Chesterfield, MO; January 2, 2012 – Media Management Inc. (MMI), providers of media audit support across all measured media for major advertisers, has named Christopher Bushnell as its new Senior Vice President of Client Engagement.

Mr. Bushnell, is charged with overseeing Account Management and Sales for the Eastern third of the country. He will be strengthening existing relationships and fulfilling needs with current company clients and partners that include many of the world’s top media advertisers, spanning various markets segments including: aviation, automotive, food and beverage, retail, media companies, professional services and many others.

Additionally, he will be actively seeking out new Media Management Inc. clients in the Eastern region of the US.

“Chris brings over 30 years of experience in all aspects of media sales, strategy, planning and buying to MMI,” notes Thomas Bridge, CEO of MMI. “His comprehensive understanding of the industry will add great value to our team and clients.”

Before joining MMI, Chris managed a 6-person business unit of Corinthian Media (New York), overseeing all media strategy, planning and buying for a group of clients active both locally and nationally across the United States.

Prior to Corinthian Media, he has worked with multiple network affiliates, including NBC, in sales management for the US’ largest media markets.

Mr. Bushnell was born in Detroit, Michigan and earned a BA from Connecticut College in 1978.

He and his family currently reside in Connecticut.

According to Thomas Bridge, CEO of Media Management, Inc (MMI), “partnering with Intelligent Proof is a natural extension to the accountability services we provide to our clients. The combined services of MMI and IP allow our clients to expand auditing and accountability to the entire spectrum of the media buy. We are thrilled with the partnership”. MMI provides media audit support across all measured media including television, radio, print, and interactive (internet).

Janice Mattheis, President of Intelligent Proof adds, “We evaluate all types of media and promotions that reach consumers outside of their homes – traditional, digital, and alternative OOH; in-store promotions, merchandising, and networks; and special events. There is a natural synergy in partnering with MMI as we can expand accountability to media beyond the home.”

Media Management, Inc. (www.mediaaudit.com) was founded in 1995 and currently provides media audit support across all measured media for major advertisers active in the US and the Asian media market place. MMI is the only media audit firm using the patent pending, Circle Audit® software to quickly analyze billions of dollars in media transactions on behalf of clients worldwide.

Founded in 2009, Intelligent Proof, Inc (www.intelligentproof.net) is a full service field research agency with expertise in Out of Home media and in-store merchandising intelligence. IP’s fully integrated, interactive system provides media vendors, advertisers, and their agencies with marketing insights enabling them to monitor investments, measure performance, and increase client satisfaction. Intelligent Proof offers a seamless system to collect, aggregate, and analyze the vital details of a brand’s out of home marketing initiatives.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Elizabeth Bridge
Phone: +001-636-812-0118
Email: email hidden; JavaScript is required

At MMI, we are – for the most part, at least — all “media geeks” at heart. We all share a genuine fascination with the media industry and the vendors, researchers, agencies and advertisers which comprise it. Here, then, are some of the top items which our senior media staff believes will be worth keeping an eye on this year:

Political Ramifications. It is estimated that some $3.2 to $4.0 billion will be spent on TV political advertising in 2012 between the presidential primaries and election and the various other national and local contests. These figures represent as much as a 30% increase over 2008. New legislation allowing for the formation of so-called super political action committees (super PACs) – which have no spending limits, plus what is expected to be a hotly contested presidential election, are driving this dramatic increase. This influx of demand will have far-reaching implications on non-political advertisers, even in what is otherwise a near stagnant media economy. The heaviest impact will be on local media outlets, as campaigns target key markets and regions. During political ad windows, local media outlets must offer political advertisers (although not super PACs) the lowest spot rate being offered, as well as the ability to preempt non-political advertisers. St. Louis, for example, on the border of Missouri and Illinois, will be in a lowest-spot-rate political window for one race or another for more than half of 2012. As a result, rates go up across the board, particularly in news or dayparts with proximity to news, and preemption rates also increase. Given inventory limitations and declines in local news ratings, political activity in non-news dayparts is also expected to increase. There is also question as to the impact of the political advertising environment on the effectiveness of those non-political ads which do find their way on air. The elections may also at least temporarily reshape the ratings for some of the programming itself, as viewers seek out (or in some cases avoid) political news and topical humor.

