything, Including Media Research

Media Researchers: Politics Ruins Everything, Including Media Research

by Joe Mandese  @mp_joemandese,

Public perception about the inaccuracy of political polling during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections has contributed to a crisis of confidence for the survey-based research industry, especially media researchers, a roundtable of industry experts said Monday.

The roundtable, organized by media research vets Tim Brooks and Charlene Weisler as part of an ongoing series of “media insights salons,” can be viewed in its entirety below, but the consensus was that negative attention surrounding the accuracy of political polling, has exacerbated concerns about media research in general.

Coming at a time when many in marketing and media already have begun moving away from survey-based research in favor of data science, as well as concerns that the efficacy of surveys has also deteriorated due to changes in the way surveys are conducted, especially the volume and ubiquity of them, the experts said.

“If we’ve learned anything over the past couple of years, it is that politics ruins everything,” quipped Betsy Frank, former research chief at Time Inc., Viacom, Zenith and other organizations, acknowledging that public perceptions have been tarnished. She blamed the news media, in part, for their coverage of political polling pre- and post the elections, but also acknowledged that the environment surrounding survey-based research has fundamentally changed, and that other methods -- including observational methods, or biometric techniques -- may be part of a longer term solution for measuring media.

“What’s happened now is the cynicism that we’ve seen in politics now has spilled over,” concurred Jack Wakshlag, former head of research at Turner, WB, CBS and currently an advisor to Simulmedia, adding, “There’s a decline in trust.”

Wakshlag noted there have always been issues with how survey-based research has been conducted, especially ensuring that they used proper sample sizes and representative ones, but he implied that many organizations have been let standards slide and that has contributed to a loss of confidence about research science overall.

He suggested some of the problems with sample representation -- including political polls -- could be offset by utilizing sample weighting techniques to compensate for the under-representation of key segments. That is one of the factors many researchers attributed to the inaccuracy of political polls in 2016 and 2020, because so-called “shy Trump supporters” may have been reluctant to participate in polls, or if they did, to give accurate answers about their voting plans.

Wakshlag noted that weighting has been an integral part of media research for decades, including panel-based research such as Nielsen’s, which has used weights to adjust for the under-representation of certain demographics, especially hard to reach ones.

Brooks, former research chief at Lifetime, USA Networks, and legendary ad agency N.W. Ayer, added that part of the problem with survey research is that methods have changed from the simple days of diary-based panel surveys and random-digital-dialing telephone surveys to online polls, which virtually anyone and everyone can conduct.

That latter point was something Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer of the Advertising Research Foundation, and Nielsen before that, said may be negatively impacting the quality of survey research, noting that many consumers -- especially those who were stuck at home during the COVID-19 pandemic -- may have become professional survey-takers in order to make a little money on the side from researchers and pollsters.

Donato said he doesn’t have any hard numbers to say exactly how much the survey universe has grown, but he noted that “response rates” for many forms of formal industry research soared during the pandemic, which is an indication that consumer behavior changed -- at least for a period of time -- during the pandemic.

Long-term, Donato suggested the best possible method of the media and marketing research industry might be a combination of techniques, including well-conceived and maintained panels that can control for the representation of various consumers, as well as data analytic methods that could be used to benchmark, and adjust each other.

He described this as a “proper balance between a well-curated panel and machine-curated data, and said that utilizing the two processes simultaneously would lead to the best “scientific combination” of research and data science.

 

The ARF’s Paul Donato Reveals the Path and Speed of Industry Change in Research

Even before the pandemic, the media industry was changing, evolving and adapting to frequent disruptions.  The ARF recently fielded a study called Organizational Benchmarks Study: The Advertiser Report, that reveals insights into these changes. Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer of the ARF, explained, “Research departments are changing rapidly, especially as machine learning and AI are displacing more traditional research skills.” ARF members were asking how other company’s departments were changing and adapting to the new reality. 

To help answer members’ questions, the ARF conducted an online survey of more than 450 industry professionals, half of which were at the Director level or higher. According to Donato, “That would include what they are calling themselves, department structure, skills needed, techniques used and stakeholder satisfaction, to name just a few of the dimensions measured,” and he added, “We will be repeating this survey every year and offer member companies customer studies that benchmark their departments to the overall study.”

Top Findings

- Research department reporting structures varied by company size. The study found that larger advertisers are more likely to have a decentralized structure, while small advertisers tend to be more centralized.  Decentralization tends to lead to a fragmented approach to research requests. Donato noted, “While almost all advertisers (92%) go to a department called consumer research/insights, larger advertisers are more likely to have a decentralized research structure (53% vs. 30% of smaller advertisers) and turn to additional departments for market research and insights, such as the marketing or strategy/planning departments.”

