The Intersection of Viewing, Buying and Selling With Comcast’s Advertising Report

The media landscape is not unlike a big jigsaw puzzle where disparate data needs to be interlocked and then interpreted in order to see the full picture of behaviors and results. Comcast has in its arsenal two long standing but separate studies on viewership and on advertising and has merged the results from these studies into the Comcast Advertising Report, now in its second year. This report enables a better understanding of the dynamics of viewership in tandem with advertising results. “We have access to a lot of data, whether it's viewership data or ad exposure data and we want to be able to share so everybody wins,” noted Travis Flood, Senior Director of Research for Comcast Advertising.

According to Flood, the merged data focuses on three industry tent poles – viewers, buyers and sellers. “We go through our data and see what have has repeatedly shown up that we think is interesting,” he explained. One big takeaway is that, “TV is still the foundation still drives the majority of reach. Streaming is an audience extension that we expect to grow over time. But the two of them are going to be very separate for a while. We're here to help leverage the advantages of both for our advertisers and for the marketplace.” However to the viewer, TV and streaming are both viewed on the same screen and are therefore considered somewhat the same.

One big takeaway was the viewers’ continued preference for the big screen. “We think that has benefit because that allows you to maximize the connection. Eighty-two percent of our streaming impressions are happening on the big screen. Last year it was 77%,” noted Flood.

Further, the study found that traditional TV continues to drive reach, with a caveat. “We still drive the majority of our reach with traditional television but maximizing incremental reach is a challenge in today's marketplace. How are you driving it? How much TV should I have? How much streaming? Should I buy addressable? Should addressable be the focus of my campaign or should it be a tactic on top of that? Then, because we work in a premium video environment, we look at types of customers and type of content. We want to maximize that connection,” he stated.

One of the big misconceptions among advertisers is that traditional TV is diminishing in impact. This is a mistake according to Flood because, “They're giving up on where they can maximize their reach. What we've seen is when people invest more in streaming, they get more to begin with, but after a point, as they invest even more in streaming, they start talking to the same people over and over again. There's a diminishing return at some point as you sacrifice linear reach for streaming frequency in a lot of cases.”

Finally, the growth of FAST services has accelerated. “Last year in this report, FAST was really an introduction. This year nearly half of all OTT impressions were served through FAST. That's a really important stat because it has significant volume to it,” he stated and added, “FAST services have been a way for viewers to engage in content in different ways.”

In last year’s study, “Share of reach for traditional TV was 82%. Nine percent came from streaming-only and 9% were reached by both,” he noted, “This year those same numbers, instead of 82, 9 and 9, are 78, 10 and 12. So you'd say, wow, it's still relatively strong for television but the streaming is up a third from what it was last year. We're seeing movement, but it's not drastic.”

When it comes to programmatic, “The space is growing every year but we see hesitance for a couple of reasons,” Flood said. ”Sellers may be wary about selling programmatically. They think it will degrade their content and downgrade the potential to maximize revenue. Buyers may not be set up to be programmatic in the same way that they find television today. How can you buy streaming or connected TV and programmatic? That's a different world. So we tend to talk about programmatic just being a way to buy in an automated way.”

Looking ahead, Flood sees a convergence between traditional TV and streaming but it will happen slowly over time. “You'll continue to see convergence of the two,” he posited. ”TV will become more like digital or streaming in the way it's bought with more targeting capabilities through things like addressable. Hopefully, you'll have a unified approach to measurement across both television and streaming especially as there is more first party data.” He added that, “Hopefully, industry collaboration will continue because in a world where you want TV to be more like digital, it requires a lot of groups to collaborate with one another. But it won’t happen on its own. The industry has to be behind it and help guide it through the process.”

Ultimately for advertisers who want to maximize their impact, “There is not a magic bullet or a one size fits all approach. You can't just do streaming or linear television. I wouldn't tell someone to just buy data driven linear - broad appeal versus very addressable. It's combination of all of those,” he noted.  “It's important to be talking to your customers who buy from you today as well as those who will buy from you tomorrow. For your current customers, have a message that's more addressable. For those in the future, concentrate on broader reach.” But since advertisers need to reach both current and future customers, “You essentially need both strategies together and once you implement those two strategies, you have that data driven techniques and you can split it up between TV and streaming,” he concluded.