What does it mean? It will be more important than ever for advertisers to rely on their agencies for in-depth knowledge of the markets which they buy. Realistic market intelligence should inform planning, so that analyses of media mix, scheduling, pricing, daypart mix, and ratings estimates are as accurate as possible. Tradeoffs for cost premiums should be explored, and thresholds established. In order to reduce the risk of preemption, it is often necessary to pay rate premiums. Given an advertiser’s specific objectives, how important is a given week, daypart or program, and what premium is acceptable? What are policies for preemptions and make-goods during political windows, and what are contingency plans for heavy preemptions? Diligent stewardship and maintenance are also vital, so that agencies can make every effort to react in real time to preemptions, schedule changes, etc.

The Message is the Message. It’s been famously argued that the medium is the message. However, as technologies continue to explode, and consumers have increasing control over where, when and how they consume content, traditional notions of individual media (TV, radio, online, etc.) continue to become less and less relevant. In 2012, for the first time in history, the total number of US TV Households (as projected by Nielsen) will decrease … by 1.2 million households. A report by Credit Suisse also projects that subscriptions to Multichannel Video Program Distributors (i.e. cable, satellite, telecom pay video providers) will fall slightly in 2012. Experts believe this latter decrease is being driven by the economy. Still, some argue that younger consumers in particular increasingly expect to be able to select when, where and how to consume (and pay for, if applicable) specific video content of their choosing – whether that is on multichannel video, VOD, DVR, Hulu, Redbox, Netflix, iTunes, content provider “2nd screen” apps (such as HBO Go), etc. Some Multichannel Video Program Distributors have introduced lower-priced, more tailored programming packages to align their offerings more closely with this expectation. Further, research from Nielsen indicates that TV viewers are increasingly likely to be consuming other media simultaneously (roughly a third are social networking at the same time, for example, while significant numbers are also surfing the web, consuming print media, or instant messaging/texting on mobile phones). This cross-platform consumption peaks – not surprisingly – during prime time. Increasingly, both programmers and advertisers have pushed to exploit this multi-platform consumption to increase engagement with content and brands.

What does it mean? This shift has an enormous impact for advertisers. Opportunities for the delivery of a commercial message vary from one video delivery technology to the next, as do the demographics of the consumers of those technologies. Implications are far-reaching, with Nielsen noting an increase in “co-viewing” in the past several years, as families no longer have to watch different programs on separate sets. As more and more consumption shifts to digital media, multi-platform video buys have become increasingly common. Advertisers and agencies should plan for these initiatives on a strategic level, drawing on the appropriate experts and tools to help shape allocation decisions at the right time in the process. There is a push in the research industry for more accurate and universal measurement across technologies. Measurement is currently further along in certain technologies than others, and advertisers should continue to challenge media sellers and research providers for improved, holistic measurement in order to drive better accountability.

“What did the market do today?” Continued volatility in the general economy has translated to a similar condition for the media marketplace. Earlier this year, the National TV “Upfronts” (often considered a harbinger for the larger media economy) suggested a strong marketplace, as advertisers paid reported double-digit year-over-year CPM increases. Mere months later, however, reports indicate a softening in the “Scatter” market, beginning in 4Q11, with premiums falling off significantly. As of late 2011, most forecasters expected the US media economy to grow 3-4% in 2012, driven largely by so-called “quadrennial” effects such as the Summer Olympics and the elections. Many of these forecasts had been reduced from earlier in the year. Most currently see 2013 also growing in the 3-4% range, still leaving spending well below 2007-2008 peaks (to which it is not expected to return until 2015 or beyond).

What does it mean? Advertisers should expect thorough analysis and forecasting of costs from their agencies throughout what remains an uncertain economic period. To the extent possible, companies should allow themselves the flexibility to update plans and take advantage of opportunities as marketplace conditions change. Market-driven updates to goals should be transparently documented so that performance can be accurately assessed. Solid cancelation options and expansion clauses (as applicable) are critical to provide a hedge against economic volatility.

