Tag: contentmarketing

Every once in a while, a word becomes so common in our media vocabulary that we lose sight of its actual meaning. Impression is a good example. We know what it means. We’ve been using it for decades. Yet as the term is used more broadly for holistic media measurement, it’s easy to wonder if its meaning has changed along the way.

 

It hasn’t.

To level set, let’s agree that the word impression simply refers to the act of seeing content and advertising. Back in the early 1990s, online publishers began using the word to tell advertisers how many people saw their banner ads. Today, the media industry uses the word much more widely, and that usage is backed by comprehensive—and independent—measurement and validation standards. That evolution notwithstanding, the word still refers to people seeing content and ads.

The universal applicability of the term is precisely why impressions are the great equalizer, particularly as consumers broaden their content consumption across devices and platforms—and on their own schedules. That behavior has also advanced the industry’s move to impression-based buying and selling, which has been accelerating for some time. This year, with the incorporation of broadband-only homes into local TV measurement, that acceleration culminates as the industry adopts impressions-based buying and selling in local markets across the U.S. 

Through the transition toward Nielsen ONE, the media industry gains full comparability across linear and digital, and measurement will be complete and representative. Additionally, the industry gets comparable measurement at the subminute level. 

While the premise of an impression is simple, there is a layer of complexity that factors into what constitutes an impression. For comparable cross-media measurement, the move to impressions relies on existing standards that determine whether content can actually be seen by someone (i.e., viewability). 

Historically, viewability has been more of a consideration across digital platforms (due to ads below the fold, ads that don’t render, skippable ads, and more), but digital and linear are quickly converging as consumer behavior continues to transcend platform categorization. Amid the convergence, access to scheduled programming no longer requires a cable subscription. Consumers can skip ads in certain CTV applications and advertisers continue to increase their use of programmatic technology as smart TV adoption continues to proliferate. 

Viewability standards have evolved over the years, but until recently, that progression had pertained to individual platforms. Several cross-media audience measurement standards have emerged to bridge linear and digital. According to some standards, cross-platform viewability happens when 100% of the pixels from content is viewed on screen for two consecutive seconds. The standards also assume that television programming is distributed at 100% pixels.

While the media industry has been using impressions for years—even in national TV— the transition to impressions for complete and comparable cross-media measurement is a significant step. And while it’s predicated on a foundational metric that’s road tested and abundantly understood, applying it universally will be an adjustment.

Applying it across both studio- and creator-produced content will also be an adjustment, particularly with respect to the differing opinions about varied levels of content production and “quality.”  The audience and advertiser will decide on quality, and brands will likely use filters for determining where they place their advertisements, just as they do with tools like DV and IAS for determining “safe content.” Filters may vary by advertiser, but there is a need for the industry to set some basic standards, and we are keen to work with the buy-side to incorporate them into measurement. 

Any sweeping change, no matter how foreseen, will be met with at least some resistance—not to mention questions. In this instance, the questions should be easy to navigate, largely because the foundation for the road ahead already exists and the industry has standards to address questions about viewability. It will, however, take some time for the industry to fully adapt.

To help with adaptation, average commercial minute ratings will remain available for linear measurement as the industry acclimates. For true comparability across platforms, however, brands and agencies will be able to leverage Individual Commercial Metrics to activate and optimize their omni channel campaigns. 

As brands and agencies make the transition, however, it’s important for each to understand that impressions from different measurement sources will vary in quality. As with any form of measurement, impression quality will depend on comprehensive, person-level representation. And from that perspective, impressions provide a more accurate form of measurement than ratings. 

Unlike ratings-based measurement, which yields a percentage of a given universe of users, impressions reflect the actual number of times ads appear in front of viewers. That means:

• Advertisers are better equipped to engage with the consumers they’re most interested in
• Program performance is more accurate (i.e., audiences aren’t gained or lost to rounding)

There has never been a more critical time for all parties in the media industry to understand how consumers are engaging with media. Connectivity, device and platform proliferation, and individual choice create seemingly infinite choice for consumers—and that choice amplifies the need for measurement that’s agnostic of said choice. With the convergence of linear and digital worlds, impressions provide measurement. To make the most of impressions, it will be critical that impressions are of a quality that provide representative measurement. While there is only one definition for the word “impression,” an impression is only as good as its supporting data.

This article originally appeared on Broadcasting+Cable.

In the 1985 film Back to the Future, there’s a line in one of the scenes that takes place in 1955 where Marty McFly tells his grandmother that his family has two TVs. As he’s referring to his life in 1985, his grandmother quickly dismisses him, saying that “nobody has two television sets.”

Fast forward to 2022 and multiple-set households are the norm. In fact, only 19% of U.S. homes have just one TV. Regardless of prevalence within the household, the TV remains a media mainstay, complementing the growing array of other devices that consumers use to access whatever content they choose—and on their schedules. Freed from a physical dial’s worth of content (another 1955 reference), today’s TVs have all the flexibility in the world when it comes to content, and American households are consistently evolving how they use their TV sets, and that usage varies from room to room.

Today, the average number of TVs in a U.S. home today is 2.3. And much like back in 1955, almost half of the TVs in U.S. homes today (44%) don’t rely on cable or satellite boxes for content (i.e., cord cutters). And given the depth of choice that consumers have access to, many households mix and match the content options rather than selecting one over another. In that way, it’s not unusual for a TV set in one room to access content via broadband connection while a TV in a different room accesses programming through a cable or satellite service. In fact, 51% of the TV sets in secondary bedrooms are used for streaming only.

