Speaker 1: Please welcome Chris Louie. Thanks a lot. I'm going to keep up with the keynote speaker streamlined hairdo theme that we have going on today. Unfortunately, I don't have video, but what I do have is a pretty cheesy clip art that is interspersed throughout. So hopefully that helps keep you guys entertained along with the content. OK, so Nielsen spends a lot of time thinking about advertising effectiveness. And we will talk for most of this about cross-platform advertising. But where we're going to start is actually with the thing that I think Nielsen spends the most time thinking about, which is what consumers watch. So getting back to the consumer and the consumer experience. And then we'll move into the advertising piece. And this is going to be no surprise to you guys, but for years we've talked about cross-platform video viewing, content viewing. And the story is that it's finally here in terms of a really seamless cross-platform viewing experience. If anybody's been tuning in to March Madness, you'll note that the experience across screens for watching these college basketball games versus, think back three years ago, five years ago, night and day, right, it's pretty seamless. It's a pretty compelling experience for me to watch on my iPad, even to watch on my phone relative to the TV set. Three years ago, five years ago, that was not the case, right? You had really janky video streams. You had to, I think, queue up, right, about five years ago. You had to queue up to get into the games that you wanted to see. Now you're just in. You're not even having to sign up. HBO Go was talked about, I think, on one of the previous panels. Again, really, really compelling experience, which is leading to paradoxically large amounts of pirating. And then you also have, obviously, professional TV video content that has come on board, both put out there directly by the TV networks, as well as by Hulu and other aggregators. So really compelling experience. Not surprisingly, it's leading to, you guys all know this story, a shift in terms of the way people are consuming professional TV content today. So if you flip back to 2008, very little was being watched online on a mobile. Very little professional content was actually on in a very accessible way. Today, you have a lot of options. And the percent of TV viewing, while some may say that it's still relatively small, it is significant. 6% of TV content being viewed online and on mobile. Pretty significant, and it's growing very, very quickly. The average online, the average time spent per month was actually up year over year from Q1 of this year to Q1 of last year by 47% for the average online viewer. So very large increases. Still going on, even though compelling video has been out there now for a couple of years. Multitasking across screens is also extremely high. We heard a bit about that on the social video panel. So 88% of tablet owners are using their device while watching TV at some point in time over the last year. 87% of smartphone owners, as well. So very high incidence of people watching TV and using devices at the same time. What does that mean if you think about advertising? It's pretty intuitive that viewers are going across the contents there. The viewers are there. We should be thinking about cross-platform advertising. If you see all the headlines and all the industry discussion is about cross-platform advertising. This is from a year ago, or two years ago. Cross-platform ad deals taking center stage at this year's upfront. Now we have the new fronts a couple of years running. Smartphones and tablets at the center of cross-platform ad strategies. ABC recently put out this announcement about guarantees to advertisers across platforms, trying to treat video as a consistent thing, irrespective of the screen that it's being shown on when striking advertising deals. What's the reality, though? The reality that we found in working with clients, and we heard a bit of this throughout the session today, was that cross-platform advertising isn't truly cross-platform yet. People that were trying to minimize the amount of duplication and have as much reach as possible, more or less the same amount of duplication, and vice versa for people that are trying to have as much duplication as possible, it was actually dead on for the sample of campaigns that we looked at. So what that's saying to me is, even though they are saying, hey, we're going after truly integrated cross-platform strategies, it's actually not happening. What are the hurdles? So there are several hurdles to true cross-platform video advertising. And this is where some of the cheesy clip art starts. The first is the fact that if you look at TV, and if you look at online, there actually is a lot of history there. There's a lot of experience there. There's institutional knowledge. There's ingrained practices. And there's infrastructure that's built to underlie and support that knowledge and those existing practices. People like to think about, who are kind of uninitiated, like to think about digital as being new and an untapped ground with regard to advertising. And if you think back, if you look at, let's take some of the pioneers. If you look at Yahoo, Yahoo is 20 years old. We have 20 years of really strong history with regard to digital advertising practices being built up. So it's not a baby. We're not in the infant stages. And so there are ways of doing things. To really have true cross-platform video advertising, we need to overcome those inherent barriers of, hey, this is what I do, or this is how I do it, and figure out how to do it together. Secondly, you still have separate organizations responsible for TV versus digital buying and selling. You have thing one and thing two, and people responsible for independent things. Now, you're seeing much more of the organizations come together, but you still have the digital guy, or you have the social person, or you have the TV person. And we need to see more, I think, more working together, and perhaps even more cross-pollination of these groups to really overcome the first thing. And then lastly, lack of consistent, comparable, and combinable measurement for TV versus digital has really stood in the way here. Because