All the “New” That’s Fit. After years of circulation falloff, declining revenue, and mixed results in efforts to create profitable digital media extensions, the newspaper industry continues its attempt to reinvent itself in this age of new media. Ad revenue for 2011 is projected to be down by more than a third vs. 2008. On March 28, 2011, in a highly-scrutinized move, the New York Times introduced a “pay wall” (albeit a relatively porous one), which limits the number of articles a reader may view each month without becoming a paid subscriber. Paid digital subscribers have thus far exceeded expectations, with both traffic and ad revenue growing despite the pay wall. Experts acknowledge that it is still too early to make a final assessment. Other newspaper publishing companies such as McClatchy (Miami Herald, etc.) and Media General (The Tampa Tribune, etc.) are seeing digital revenues grow via local media site ad sales and online partnerships. Major publishers like Tribune (LA Times, etc.) and Gannett (The Arizona Republic, etc.) have also launched their own ad exchanges to control the minimum price at which unsold ad inventory can be purchased by third parties on their sites.

What does it mean? Advertisers should have a clear understanding of the composition of the circulation or audience they are purchasing in newspaper. Do circulation figures include digital readership? Will the online product be part of the buy? Are circulation projections or assumptions used for planning and efficiency analyses realistic, given recent trends for each paper under consideration?

Drama in Daytime. Historically one of the more stable TV dayparts, Daytime has undergone some significant changes in the last season or two, and is poised for more in 2012. Last year saw the cancelation by ABC of soaps All My Children and One Life to Live after decades-long runs, the departure of Regis Philbin from Live! after 28 seasons, and of course the exit of Oprah Winfrey and her syndicated Oprah (which albeit ran in Early Fringe in many markets). In 2012, expect new syndicated talk shows staring the likes of Katie Couric, Jeff Probst, Steve Harvey, and Ricki Lake (again). These are in addition to the still-relatively-new Anderson (Cooper), which debuted in 2011 and has been renewed. Despite these new offerings, forecasters still project significant declines in syndication revenue in 2012.

What does it mean? There’s the potential for ratings instability and for volatility from one market to the next, driven by variation in viewership, scheduling, and clearances. This will put pressure on agency buyers to estimate carefully, and to track and steward diligently. Further, Clients should have discussions with their agencies regarding the anticipated tone and content of new programs, to assure that it aligns with the advertiser’s requirements.

Social Acquaintance. There is no question that usage of social media has exhibited a meteoric rise in the last several years, as evidenced by the growth rates for membership, time spent, “likes”, “friends”, “product reviews”, etc. on sites like Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Groupon. The tremendous growth in mobile app usage for social media has further contributed to the importance of these sites to consumers. Most advertisers do not question the potential for social media to help them engage with their target consumers or build their brands. Rather, questions continue to center around specifically how to execute, how to set goals or expectations, what to measure … and how to measure it transparently. The complexity of constantly changing social media environments and of the relationship between social and traditional media (and the user) only magnifies these challenges. Research companies like Nielsen (BrandLift) and Brand.net (Social Attitude/SocialLink) provide some advertisers with insights into social media effectiveness and/or the impact of a brand’s larger digital campaign on its Facebook activity. However, analytics for social media sites are not comparable to other online advertising activity, and there is still limited transparency into the data from sites like Facebook. Interestingly, one area where the impact of social media is still in question is its impact on consumption of traditional media. There is no question that social media users “friend” traditional media properties and comment on their favorite TV shows, etc. A study by Nielsen last year indicated that (particularly for younger adults), an increase in social media “buzz” for a TV show translated into a measurable increase in ratings. However, a study by Knowledge Networks, also last year, indicated that social media was of limited importance in driving viewership of TV, and of comparable importance to any other “paid” media support (only 9% of social media users regularly use social networks to get information about TV shows, and only 12% regularly interact with TV shows on social media).

What does it mean? As advertisers and their agencies continue to formulate and test strategies for social media, emphasis should be placed on how best to measure success (informed by an understanding of available metrics, and the methodologies behind their creation). Importantly, a “like” with no subsequent continuing interaction between brand and consumer is of limited value, highlighting the need for clear objectives and a strong measurement plan. Advertisers and agencies should work with social media sites to achieve the same level of control and transparency in social online media as they enjoy in other online media.