- Notably, according to Donato, there is greater dissatisfaction with decentralized departments. “Advertisers with decentralized departments were less satisfied, which tends to occur with larger advertisers. So, variables related to advertiser size would also be related,” he explained.

- The report found that reporting structures for research departments tend to report into a wide variety of other departments, from marketing to product development. However, Consumer Research/Insights and Data Science/ Analytics were the most frequently reported.

- Departments responsible for research functions tended to have a range of names. “We came across hundreds of names,” Donato asserted, “Most frequently, it is a compound form of research: media research, market research, or consumer research. There were also variations of Data Science/Analytics.”

- Spending for Research hadn’t essentially changed at the time the study was fielded in October 2019. “Spend was more or less normally distributed than the year prior,” he stated.

- When it comes to research KPIs, Sales is the most important followed by Brand equity and Brand lift.  

- Advanced analytics/statistics is the top technical skill sought after for advertisers at both large and small companies, followed by basic analytics skills like Excel and brand storytelling.

Looking Forward

This report is the first of a five-part series, with subsequent benchmark reports focusing on agencies, media, research companies and consultancies, to be released throughout 2020, according to the ARF. Unfortunately, since the survey was completed in October 2019, it doesn’t include any questions about the pandemic. But questions will be included in the next survey.

Donato offered his insights into what the next study wave might reveal. “Some in-person research will be affected such as focus groups or face-to-face research,” he noted, “That being said, research and insights will be more critical than ever as businesses try to navigate this unprecedented time of uncertainty.”

The temptation to restrict advertising during an economic downturn is understandable but Donato warned, “All our studies suggest that advertising during a recession makes the brand stronger at the back end of the recession. Moreover, going dark can take a brand three to five years to recover. To the extent that requires research on new creative messages, new media plans and marketing plans, there is still need for research. What marketers will do remains to be seen.”

The ARF Reveals Their Plans for 2020

With research, data and insights commanding media attention today, an organization such as the ARF must keep pace and help their membership understand and navigate the impact. The ARF is well prepared for this task. Its mission is, according to Scott McDonald, CEO and President, “To further, through research, the scientific practice of advertising and marketing.” 

The ARF recently revealed their plans for 2020 to strengthen, “All of the industry C’s – Content, Credibility, Creativity, Consumer and Community,” explained Deborah Kim, Director of Sponsorship and Business Development. The meeting, held in the NYC offices, showcased the full range of 2020 initiatives including new and expanded ways of funding research projects, clarifying and prioritizing initiatives, detailing upcoming projects and revealing a full roster of upcoming events for 2020.

With 400 corporate members ranging from advertisers, agencies, media and research companies, the expectation is that the ARF must be, “The standard bearer for unbiased quality in research,” stated Michael Heitner, Executive Vice President, Member Needs and Value. 

ARF Focus for 2020

McDonald explained that, based on feedback from the membership, the focus in 2020 revolves around content – how it is consumed, tracked, measured, made more effective and valued in the consumer journey.

One of the most important improvements from 2019 is the increased financial effort to support such an all-encompassing initiative. “We are here to help members make smarter decisions and to let us know how they want the funds to be allocated,” he noted. To that end, he established a member driven agenda to drive thought leadership. Now, 10% of the larger corporate membership dues in 2020 will be committed to fund original research, up from 8% in 2019. In addition, smaller companies, once priced out of participation, can now also affordably contribute to the effort.

But how does one start to map out the priorities? “We asked what kept people up at night,” McDonald said and they came up with the following seven areas of need:

    >  Data, Analytics to Insights. How we can leverage data for insights.

    >  Ad Creative

    >  Media Measurement

    >  Marketing Measurement and ROI

    >  Future Methods and the Evolution of Technology

    > Teams, Talent, Training and Organization including how to blend small and big data and how to hire and train new talent

    > Consumer Science and the issues of Privacy. The choices of platforms to source content.

Overseeing these priorities is a Leadership Committee made up of a dozen member companies from across the media spectrum from networks to brands to research companies that, “reflects the diversity of stakeholders in the ARF,” and, added McDonald, “will have a direct hand in setting the research agenda.”

ARF Research Priorities for 2020

For Chief Research Officer, Paul Donato, the ARF’s seven councils will help to focus and drive the overall agenda. The councils relate specifically to the ARF-identified seven areas of need and include:

    >  Analytics - the emerging issues related to the integration and analysis of big data.