This article first appeared in www.MediaVillage.com

Artwork by Charlene Weisler

The Ultimate Interview – A Conversation with ChatGPT

As one who has been conducting interviews with media professionals for the past 15 years, I was curious to see what ChatGPT’s “opinion” was for media trends. So I signed up, asked some questions and here are the results:

Charlene Weisler: What is your background? How did you get to where you are today?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have a traditional background like a human. Instead, I was created by OpenAI, a research organization dedicated to advancing AI technology in a safe and beneficial way.

To create me, OpenAI used a large dataset of text from the internet to train a deep learning algorithm to understand natural language and generate responses to questions and prompts. I was designed to be able to answer a wide range of questions and provide helpful information on various topics.

As for how I got to where I am today, I have been continuously updated and improved by OpenAI since my initial release. OpenAI is constantly working to enhance my capabilities, improve my responses, and expand my knowledge base to keep up with new developments in different fields.

In short, I exist as a result of the ongoing work of the OpenAI team and their dedication to advancing AI technology in a responsible and ethical way.

Weisler: What will be the state of the media industry next year at this time?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to predict the future with certainty. However, based on current trends and developments in the media industry, here are some possible directions it may take in the coming year:

1. Continued Growth of Streaming Services: The trend towards streaming services is expected to continue in the coming year, with more and more people choosing to watch TV and movies online. This could lead to increased competition among streaming services, as well as new content production deals and partnerships.
2. Greater Emphasis on Personalization: With the rise of big data and AI, media companies are increasingly able to personalize content for individual users. This trend is likely to continue, with media companies using data and AI to create more tailored experiences for their users.
3. Increasing Importance of Social Media: Social media platforms are likely to continue to be a major source of news and information for many people. However, there may also be increasing scrutiny on the role of social media in shaping public opinion and the spread of disinformation.
4. Continued Challenges for Traditional Media: Traditional media, such as newspapers and cable TV, are likely to continue to face challenges in the coming year. They may need to adapt to changing consumer preferences and embrace new technologies in order to stay relevant.
5. Increased Focus on Diversity and Inclusion: The media industry is likely to continue to face pressure to address issues of diversity and inclusion. This could lead to greater representation of underrepresented groups in media content, as well as increased attention to issues of bias and discrimination in the industry.

Overall, the media industry is constantly evolving and changing, and it will be interesting to see how these trends and developments play out in the coming year.

Weisler: Will linear TV be around in 5 years?

ChatGPT: It's difficult to predict the exact future of the television industry with certainty, but based on current trends and developments, it is likely that linear TV will continue to be around in some form for the next five years.

While the trend towards streaming services and on-demand viewing has been growing rapidly in recent years, linear TV still has a significant audience and remains a major source of revenue for many broadcasters and cable networks. Additionally, many people still enjoy the experience of watching live television, particularly for sports and other live events.

That being said, the television industry is constantly evolving and adapting to changing consumer preferences and technological advancements. It is possible that linear TV may continue to decline in popularity, particularly among younger audiences who are more likely to prefer streaming and on-demand viewing. In response, traditional broadcasters and cable networks may need to embrace new technologies and business models in order to stay competitive and relevant.

In short, while it is difficult to predict the exact future of the television industry, it is likely that linear TV will continue to coexist with streaming services and other forms of on-demand viewing for the next five years and beyond.

Weisler: How will AI impact the media industry?