This outlines key differences between the media marketplace in the United States and that of Europe and other international markets, particularly as it impacts media auditing. While there are numerous variations in business and other practices around the world, we believe this provides a solid review of fundamental issues impacting media accountability and, more specifically, the media audit business.

International markets are characterized by open markets in which there is:

• A high degree of transparency.  Whether by custom or legal mandate, once ads run virtually everything about them is a matter of public record, from the data regarding occurrence of the ad itself to costs to the advertiser.
• International Audit firms develop and maintain proprietary pools reflective of the media costs paid by their clients and/or agencies involved in client pitches.  These can be sizable, but they are mutually exclusive.  Auditors generally do not disclose detailed information regarding the composition of their pools, so we might rightly question whether they are truly representative of the overall marketplace.  Nevertheless, pooling is common practice, enabling auditors to benchmark client costs to those of the pool.
• Positioning is an important influencer of media costs.  Specific positions in television and print can be purchased.  Highly desired pods/positions are priced at a premium for television; for print, the equivalent involves front vs. middle and back or run of book.
• Client pay for what they get.  Costs are tied to actual audience delivery, including ratings for television commercials measured at the sub-minute level.
• “Joint Industry Committees” or “JICs” often set standards for audience research and select a specific supplier as the official resource for audience measurement in their respective countries.

In stark contrast, the United States is a much more closed market, partly driven by antitrust and privacy regulations as well as other factors.

• Markets are not transparent.  There is no requirement for disclosure of advertising activity.  Most of the information regarding advertising occurrences is held in close confidence by media sellers.  This has spawned a substantial competitive research industry, with Nielsen, TNS-Media Intelligence, VMS, Competitrak and others monitoring broadcast and cable programming, reading publications (magazines, newspaper and FSIs) and providing similar services for other media (internet, radio, out of home, etc.).
• Pooling is not the norm.   Most advertisers and agencies specifically prohibit the use of their data in auditor pools via non-disclosure agreements.  Those auditors claiming to maintain pools are relatively small, the largest reflecting just a handful of clients.  SQAD has emerged as an industry research resource, providing several services to the agency and advertiser communities as well as media auditors:

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on U.S. Media Marketplace Overview.  To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

• Forecasting audience delivery of television programs based on Nielsen data
• Negotiating the price to be paid for ads placed in those programs, and
• Stewardship, following the buy through its life as new ratings data arrives, station schedules change and real life takes over.

To do the job well, they must be prepared to sweat the details, continually revisiting schedules as new information comes in.

Like economists and stock brokers, the savvy buyer knows all too well that past history may not provide a reliable indication of future performance.  Fortunately, they do have the means to do something about it.  New audience research arrives in the metered market overnights and monthly sweeps reports, providing critical intelligence required to revisit their estimates and make mid-course corrections, hopefully timed to keep the buy on track before the campaign is over.  In the end, the post analysis confirms or denies the accuracy of their forecasts.  If they met the goal, that’s great.  If not, it’s not uncommon to blame the messenger, good ole Nielsen Media Research.

Nielsen is a good target for the agencies.  Of course, as a monopoly supplier, you’d expect some tough talk about the inadequacies of the 900 pound ratings gorilla.  But the criticism is often leveled at the statistics behind the ratings.  Few buyers really understand the technical details, simply locking onto “standard error” statistics that represent the apparent accuracy of reported estimates.  Think of it as a parallel to the pollster’s qualification – our predictions are accurate plus or minus X percent…  In effect, you might look at Standard Errors as a way of conveying how much bounce or variability we can expect from report to report as the ratings are released.

Differences between the buyers’ estimates and the final reported results reflect four factors:

1. The statistical reliability of the ratings themselves
2. Real changes in viewing behavior over time (apart from statistical issues)
3. The buyers’ estimating capability (how good they are at estimating)
4. Stewardship, the process of maintaining buys throughout their lives.

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on Spot Television and Effective Stewardship.  To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

As of mid-2011, Nielsen reported digital video recorders (DVR’s) had reached 40.4% household penetration across all markets, ranging from a low of 18.9% (Marquette) to a high of 52.7% (Dallas-Ft. Worth). Increased use of mobile, online video (Hulu, Netflix and networks’ own sites) and other Video On Demand sources enabling consumers to watch what they want, when they want, where they want are all signs that television viewers have indeed become “consumers in control,” no longer beholden to the scheduling whims of network and station programmers. Following reviews the latest trends.

