MediaScience

MEDIA/ADVERTISING RESEARCH MYTH BUSTING SERIES FINALE - PART TWO Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 24: Season Finale (Part TWO) Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience has shared research challenging industry conventions. And as October comes to an end, sadly our series now comes to an end as well (at least for now). Throughout October, we challenged 21 conventions in our industry based on cutting edge research conducted by MediaScience. In our series finale, we provide a summary of this journey. But because there is a 15 minute limit on video stories in LinkedIn, we are forced to run our finale in two parts. In today's episode, we explore the last 10 conventions which we busted: * Brand integrations don't deliver impact on par with a :30 (myth busted) * Interactive brand Integrations don't work (myth busted - but only with a MediaScience remedy) * 'Click for more info' is the best call to action for interactive TV ads (myth busted) * Bigger is better for digital ads (myth busted) * Fewer ad breaks are better (myth busted) * On screen overlays are distracting and fail to deliver much impact (myth busted) * Media multitasking ALWAYS reduces ad impact (myth busted - but only with a MediaScience remedy) *There are gratuity effects when advertisers sponsor programs (myth busted) * Neuro tools provide reliable measures of ad impact (myth busted - tools alone are insufficient - expertise matters) * Video ads seen for less than 2 seconds are not 'viewable' (myth busted) WOW! What a ride! Not to toot our own horn here, but it's pretty remarkable that a relatively small boutique research firm such as ours has been able to challenge so much industry convention. This is a record that is hard to match - even for the largest market research firms in our industry. It clearly articulates our role as a key research thought leader in our field. But alas - our journey now comes to an end. Stay tuned as we post the entire series on YouTube - but until then... Thanks for joining us on this journey- and a special 'thank you' to our clients for funding so much of this and allowing us to share so many of these insights. #eyetracking #viewabilty #digitalvideo #advertising #marketingscience #digitaladvertising #neuromarketing

MEDIA/ADVERTISING RESEARCH MYTH BUSTING SERIES FINALE - PART ONE Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 23: Season Finale (Part One) Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience has shared research challenging industry conventions. And as October comes to an end, sadly our series now comes to an end as well (at least for now). Throughout October, we challenged 21 conventions in our industry based on cutting edge research conducted by MediaScience. In our series finale, we provide a summary of this journey. But because there is a 15 minute limit on video stories in LinkedIn, we are forced to run our finale in two parts. In today's episode, we explore the first 12 conventions which we busted: * News is an inferior environment for ads (myth busted) * Category-based TV addressability is the Holy Grail of advertising (myth busted) * Picture-in-Picture ads deliver inferior ad impact (myth busted) * Video ads on mobile phones are inferior to TV ads (myth busted) * More attention is better and leads to more sales (myth busted) * Co-Viewing provides a superior environment for ads (myth busted) * Short six second ads deliver vastly inferior ad impact (myth busted) * Disabling Fast-Forward hurts programs (myth busted) * The power of interactivity is in the interaction (myth busted) * Industry standards for brand safety are reliable guides for advertisers (myth busted) * Print ads are inferior to digital ads (myth busted) Stay tuned for the second part of our series finale tomorrow when we cover the remaining 10 conventions which we challenge. #eyetracking #viewabilty #digitalvideo #advertising #marketingscience #digitaladvertising #neuromarketing