ChatGPT: AI is already having a significant impact on the media industry, and it is likely to continue to do so in the coming years. Here are some ways in which AI is expected to impact the media industry:

1. Personalization: AI can be used to analyze user data and create personalized recommendations for media content. This could lead to more tailored experiences for users and higher engagement with media content.
2. Content Creation: AI can be used to create news articles, videos, and other forms of media content. While AI-generated content is not yet at the level of human-generated content, it is improving rapidly, and could lead to significant efficiencies and cost savings in the media industry.
3. Advertising: AI can be used to analyze user data and target advertising more effectively. This could lead to more relevant and effective advertising, as well as higher advertising revenues for media companies.
4. Media Management: AI can be used to automate and streamline various aspects of media management, such as content moderation, copyright enforcement, and content distribution. This could lead to significant cost savings for media companies.
5. Journalism: AI can be used to help journalists analyze data and identify trends and patterns. This could lead to more in-depth and data-driven journalism, as well as new forms of storytelling.
6. Ethics and Bias: As with any technology, there are concerns about the ethical implications of AI in the media industry. AI-generated content, for example, could be used to spread disinformation or to reinforce biases. It will be important for media companies to be aware of these risks and to take steps to mitigate them.

Overall, AI is likely to have a significant impact on the media industry in the coming years. While there are potential benefits to be gained, it will be important for media companies to be aware of the risks and to use AI in a responsible and ethical way.

 This article first appeared in Mediapost.

What is Fast Becoming the Viewing Option of Choice for Many Viewers? It’s F.A.S.T.

It's no secret that connected TV (CTV) has been on a roll. U.S. CTV ad spend is expected to reach $14.12 billion in 2023, which is more than double the amount it garnered in 2016, according to eMarketer.

But a lot more information, some of which is surprising, recently emerged in Comcast Advertising's recent report, "Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV: Why More Advertisers (and Consumers) are Going F.A.S.T." It specifically focuses on CTV services that fall into the FAST category (free ad-supported television). FAST programming services -- which include XUMO, Tubi and Pluto -- offer both on-demand and linear viewing options, and they capture cord-cutting consumers. "This report was interesting in that it provided a full view of just how quickly FAST is growing," said Travis Flood, Director, Customer Insights, Effectv, a business unit within Comcast Advertising. "According to the report, FAST penetration among households has more than doubled year-over-year. And today, six out of 10 households who have connected TVs are using FAST services, either exclusively or in addition to other services." The report also shows that FAST services garner higher Net Promoter Scores (NPS), a metric that suggests viewers of the platform are satisfied and loyal. FAST distinguishes itself from other types of video services, such as subscription video on demand (SVOD) and advertising-based video on demand (AVOD), because it doesn't require a paid subscription or password -- and it offers both linear and on-demand content. With FAST, linear streaming channels are created using a specific technology that stitches VOD together to create linear viewability. "For advertisers, FAST provides a unique opportunity to reach cord-cutters while they are scrolling, channel surfing and discovering new content -- a prospect not possible through ad-free services like Netflix, or even from ad-supported on-demand services like Crackle," the report notes. "When creating our FAST report, we worked with XUMO to better understand how consumers are using FAST services today," Flood explained. (The XUMO service is also owned by Comcast.) The report shows that there is considerable viewer overlap with other streaming services, many of which are not ad-supported. Of XUMO viewers, 77% subscribe to Netflix, 80% subscribe to Hulu and 65% subscribe to Prime Video. While FAST content is available on all kinds of video devices, the screen of choice is usually the largest in the house, offering a lean-back viewing experience not unlike linear TV. Because of that, big-screen FAST viewers are prone to channel surfing. In fact, the report reveals that it's not unusual for viewers to land on FAST services without realizing it and then spend time engrossed in the content. This is especially true of cord-cutters, who don't have a cable program guide. The report also analyzes viewer preferences by genre on the XUMO service: "Crime TV, game shows and daytime TV are [among] the most popular genres on the service, behind news and movies," Flood said. "There is such a diverse mix of programming available on FAST services today, so it is very useful to understand the type of content users are gravitating towards." Fern Feistel, Vice President, Marketing & Content Operations at XUMO, noted that "the report shows an increasing appetite among viewers for series-based channels on FAST, services that [viewers] can tune to, lean back and binge. "These series-based, or theme-based, channels such as Baywatch or Fear Factor are resonating with audiences and represent one of the main differences between FAST and traditional TV offerings," she added. While measurement of FAST services is in the development stage, the report indicates that, generally speaking, FAST audiences spend considerable time on these services (about 104 minutes within a platform once they have entered). They also tend to be Millennials (a generation that values affordability, accessibility and nostalgic experiences through technology). These viewers are also open to advertising and don't mind ads if the content is free and if the breaks are short (75% of respondents). What's more, 69% of survey respondents said that they would consider replacing paid streaming services with ad-supported streaming services. That may be an indication of how FAST could change the video dynamics moving forward. What are some others? "It's hard to predict six months out, let alone three years from now," Feistel said. "But we anticipate continued growth in viewership because of the low barrier to entry and 'lean-back' viewing experience." She expects that FAST will continue to gain momentum with advertisers, "especially if FAST services continue to invest in ad technology to make their service more scalable and targetable for advertisers." Click here to download your copy of "Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV: Why More Advertisers (and Consumers) are Going F.A.S.T."