Diversity of Viewing Sources continues to grow

• Nearly half (48%) of all Americans watch video online vs. 10% via Mobile and 97% on television sets.
• Mobile video usage in quarter 2, 2011 was up 36% vs. Quarter 2, 2010.
• 72% of U.S. TV households subscribe to both cable, satellite or Telco video services (“cable-plus”) as well as broadband internet

Usage is increasing, reflecting the growth in DVR penetration and usage as well as consumers staying closer to home in tough economic times

• Traditional TV usage rose 2 hours and 43 minutes per month (perhaps a sign that consumers are staying closer to home in tough economic times).
• Time-shifted viewing via DVR’s was up 31 percent vs. 2 years ago, likely reflecting the growing influence of total home DVRs VOD offerings among cable and satellite providers.
• Time-shifted viewing among ALL TV homes increased 11%, driven by increased DVR penetration (up 13%, from 40.2MM households with at least one DVR in Quarter 2, 2010 to 45.3MM in Quarter 2, 2011)
• In its December, 2010 State of the Media Report on DVR Use, Nielsen reported 58% and 40% in their cable and satellite set-top boxes, respectively.  Just 3% had stand-alone DVRs.  29% of DVR homes had 2 or more recorders.

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on Time-Shifted Viewing: A Fresh New Look.  To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

Sampling issues have been addressed extensively for Arbitron’s diary service (ref. Radio-Schedule Audience Estimate Reliability Final Report (September 1995), republished in 2004). This is the most recent assessment available, but thoroughly covers the issues involved in radio posting, albeit without making any conclusions regarding an optimal posting methodology. The paper provides a somewhat detailed discussion of the statistics/mathematics behind the Arbitron analysis which we will not repeat here (the paper is available on the Arbitron site http://www.arbitron.com). Key findings reflect common caveats in audience research:

• Sampling error increases with tighter definitions of the period or population measured and can have an important impact on achievement of expected results
• Individual stations or units vs. entire schedules
• Single survey books vs. book averages
• Specific hours vs. dayparts (especially important when hours included in a schedule are not evenly distributed across the entire daypart)
• Tightly defined vs. very broad population segments
• Smaller vs. higher sample in-tabs
• And so on…
• Forecasts of expected future performance based on historical data may not be achieved for a number of reasons including real (unanticipated) change in audiences, station performance in failing to air purchased units or sampling error (manifested as “bounce” in the ratings from book to book).
• Rolling up ratings rather than impressions can introduce significant rounding error

As a practical matter, purchasing a deep list of stations (a reach-oriented approach) in order to increase overall ratings reliability may not meet the needs of advertisers with a strategic emphasis on frequency. Similarly, posting on dayparts only would ignore the bias that might be introduced by “overloading” units in specific hours (e.g., 5-6a as part of a 5-10a rotation).

This poses a challenge for reliable posting of schedules in which an advertiser might reasonably hold individual stations accountable for their own performance. From a statistical point of view, employing a book-average provides a simple mechanism for reducing the impact of sample bounce from book to book, but it is not a cure-all. For example, as stations change formats or on-air talent, averaging books would likely mask the difference in audience resulting from the change (assuming some portion of the differences are real and some portion sampling error, with no reasonable way to pinpoint the difference).

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on Radio Posting Methodology.  To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

Ultimately, optimal scheduling is widely believed to vary by brand and product based on things such as:

• Target involvement in category
• Marketing and communication objectives
• Existing Brand awareness
• Competitive pressures
• Complexity of message
• Quality of creative
• Purchase cycle
• Seasonality

Prevailing theories center upon a few important concepts that are central to any scheduling analysis:

1. “Adstock” (Carry-Over Effect of Advertising Exposure and Subsequent Decay)
   Simon Broadbent (Leo Burnett U.K. and later BrandCon Limited) introduced the idea of “adstock” in the 1980s and 1990s, and it has been built upon and debated since that time.Adstock…
   • Focuses on the impact that advertising has over time on key metrics (sales, awareness, brand imagery).
   • Individual exposures do not occur in a vacuum, but are instead part of a continuum or a “bank” of advertising impact that follows from past exposures and carries over to future exposures.
   • Effects of advertising (as measured by response … awareness, sales, etc.) do not end as soon as ads have been seen, but rather decay over time toward a base level, unless this decay is reversed by subsequent exposures.  In effect, these are countervailing forces, where advertising exerts upward pressure, while forgetting (gravity) exerts downward pressure, potentially overcoming the impact of advertising during hiatus periods, particularly if they are extended.