    >  Cognition – how advertising works from both neurological and survey based perspectives.

    >  Creative – tools for creative and research.

    >  Cross platform measurement – supporting better cross platform planning and MRC efforts.

    >  Cultural effectiveness – effective marketing strategies that target diverse multicultural and generational groups.

    >  LA Council/TV and Video Content- better measurement to track viewers changing video consumption, recommendation engines, promoting content and program resting.

    > Social – A guide for social metrics and a better understanding of measurement and effectiveness.

ARF Outreach for 2020

But all of these efforts would have a limited range were it not for the many conferences, webinars, salons and outreach efforts to encourage participation, solicit feedback and showcase the results.

The ARF offers a range of sponsorable events throughout the year including one of my favorites, AudiencexScience, to be held on April 19-21, 2020 in Jersey City. There are also more targeted conferences planned including ShopperxScience, SportsMarketingxScience, OTTxScience and DataxScience, all held in locations across the U.S. The ARF also integrates within other conferences such as ARFatAWNY and SXSW while also awarding exceptional research and researchers with the Great Minds Awards, the Erwin Ephron Demystification Award and the David Ogilvy Award. 

In 2020 Kim noted that the ARF is introducing Ogilvy 360, a year-long effort to highlight the findings of the award winners with a Young Pros Event, ARF Salons, Webcasts, regional events and website case studies. “There are benefits of partnerships with the ARF,” Kim concluded, including, “raising the presence among influential thinkers, enabling members to differentiate themselves as a forward thinking company, build on trust by supporting an organization that is appreciated for unbiased quality, enforcing rigorous  standards, methodology and transparency and fostering connections and community.”

It looks like the ARF will be very busy in 2020!

This article first appeared in www.MediaVillage.com

Consumer Are Less Trusting, According to the ARF

According to a recent study from the ARF, consumers are slightly less likely to share their data in 2019 compared to last year.

Polling 1,105 adults 18+ via a mobile questionnaire in March 2019, respondents were asked about how well they understood common privacy terms, what personal data they were willing to share and how their attitude changed from last year when offered the benefit of greater customization of their on-line experience. The study’s sample, which was balanced by age, demo and region, also measured trust and how it varied by demo group and forms of privacy on digital, mobile vs. PC usage, and trust in institutions.

This shift in consumer attitude is a harbinger of to come as the American market faces legal restrictions not only globally from the GDPR but also nationally from the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), which as Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer at the ARF explains, is soon going into effect allowing, “consumers to opt-out of the sale of their personal information to third parties, not to mention the other upcoming state and federal regulations that could impact the ad tech industry.” 

Key findings from the study include:

    --  Respondents were much less willing than in 2018 to share their home address (-10 percentage points), spouse’s first and last name (-8 percentage points), personal email address (-7 percentage points), and first and last names (-6 percentage points).

     -- Incentives are less impactful. Offering to personalize experience doesn’t dramatically change what data consumers are willing to share.

   --  Regarding privacy policies, surveyed consumers understand the benefit of marketers using their data to target, but don’t understand the tools used, such as ‘pixel tags.’

    --  Consumers continue to be mistrustful of institutions, media, Congress and advertising. However, this varies by demographic. Democrats and Asian Americans, for example, have the greatest trust in the media and television news.

This article first appeared in Cynopsis.

Research and Fraud: An Interview with the ARF’s CRO, Paul Donato

Research and fraud: As Data Science is increasingly adopted in media companies, research departments, especially in those areas dedicated to quality research such as focus groups, are feeling the pinch. Not only can pure data focus attention and resources on real time reporting, the margin of error in its output can be minimized with protocols such as blockchain. The two seemingly different but actually related topics of quality research and ad fraud were discussed by Paul Donato, CRO, the ARF at SXSW:

Charlene Weisler: Is there room for quality research in this age of data driven decisions? 

Paul Donato: Quality and quantitative research lie on two different dimensions. Qualitative and quantitative are two ends of a single dimension, and both are changing dramatically.
The quality of the research is essential for both qualitative and quantitative. Social listening is electronic, real time, continuous and benefits from very large samples. Sentiment algorithms have improved dramatically. Open source APIs for natural language and sentiment and the abundance of data on the social networks have changed qualitative in a way believed to have impacted the last presidential election.