DO NEUROMARKETING TOOLS PROVIDE RELIABLE MEASURES TO THE MARKET? Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 21: Do neuromarketing tools (like eye tracking, EEG, galvanic skin response and heart rate measures) provide reliable measures for the market? THE MYTH: Neuromarketing tools provide reliable measures for the market VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. Just because you use a scientific tool, it doesn't make what you do good science. In many ways, as an industry, our interest in neuromarketing has focused more on tool and less on measure. Neuromarketing is incredibly powerful, providing second-by-second analysis of what transpires during an ad at the deepest levels of measurement. This provides a powerful path to getting at the 'why' and not just the 'what'. But it only delivers these benefits when used properly. In the episode we highlight two major academic articles co-authored by a MediaScience researcher. The first is the article you'd refer to if you wanted to demonstrate that neuromarketing measures should be treated with suspicion. In that article, we demonstrate how no two neuro vendors agree on what is happening during an ad - a clear breach of the scientific principle of replicability. That article won the ARF's award for journal article of the year in JAR. The second article, also co-authored by a MediaScience researcher, is the one article you'd refer to if you wanted to demonstrate that neuro measures work - and represent a significant advantage over traditional measures. And that article was runner up for the journal article of the year award. We're proud to bring both sides of the debate to the market. And what our findings demonstrate is that neuro measures ARE incredibly powerful - but only if used correctly. Using second-rate tools which deliver scale but compromise on accuracy help little. So embrace neuro - but make sure you pick the right supplier. Get yourself an independent consultant to help evaluate claims (local academics are thrilled to assist - and their rates are well below industry rates). But always demand transparency and reject any black box solutions you're being hawked. Any measures you rely on must be properly validated. Neuro works! But only when done properly. Just because you use a scientific tool, this doesn't make what you do science. #neuromarketing #television #advertising #marketingscience

DO AUDIENCES REWARD ADVERTISERS FOR FREE CONTENT? Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 20: Is there a gratuity effect in advertising? THE MYTH: Viewers will reward advertisers for bringing them free content. VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. In the new television landscape, there are increasingly spaces where viewers face a choice: They can either pay a higher price to watch the content ad-free or pay less (or nothing) to watch the program with ads. Do audiences reward advertisers for their contribution here? Is there a 'gratuity effect' associated with watching ads in this environment, where viewers are grateful to advertisers and this translates into better ad impact. To test this question, MediaScience conducted an experiment where viewers could choose to keep a token and cash it in at the end of a session - or use the token to watch a program 'ad free'. The ad impact among those who chose to watch with ads were then compared against a control where no choice was offered (i.e. normal TV viewing). The results showed no differences across cells. This demonstrates that viewers in the gratuity condition experienced the ads the same as the control. Consequently, there was no evidence of any gratuity effect. Another myth busted! #television #advertising #marketingscience

MEDIA MULTITASKING ALWAYS HARMS ADS Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 19: Does Media Multitasking always harm ads? THE MYTH: Media Multitasking will always harm ads. VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. In many ways, today's myth busting is the most unusual in our series - because we're challenging a convention we helped build. MediaScience researchers were first to demonstrate the harmful effects of media multitasking - with a proud tradition of research highlighting its adverse effects. The convention itself evolved based on this research. And make no mistake about it - our research unequivocally supports the 'myth'. When people are browsing on their phones while watching TVs, ad impact clearly suffers. But is this inherently the case? Or are there potential remedies? Towards this end, MediaScience discovered a principle we call the 'cognitive bridge'. Basically, if there is a visual cue on the second screen that aligns with the first, the problem of media multitasking is cured and viewers simultaneously process both streams of information. In fact, we also discovered that this alignment doesn't have to be perfect - it can tolerate at least 30 seconds of slippage in either direction. So absent the MediaScience discovery, you'd have to argue that the myth is true - but with the cognitive bridge, we bust our own convention. It's a fascinating discussion you won't want to miss - #television #advertising #marketingscience #neuromarketing

DO ON-SCREEN BRANDED OVERLAYS DISTRACT? Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 18: Do on-screen branded overlays distract? THE MYTH: Branded on-screen overlays distract from the program while delivering little value to advertisers. VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. With the advent of the new TV landscape, ad inventory is available in a growing range of spaces. Among these is the opportunity for branding as a graphic overlay during the program itself. But some argue that such branding is distracting to the program viewing experience. Viewers are expected to multitask (process both program AND ad messaging at the same time), resulting in minimal value to advertisers. MediaScience's work around this question, however, challenges this assumption. In fact, across numerous studies we've found that branded on-screen graphics in program can be effective for advertisers without harming the program. The key, however, is to understand HOW such on-screen graphics really work. In effect, they act as brand integrations (check out our post for myth 13 on brand integrations). Like the integration, the power is not in the on-screen graphic - but in how it primes to viewer to then experience the adjacent ad better. Indeed, in research we conducted for Warner Bros Discovery, we were able to demonstrate that well-thought out on-screen graphic creative can actually enhance the program viewing experience as well (in addition to delivering some pretty dramatic dividends to the advertiser). So like anything creative, there is nuance to optimizing the opportunity. In this episode we also explore opportunities to use on-screen graphics during the ad break to help retain viewers. It's a fascinating discussion you won't want to miss. #television #advertising #marketingscience