Addressable’s Measurement Conundrum. An Interview with Comscore’s Prasad Jogulkar

Earlier in August, Mitch Oscar, USIM's advanced TV strategist, assembled and hosted a panel on addressable advertising for BIA which brought together Comscore's Prasad Joglekar, AMC's Tom Ziangas, Carat's T.S. Kelly and Comcast's Larry Allen to discuss the state of the format.

Following the panel, I interviewed individual panelists to delve further into the discussion, especially as how it will impact linear and remnant inventory measurement. 

For Prasad Jogulkar, GM, TV and Cross Platform Products, Comscore, Addressable TV advertising can mean different things based on who you ask, so he defined it for our discussion as, “Addressable TV advertising is the idea of replacing ads, in a live broadcast content or the VOD/DVR version of such content, such that each viewer of the stream could get a different, tailored advertisement.”

Charlene Weisler: I am interested in knowing your overall view of addressable and whether it has changed or evolved over the past few months.

Prasad Jogulkar: Addressable advertising has long held a promise that each impression in a piece of content is individually tailored to the audience watching it thereby providing maximum value to the advertiser and minimum disruption to the consumer. A part of this promise has been a reality with operators like Dish, DirecTV and Altice who are all running profitable addressable businesses on their local 2 minutes. However, the expansion of these capabilities to national cable and broadcast networks – like Viacom, NBCU etc. has been limited for a variety of technical and contractual reasons. 

Over the last 12 months or so – even before the pandemic – several advances happened. First, with the launch and rapid scaling of various DTC services like Peacock, HBO Max and Disney+, networks have video distribution platforms that are, at least notionally, fully digital and addressable and owned directly by them. Second, various CTV providers have announced addressable programs, though many are very much in their infancies. This is again an offering directed at networks. Third, while legacy MVPDs continue to lose subscribers, they have lost far fewer addressable homes. Finally, and perhaps because of the first three developments, many operators and networks have either completed or advanced carriage dialogs that include addressable enablement and delivery. 

All this has generated a renewed interest in the monetization potential of addressable at national scale. And to properly monetize inventory the marketplace needs requires accurate, trusted, fairly priced and conflict-of-interest-free measurement, which Comscore is striving to provide to all participants.

Weisler: The question of measurement looms large, especially in how we treat remnant inventory. 

Jogulkar: It does indeed. In the legacy panel-based measurement systems, overnight programming on many cable networks, will have no rating. A large MVPD – say with 20% of the market – will also have a zero coverage-rating (i.e. rating on the MVPD’s footprint) on a late-night daypart on even a mid-size network. And if you are a station owner in a smaller market, broad zero ratings from panels are a fact of life. A direct effect of this is that ad-inventory in these instances will also get a “0” rating. 

In these instances, are we to believe that not a single soul is watching? Of course not. Rather, it is that the panel-instrument used to measure is not sensitive enough to pick up the signal. How is an ad-buyer to justify paying non-zero dollars for a “0” metric? How can a carriage deal ever fairly value a network that has multiple asterisks? It is because of this conundrum that smaller networks get labeled as “long tail networks” and overnight dayparts become “remnant”. 