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on Media Fighting Strategies. To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

But to what extent does online buzz actually help marketers’ achieve their bottom line? Studying 12 months data of 42 auto brands in China, R3 and CIC measured the performance of IWOM in terms of its impact on sales.

The Art of Measuring WOM

WOM, whether online or face to face, allows consumers to communicate with each other, hopefully referring a positive product experience. It also allows brands to connect with consumers, directly or through sharing of other consumer generated content, to highlight product strength and brand value.

They are many different sources of IWOM, including BBS and forums, social networks (i.e. KaiXin001, RenRen), Instant Messenger (i.e. MSN, QQ), blogs & micro-blogs, and Q&A and review sites.

In addition to measuring quantity of IWOM on these sources, marketers can also look at the quality or the sentiment of IWOM, with new advanced text-mining technology such as those developed by CIC, now being able to help brands identify whether a piece is positive, negative or neutral.

What’s more interesting about advanced IWOM text mining technology is its capability to help marketers identify in great detail what is being said about brands by their customers on the Internet, and to then even visualize online interactions and help identify who are the influencers (pictured above). Meaning that if marketers now have an in-depth understanding as to what consumers are talking about their brands and where/by who all that talking is going on, marketers can leverage the company’s communication service and R&D resources to address these issues, ensure the target consumers are addressed, and in the process improve marketing ROI.

One limitation of WOM measurement is that technology cannot differentiate consumer generated content from advertisers’ commercial messages, however by taking this into consideration it’s still important that marketers realize what consumers encounter when researching about brands or products online.

Thank you for your interest in our white paper abstract on Internet Word of Mouth Proven to Have Impact on Auto Sales in China.  To receive the full white paper in PDF format, please complete the form below:

So, in typical “ripped from the headlines” fashion (yes, we are Law & Order fans), following are selected highlights from NMIncite:

Social Media’s Reach & Importance

• Social networks and blogs reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users, dominating their time spent online.
• 60 percent of those consumers using online research as part of their purchase decision learned about a brand or retailer via social networking sources.
  • 48% responded to a retail offer on Facebook or Twitter.
  • 70% of social media users shop online (12 percent above average vs. all adult internet users).
  • 53% of social network users follow a brand.
• Facebook garners a larger percent of time spent online than any other U.S. site… 53.5 Billion total minutes in May, 2011.
• Social Networks & Blogs represent nearly 23% of time spent online, significantly higher than any other online activity.
• Social app usage was up 30% over 3Q, 2010.
• 60% of social media users review products and services and their reviews/ratings are considered more credible than other sources.

Growth of Mobile

• While 97% of uses continue to use traditional computers to access social content; 37% now use mobile phones for social media vs. 3% for Gaming Consoles and iPads (each).

It’s NOT all about Youth

• Women 18-34 are most highly concentrated among social networking users, but Adults 35-49 are 4% more likely to use social networks and blogs than the average (representing 27% of the audience).
• Contrary to the view of social networks as highly focused on the younger set, users who are 55 and older are driving growth (twice as many visited social sites on their phones than last year).
• While Facebook shows a higher appeal to females (62% of page views), LinkedIn and Wikia skew male.

What’s your fancy?

• Phone features most valued by consumers… GPS capabilities lead the pack with 56% valuing it the most, followed by social networking (30%), downloading/playing music (26%) and web browsing (also 26%). GPS is the only use where the value appears to outpace availability of the feature.
• Women are more likely to view video on social networks while men spend more time watching.

Nielsen would prefer interested advertisers download the full report from www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/social-media-report-q3.html. You will be required to register but it’s an easy read and time well spent.

Enjoy!