ARE FEWER AD BREAKS BETTER? Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 17: Are Fewer Ad Breaks Better? THE MYTH: Fewer ad breaks are better, reducing ad annoyance and enhancing ad impact. VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. As the new TV advertising landscape starts to take shape, networks are faced with new questions about how to distribute their inventory. On the one hand, there is pressure for them to air shorter ad breaks. But if you follow that logic through, you'd need MORE ad breaks to redistribute some of those ads - at a time when they also face pressure for fewer ad breaks. We know from previous MediaScience research that shorter ad breaks really ARE better. So in light of that insight, does the convention that fewer ad breaks are better hold? To test this question, MediaScience collaborated with the Ehrenberg Bass Institute is a large study with 10 cells, each reflecting different pod architecture. We manipulated both the number of breaks and length of the breaks. The discovery. Even SIX breaks with limited interruption (short ad breaks) was perceived as less intrusive and more effective than just TWO breaks with clutter. So the problem is clutter and not the frequency of breaks. This ties in nicely with research we conducted for FreeWheel and Comcast Advertising seeking to find the optimal length for an ad break. The answer? Two minutes! So if you tie this all together, networks are delivering greater value to both advertisers and viewers by spreading their inventory out across more ad breaks (within reason). This also delivers the added benefit of creating more A position opportunities which best capitalize on the contextual transfer effects associated with the program. Another myth busted: Fewer ad breaks are not better! #television #advertising #marketingscience

INTERACTIVE BRAND INTEGRATIONS Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 16: Bigger is not Better THE MYTH: The bigger the digital mobile ad, the better VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. It's natural to assume that bigger is better. But is it? In a study conducted by MediaScience for Kargo, we tested different mobile ad formats including the full screen takeover 'interstitial' and the 'side kick' which is a small ad unit in the lower corner of the screen. If bigger is better, the interstitial should have reigned supreme (even if annoying). The results, however, demonstrate how the side kick actually gets longer views which translates into significantly higher ad memory. So proof positive that bigger isn't necessarily better. Myth busted! #advertising #marketing #interactiveadvertising #mobileadvertising

BIGGER IS NOT BETTER Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 16: Bigger is not Better THE MYTH: The bigger the digital mobile ad, the better VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. It's natural to assume that bigger is better. But is it? In a study conducted by MediaScience for Kargo, we tested different mobile ad formats including the full screen takeover 'interstitial' and the 'side kick' which is a small ad unit in the lower corner of the screen. If bigger is better, the interstitial should have reigned supreme (even if annoying). The results, however, demonstrate how the side kick actually gets longer views which translates into significantly higher ad memory. So proof positive that bigger isn't necessarily better. Myth busted! #advertising #marketing #interactiveadvertising #mobileadvertising

CLICK FOR MORE INFORMATION Catch today's episode of MediaScience MYTH BUSTING Episode 15: Click for More Information THE MYTH: 'Click for More Information' is the best appeal for an interactive TV ad VERDICT: BUSTED Remember, every work day in October, MediaScience will share research challenging industry conventions. With the rise of Connected TV, new interactive ad formats become possible. Many of these will feature calls to action enabling viewers to take specific action. And inevitably, one of the most common calls to action to emerge is the 'click for more information' format, where viewers can press a button on their remote to get more information related to the brand. While there are numerous campaigns that succeed with this call to action, research by MediaScience and the Ehrenberg Bass Institute highlights how this is just about the worst call to action a brand can use. In fact, on average, the call to action reduced response -423% - the kiss of death! By contrast, using the word 'free' drove response up +591%. The research was conducted by using BSkyB's interactive TV response data for over 500 interactive ad campaigns in the United Kingdom- coding the ads for over 100 execution elements (a task that resulted in over 80,000 coding decisions by the research team). Similar analysis was done on historical data from the Wink platform (the first interactive TV platform in the US) and Canoe data in the United States. As Connected TV grows in popularity, there will be growing need for research like this that optimizes ad formats. #advertising #marketing #neuromarketing #interactiveadvertising