The proliferation of devices and platforms has implications when we look at media consumption from room to room—and from household member to household member. Understanding personalized TV usage and consumption as choice increases provides advertisers and agencies with the insight they need to ensure meaningful engagement with end consumers at the point of consumption.

SVOD programming draws a crowd

As it has been for many years, the living room remains the media control center of any TV household, as it accounts for notably more share of total TV usage than any room in the house (58% among persons 2 and older).

What’s interesting, however, is that the living room isn’t always the co-viewing hub you’d expect, as 55% of content being viewed involves just a single viewer. For cable and syndicated programming, single-person TV viewing in the living room is even higher. In fact, co-viewing is only dominant in the living room when consumers are engaged with subscription video on-demand (SVOD) content.

Connected device usage permeates throughout the home

As connectivity and access to content permeates American households, complemented by the availability of relatively inexpensive television sets, smart TV ownership and internet-connected device (i.e. streaming sticks) usage are becoming increasingly common. And as the TV hub, the living room gets first dibs on the latest technology to facilitate access to the growing depth of over-the-top (OTT) content: nearly half of all smart TVs, 44% of game consoles and 40% of internet-connected devices are in the living room. When you aggregate internet-connected devices in primary and secondary bedrooms, however, the distribution (44%) is higher than it is in living rooms, highlighting the significance of TV connected usage throughout the household.

That connectivity throughout the house is directly linked to the way younger consumers use the TVs that aren’t in the living room. In secondary bedrooms, for example, 51% of consumers use internet-connected devices to engage with content. In basements, that percentage is 47%. In primary bedrooms, traditional TV programming accounts for 68% of use; among consumers 65 and older, that percentage rises to 88%.

Back in 1955, TV usage was very straightforward. It was scheduled, limited to a handful of channels and attracted audiences to a single set. Now “in the future,” usage couldn’t be more varied; specifically how audiences are using their TVs, and where within the house.

No one likes to wait. It’s human nature. And the fast-paced nature of our lives today, amplified by the speed that digital connectivity facilitates, only heightens the pressure to move faster—in all facets of our daily lives. The same is true in business: Connectivity, digital technology and high-speed communication inherently accelerates the pace of how we work. And this is particularly true in marketing. Yet depending on a brand’s goals, it might be time to make some adjustments.

Brands have hundreds of options to choose from when they think about their marketing technology, and they’ve leaned into these options heavily in recent years. In fact, conversion-focused marketing has been the industry darling for some time now. And when the pandemic arrived and brands pulled back on mass media campaigns, that digital focus sharpened even more.

COVID-19 aside, digital growth-focused strategies drive sales in this quarter, not the next. Importantly, a focus on near-term sales—and the ability to measure the impact of conversion marketing—serves to grow investments in these strategies. And marketers are quick to confirm that they’re steadily increasing their financial spending across conversion-oriented channels at much greater rates than more traditional channels, such as linear TV and radio. According to our 2021 Annual Marketing report, marketers surveyed planned to earmark their largest spend increases to social media, search, online/mobile video and email.

Importantly, all brands should develop holistic, well-balanced marketing strategies that map to specific business objectives and outcomes. But when brand awareness and customer acquisition are key business goals, conversion-dominated strategies are going to deliver limited results. These strategies also stand in opposition to numerous academic studies that claim upper-funnel marketing is the best path to growth. Notably, the marketers surveyed for our most recent marketing report rank brand awareness and customer acquisition as their top priorities, which stands in opposition to where their increased spending is headed.

The downside of our accelerated lifestyles is that it’s easier (and quicker) to drive sales than build out campaigns aimed at mass reach that will take longer to yield positive results. Measuring long-term sales is also different and many marketers rank the effectiveness of traditional mass media lower than digital channels.

From a consumer perspective, our recent Trust in Advertising study found that consumers have more trust in many forms of traditional media than digital options. And while our most recent marketing report notes that many brand marketers cited challenges in measuring the return of their investments in traditional media like TV, radio and print, Nielsen experience base shows that on average, a 1-point gain in brand metrics, such as awareness and consideration, drives a 1% increase in sales. So if a brand generates $100 million in annual sales, that 1-point gain would equal an additional $1 million in sales. 

Upper-funnel efforts also generate an array of ancillary benefits that can drive the efficiency of sales activations. For example, Nielsen recently measured how effective a financial services company’s marketing efforts were at driving sales across approximately 20 markets. At the onset, brand awareness and consideration for the brand varied across the different markets. At the end of the study, Nielsen found that the correlation between the upper funnel brand metrics and marketing efficiency was exceptionally strong (0.73). Accordingly, brands may find it worthwhile to build equity not only for the direct benefits to sales, but also for the indirect benefit coming from improving the efficiency of activation efforts.

There is no short-selling the importance of establishing relationships with consumers and nurturing them with meaningful, personal engagements. In a world of growing choice and fleeting loyalty, brands need strategies to fortify their relationships with existing consumers, and digital channels are critical for those endeavors. For true brand growth and long-term business viability, however, marketers need to balance their conversion-efforts with initiatives that put their value proposition in front of consumers that aren’t yet familiar with them.

Related research

• Report: Take command of your brand
• Report: Era of adaptation
• Trust in advertising study