Quantitative data is now drawn from online behaviors, loyalty cards and other sources of consumer and media data.  However, for many applications, panels and surveys are still needed for modeling holes in the data and demographics of the digital signals.  Because, digital data often lacks the depth of what we can collect in surveys, the quality of the models that fill in that data is essential. There is so much data available, with so little measure of accuracy. Therefore, methods of assessing quality are more important than ever.

Weisler: Will fraud ever go away and if not, can we tamp it down?  

Donato: Possibly. There are many who are testing blockchain as an immutable ledger of the digital supply chain that can eliminate most of the fraud. Maybe, the major digital companies are working on a device and person’s identity with the possibility of a universal ID after there are no cookies. However, this is looking out 3 to 5 years.

Today, many things are happening to tamp down fraud.  Digital is here to stay, so advertisers are taking control of their digital campaigns. Consortiums such as TAG required registrations that support safe and valid traffic. Standards such as those set by the MRC have supported independent firms that specialize in identifying invalid traffic. Viewability standards will help tamp down fraud. Advertising will find a way, so it is a matter of time before fraud is less important than most other challenges in marketing.

This article first appeared in www.Cynopsis.com

Impacting the Ad Effect and Insuring Brand Safety. An Interview with the ARF’s Paul Donato

Advertisers are finding that the context in which an ad is viewed – not only within the commercial pod surrounded by other ads, but also the specific media platform, brand, device and time and place -  impacts the ad effect, both positively and negatively. With the proliferation of devices and platforms and the fragmentation of the media environment, brand safety is becoming a bigger issue. 

Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer at the ARF, has conducted considerable research in these areas and spoke to MediaVIllage about the insights and conclusions:

Charlene Weisler: What do you mean by context?

Paul Donato:  The context of an ad is the environment in which the advertisement is viewed, from the content surrounding the ad to the platform on which it appears. There is a large body of evidence supporting the premise that the context of an ad can affect perception of the ad, both positively and negatively. 

Weisler: And brand safety?

Donato: Brand safety is an issue that arises when the context of the ad, usually the content that the ad appears in tandem with, causes negative consumer reactions that can impact perception of the brand being advertised. Brands are afraid to appear next to unsavory content out of the fear that they may lose consumer trust and hurt brand equity if they are perceived as being supportive of that content.

Weisler: What are some of the highlights of the research you have seen regarding the effect ad context can have on perception and recall?

Donato: The research on the context effect goes back about 60 years. Studies have shown both positive and negative effects from ad context, though the focus lately has been on negative effects, given recent brand safety controversies. Most studies on the context effect have involved television commercials, and the general consensus was that the programs surrounding the commercials did impact the response consumers had to those commercials. Studies found that consumers were more likely to recall commercials in their favorite programs, and that advertising was more effective when there was alignment between the program and the product being advertised.

A recent ARF review of research on the context effect found that, while the evidence clearly supports the legitimacy of the context effect, the studies don’t sufficiently explain why the context effect occurs. Additionally, the ad context is difficult to isolate as it interacts with factors like brand and product characteristics and consumer attitudes.

Weisler: How does context impact ad receptivity?

Donato: The context of an ad impacts consumers’ state of mind, attention level, and emotions, which sets the stage for how an ad is perceived and processed. However, context is only a secondary factor to be considered, because quality of ad creative, reach and targeting are usually much more important in determining those responses.

Weisler: What are the elements of context and which ones are most pivotal?

Donato: The content the ad appears in and the other ads it is surrounded by, the media platform or brand, the device, and time and place all contribute to the context of an advertisement. Evidence is strongest regarding the content the advertising appears next to, like the program a commercial appears in, the text of an article next to a display ad or the video content that follows a pre-roll ad. How can an advertiser control for maximal context? and brand safety? How can ad context be used strategically to drive increased ad recall and more positive ad perception?   

It’s important for brands to conduct research with target consumers to uncover reactions to the content and context in which they plan to place their ads, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Brands should look for their target consumers’ preferred content, the content they pay most attention to and the content that prompts the most positive emotions. By placing ads in these contexts, brands stand a better chance of improved ad perception and recall from consumers.

The other way to improve ad effectiveness using the context effect is to align advertising with the content it will appear with on multiple emotional dimensions, which creates a sort of halo effect. It’s not enough to include a football-themed ad to play during a big game – advertisers need to understand why consumers love the specific sport and how their teams make them feel to create a strong alignment with the programming and the consumers’ emotional state.

Companies that conduct the necessary research and consider context from the beginning of the ad creation process will see the biggest gains from the context effect.

This article first appeared in www.MediaVIllage.com