look, you can try things, but if you're not able to, and you can try to be as integrated as possible in your strategy, but if you can't actually say, look, this is what it did online, this is what it did on TV, and this is what it did in both. And therefore, if you don't have measures that are consistent across both to be able to look at it in combination, in addition to it independently, then it's not going to work. Then you often find yourself talking in different languages almost about what's going on with regard to advertising. So these are kind of bubbled up to some high-level things, but these are three of the big things. And obviously, given what Nielsen does with regard to providing the TV currency today and the things that we're trying to do in digital, we're really focused on overcoming this last barrier. And obviously, all these different barriers, the things that are making people look at TV and digital in silos are making the key decisions that you need to make about your campaign and about cross-platform advertising really tough to make. So what's needed? What's going to actually help us get to specifically effective cross-platform measurements? I think there are a few things. One, needs to be accepted by both media buyers and sellers. You see some measurement come out, and some people say that, oh, well, that's going to really empower the media buyers to then go back and drive accountability with the sellers. And if measurement's seen as a tool for the media buyers to decode that, hit sellers over the head and get rates down, not going to be effective. It's not going to be effective at overcoming those barriers. Vice versa, if there's measurement that's coming out that's seen as a tool for the sellers based on either what it is or who's providing it just to make their inventory look better, that's not going to work either. We need something provided by an independent third party that's going to be acceptable and believable and usable by both sides of the aisle. Two, actionability. So in order for something to actually be effective in terms of driving better advertising effectiveness, it's got to be accurate. It's got to be delivered quickly enough and with enough frequency, so quickly enough after the campaign started and with enough frequency during the campaign to be able to do something about that information. It can't be weeks or months afterwards. Broadly applicable to campaigns as well. What we've seen with some of the measurement to date is it's only really applicable to very large campaigns, which isn't going to cut it. Because of the desire to try to innovate and try really new things with advertising, if you're providing measurement that's only applicable to the very largest campaigns, it can't become a standard. It can't be used broadly. Granularity of the reporting has to be enough that you can actually do something with it. And again, it also contrastingly has to be understandable. So it's not the most complex measurement that requires a measurement science degree to be able to work with it. Comparable and combinable across media, I spoke about before. And holistic. And it may sound funny for a guy from Nielsen to say it, but we heard it here before in terms of engagement being the term that was used. But reach isn't enough. Views aren't enough. And when Nielsen's looking at this stuff today and to try to put it into an understandable, simple framework, we think about it in three ways. Reach, which is who did my ad reach? Resonance, so how is the, for those who were reached, how were they actually influenced by the advertising? And then reaction, did they actually go do something? Did they go buy the product? Did they go search for the product or search for the brand after it was seen? What action did they take? And this is the way in which we're trying to provide measurement in these three buckets, in ways that allow us to connect these buckets. And then lastly, evolutionary. I think one thing that I've heard in the past is, oh, well, guys, don't come to us and just make digital look like TV because you're taking us back to the Stone Ages. Vice versa. It's also don't just try to force TV, which is $80 billion ad spend business today, to be digital too quickly or else it's not going to work. So we need to be providing measurement out to the marketplace that allows us to take the best of each medium. Where TV, we have a really efficient buy. In digital, we have measurement that is more specific, that is more granular, and figure out ways to combine those two. And we're trying to do a few things in order to comply with those stated requirements and really help the industry move along. One, and I sort of grouped these together by, you can consider these as trying to progress TV measurement and bring some of the best of digital to TV. There are two things here. One is expanding the coverage with regard to existing TV measurement. There's been a lot of talk about this, but how do we take TV ratings and how do we take TV brand effect or what many people still refer to as IG, measures of engagement, and cover more platforms, cover more than just TV as we've been defining it for the last couple of decades, but bring tablets into the equation, bring smartphones into the equation, bring social into the equation. Some of the recent announcements that we've made with Twitter, for example, are examples of how we're trying to do that. How do we also take that measurement, and so in addition to expanding coverage, actually, you guys think about those big buckets, right, that I talked about before, of trying to use TV and online truly together to extend reach, or trying to use TV and online, again, truly together to really get that duplication and increase engagement. If I was to sort of take a, if somebody wants to hazard a guess, what do you think most people are trying to do, or what do you think the split would be? Sorry? Span reach, like what, take a guess. In terms of like a proportion, like. I don't know, 65% to 85%. Uh-huh, any other guesses? So pretty close, right, it's pretty much an even, it's a fairly even split, right? People are trying to do one, people are trying to do the other. Makes sense, right, because, you know, people are trying to figure out what's the best