From a network’s perspective, units that are low risk to enable for addressable test are the ones with zero or low ratings. Increasing the yield on these is a great business idea. Comscore’s longstanding and pioneering use of census set-top-box based ratings measurement has brought transparency and insight to this content. MVPDs have long used their view of Comscore’s data to negotiate the appropriate carriage fee for networks big and small, equalizing them on a cost-per-second-viewed basis. Networks, local stations and MVPD ad-sales teams are also using this better data to demonstrate value and generate incremental sales.

Weisler: Same too, measurement of addressable in linear TV. 

Jogulkar: Absolutely true. When a spot is made addressable, some homes watching that spot will be targeted for addressable delivery in that instant. But the majority is not. On average, ~30% of the impressions in a spot will be targeted. So, ~70% of impressions are not targeted. This phenomenon is generally true for all addressable spots. 

Comscore calls these 30% of homes as “Addressed Homes” and the impressions, naturally, as “Addressable Impressions”. The other 70% of homes not targeted in that instant are called “Under Addressed” homes and those impressions “Under Addressable”. The “Under” comes from the fact that in many delivery systems, the Addressable creative is quite literally overwriting the linear impression. 

The Under Addressed impressions are seen as suspect or remnant. After all, if they were valuable, someone would have bought them addressably. The advertiser who bought the linear spot and is only getting the Under Addressed impressions, will naturally feel that they are being sold a broken product. Absent some convincing information, the only way to account for this is to place a very low bid on this Under Addressed spot. 

This value-loss problem is very real. It can only be solved by decorating the Addressed and Under Addressed impressions with useful, actionable audience attributes, across all operators and insertion platforms. Age and Gender is not an actionable audience. After all, if the Addressed Impressions took away all the 25 year olds and left behind all the 54 year olds in a spot, it would still be a valid A25-54 spot. Would a buyer consider that a fair A25-54 deal?  This is a measurement and transparency problem that Comscore is ahead in the marketplace with our thinking and solutions. 

Weisler: What do you envision as the best methodology to measure addressable, panel, hybrid or …?

Jogulkar: The lifecycle of an addressable campaign goes something like this: The advertiser or agency creates a list of household IDs (or device IDs) that represent the audience of interest. This list is matched to various operator or distribution footprints. Then the addressable impressions are delivered to only those households in that list. Typically, at the end of the campaign households that saw impressions are matched up to next-period sales to do some attribution.

This entire workflow is anchored around addressing each of millions of households that are of interest – from targeting, to impression delivery to attribution. It’s a little naïve to believe that anything other than census-scale measurement will provide accurate and trusted measurement for these workflows. 

Further, the things that make Addressable TV interesting - the "breaking" of the live spot, the delivery of multiple advertisements within the same unit etc. - are precisely the things that make it impossible to measure with a panel, or as a traditional age-gender rating as we discussed earlier. Trying to shove what is inherently an impression-based buy into a spot-based measurement scheme doesn't work. There’s very limited value panels bring to this equation.

Weisler: What are the other challenges that you see regarding data and measurement in this space?

Jogulkar: The one additional one that I haven’t mentioned earlier is this: For national addressability, a 30-sec unit must be individually enabled in 3-5 different operator and distribution platforms. Each operator's addressable insertion, pacing and reporting stack is unique. It is a hard and laborious process to measure each platform individually, and then combine the numbers to create a true national view.

Weisler: Where do you see measurement in this space next year at this time?

Jogulkar: I think the whole space will have evolved quite substantially. We’ll see many pilots and beta programs being launched and their success or failure will be very instructive to all the players in the marketplace. Some of the debates about panel vs. census vs. hybrid are like religion; you can never decisively convince a non-believer. Those will continue. Economics of national addressable – for instance what is the price for the Addressed audience vs. the Under Addressed Audience – will start to be concrete and will be benchmarked.