way to use cross-platform, but, you know, they're sort of, you know, there are different objectives here. There's not just, you know, there's not just one of these that people are really trying to go after. Two, what we've seen is, so with all the, you know, hubbub about cross-platform, there is actually a payoff from, you know, some of the truly integrated cross-platform campaigns that we've seen. So here's an example of some measurement that we did for a client with cross-platform campaign ratings. And so what we found is that by investing both in TV advertising as well as digital advertising for this campaign, they were able to get an overall 89% unduplicated reach. So by individual silos, 72% TV, 52% digital. And, you know, in this case, what that meant is that basically one in every three digital audience members were incremental to TV, kind of untouched by, you know, by TV advertising, which, you know, for this advertiser, given what their objective was, was actually a pretty good finding for them. And what we've seen, not surprisingly, is that by selecting properties that, you know, target or achieve audiences with relatively low TV watchers, that sort of helps you if your objective really is to go use online to extend your reach line. In this example, which was with a CBG company, you know, general recall was higher for the viewers that were exposed to both, to the advertising in both medium. And for those that saw, remember the ad, the ability to link back to or recall the specific brand that the ad was attributed to was also significantly higher. So payoff, you know, they're seeing payoff from really having integrated cross-platform campaigns. What we're also seeing is that, you know, again, with these dual ambitions of taking digital to TV advertising and TV to digital advertising, by doing that, by sort of advancing measurement on both sides, the story in terms of the advertising effectiveness does actually change significantly in many cases. So for example, and this is kind of related to the thing that I mentioned before about what ABC was showing at their upfronts. This is actually something that Dave Poltrack from CBS recently showed at the Audience Research Foundation Conference. But, you know, he showed that, so Blue Bloods CBS show versus some of the other shows that they're up against in their time slot, from just a normal, you know, age, gender, demo ratings perspective, you know, placed, whatever, tied for last amongst the four broadcast shows. But when you look at specifically buyers who are likely to eat out at casual dining restaurants, placed significantly higher, right? It was about, you know, it placed second to show X versus being last just with age and gender. So again, if you're a media buyer out there and you're looking at this and you're focused on casual dining, you know, by having this overlay, you may make different decisions with regards to your media planning. And then vice versa. So for a client that was, you know, investing in digital, and this is some output from an online campaign rating study and was targeting females 18 to 34, what they found was, and this gets back to kind of a view is not just a view. And it also kind of relates back to the story about the plumbing advertising that was picked up from advertising. I think one is, look, you know, for the ones that are getting it right or seeing the most impact here, they are measuring, right? For media buyers, you know, they're measuring across their campaigns and really understanding what they're getting from cross-platform. And for media sellers, they're measuring across campaigns that are running on their sites and running on their networks and understanding what they can actually deliver and what they can actually contribute to cross-platform campaigns. So it's giving them the information to then go back and work with, you know, work with their partners to, you know, to really inform cross-platform campaigns. Two, it's test and learn, right? It's the ability, if you are measuring, to then be able to try cross-platform, different cross-platform strategies and really understand what's most effective. They're getting out there, you know, they're running integrated campaigns and they're seeing what works. Third, keep the viewer in mind. And we heard some of this in the social panel as well as the content marketing panel. But, you know, if you just think about this as a, you know, we need to get advertising out there to reach these people and really trying to influence them. We need to hit them, you know, on TV and online. And if you miss out on thinking about the actual viewer that you're trying to reach, thinking about how you can actually weave a consistent thread with regard to the messaging, that is enhanced by hitting them both on TV and online. And if you're not thinking about giving them a reason to actually want to be reached, both on TV and online, then, you know, it's not going to be as effective, right? You're just using this as delivery vehicles versus, you know, telling a story and having a conversation with them. And then lastly, you know, I think a consistent thing that we're seeing in terms of what's working better versus worse is, you know, this idea of partnership, right? So using the measurement as a negotiation tool and only as a negotiation tool isn't going to work, right? Because, you know, we're all experiencing cross-platform for really the first time. So by using the measurement, by using these results to actually, you know, be creative and figure out ways to work together and, you know, identify, hey, this isn't working, but then figure out what will work better versus saying, you know, now you need to go give me a make-good or, you know, now I need this back. You know, we're finding that that's definitely, that constructive approach, that partnering approach is definitely leading to much better, much better advertising effectiveness, right? Because to do the other, to do the opposite, to just say, hey, you know, I need this back or, you know, you're going to get cut off from the plan, it's pretty short-term, a pretty short-term approach. Chris, thanks very much. Yep, thank you. We are actually, Chris is staying with us for the panel, so we're going to fold the Q&A.