Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Category results for "Industry-Research"

Industry Research

Industry-Research

Virtual Assistants challenge the search box

Google owns the search space, but that space is showing signs of fragmentation. Our recent report (March, 2017 from Fivesight Research*) underlines Google’s sustained dominance in the search market but also uncovered early signals of a market shift that may have significant implications for digital media companies:

  • In the overall smartphone market 84% of consumers (Android and iOS) selected Google as their primary search engine.
  • Looking at specific mobile OS preferences, in Android Google was the primary choice of 90% of consumers; in iOS, its share was 78%.
  • On the desktop, Google commands an 80% share in total, with little variation among Windows, Mac, and Chromebook platforms.

Despite this overwhelming share of consumer preference, there are glimmers of a competitive threat to the Google search box emerging from the fast evolving category of AI-powered Virtual Personal Assistants (VPAs) like Siri, Cortana and Google’s own Google Assistant. In fact, the Fivesight report showed that Siri is the number two competitor to Google in the mobile space, outpacing traditional search engines like Bing and Yahoo. VPAs represent a new type of consumer interaction with content. This means that publishers need to be considering how to create content and experiences that will play well with VPAs.

This is all the more impressive given that Siri is only available on iOS devices, which by most estimates make up less than 50% of the smartphone installed base. And of course, it’s not just Siri. There’s an entire product category of AI virtual assistants evolving both on the smartphone and as standalone home devices.

While the Siri and VPA threat to Google isn’t material at the moment, the data suggests a potentially disruptive market shift. Consumers are getting more comfortable with VPAs despite their technical limitations. As the technology improves we’ll likely see even more consumer adoption and possible displacement of some portion of traditional search engine queries. And every query that goes to Siri or Cortana is a lost revenue opportunity for Google. For marketers the change to “traditional” search engine marketing could be significant.

The VPA impact isn’t confined to smartphones either. Both Siri and Cortana are integrated into current desktop OS releases from Apple and Microsoft. Siri was introduced to the desktop with Apple’s September, 2016 release of the Mac OS, Sierra. Microsoft’s Cortana has been available on desktops since the introduction of Windows 10 in July, 2015. As these operating systems penetrate more of the installed base it is likely that at least some portion of searches will move to the VPA. In fact, during its Q42016 earnings call Microsoft reported that the Cortana search box had over 100 million active monthly users with 8 billion questions asked to date.

For now though, the sheer volume of search activity will keep the traditional Google search box healthy, even with lower cost per click and leakage of queries to alternatives like VPAs. Consumers are searching more than ever, and the Fivesight report showed 50% are searching more than they did 12 months ago, 43% about the same and only 6% less frequently. All of this activity means that keywords and traditional SEO will remain critical tools for digital marketers.

VPA queries represent a new type of consumer interaction that will require a fresh approach to content development and audience engagement. It is not too early for publishers and marketers to explore how they will play in an environment where AI powered devices and applications usurp the role of the conventional search box. For starters this means leveraging VPA open APIs to build apps and services that integrate with Siri, Cortana, Alexa and the rest.

15 years ago in his annual shareholder letter, Larry Page spelled out his “dream” for search. Instead of keyword queries and blue links he imagined an AI that would answer spoken questions. Today we are seeing glimpses of that AI powered search. How ironic it would be if Page’s dream turns into a nightmare that fractures the Google search box and the empire built upon it.

Joe Buzzanga is Founder and Chief Analyst at Fivesight Research. He has over 30 years of experience in product development, market research, product strategy and industry analysis. He has a diverse technology background spanning telecommunications (Bellcore/Ericsson, 3Com), semiconductor (Intel), publishing (Elsevier, IEEE) and information retrieval (Elsevier, IEEE). Joe has an MBA from Rutgers University, an MLS from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and an MA in Philosophy, also from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

*Note: In March, 2017 we surveyed 800 U.S. consumers via smartphone using the Pollfish online survey platform. This sample was split 50/50 between iOS and Android users to provide statistically projectable results both in the smartphone population as a whole and within iOS and Android sub-segments. The sample size yields a 5% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval. The survey was administered via smartphone, but we asked users about their preferences on both smartphones and desktop/laptop computers.
Advertising | Industry-Research

Pre-roll is the most informative and engaging video ad format

As brands continue to identify the most impactful video advertising formats, the report shared detailed insights about which format elicits the strongest consumer reaction. IPG Media Lab and YuMe recently released the results of a study that looks at user experience across video ad formats and devices, performance against brand KPIs and optimizing performance across video ad formats. Their report, Ad Format (R)evolution finds that pre-roll remains a solid, formidable platform in which to showcase brand offerings. Compared to mid-roll and outstream, pre-roll is considered the least interruptive across devices, with only 17% of mobile device users feeling the ad interrupts the content, compared with 60% on outstream and 72% on mid-roll.

Other key findings include:
  • The least intrusive formats are also the most memorable.
  • Mid-roll ranked higher in message recall for desktop viewers at 27%, compared to 8% for outstream.
  • Pre-roll feels more engaging.
  • Unskippable pre-roll is the clear winner on mobile.
  • Social video is well integrated and less disruptive to the browsing experience than other formats.
  • Mid-roll works better on larger screens.
  • More than half of those surveyed want to close both outstream and pre-roll ads immediately.

This research confirms that consumers are most critical of ads on mobile, which is their most personal device. And among the conclusions, the report emphasizes how important it is for advertising to minimize its intrusiveness and maximize engagement in order to generate higher purchase intent for all ad formats and delivery channels.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Perspectives

It’s time to take action against ad fraud

The digital ad fraud controversy – which encompasses everything from fake clicks to compromised viewability and increased brand risk – has been an issue for marketers for several years now. But it isn’t something marketers want to spend too much time thinking about, and for good reason. Wasted advertising dollars, unsavory marketing tactics, and a legitimate degree of helplessness to fix the issue makes for unpleasant conversations.

But every few months, with remarkable regularity, a fresh incident or research study re-introduces the topic into the digital marketing discussion. This spawns a stream of articles in the mainstream business press, putting marketers back on the hot seat. The most recent development involved ads running on YouTube next to extremist videos, which lead to coverage such as “AT&T, Verizon Pull Ads From Google Over ‘Hate’ Videos” from the Wall Street Journal, and “Google Tries to Stop Ads From Appearing Next to Hate Speech” from the New York Times.

All the while, specialists continue to monitor industry activity and hone tactics aimed at helping advertisers minimize the impact of fraud. IAS is one such company. Twice a year, they publish an assessment that tracks digital media quality and the effectiveness of best practice techniques to combat fraud.

Here’s what you need to know from the research:
  • “It’s Time For Action.” Or so says Marc Pritchard, the Chief Brand Officer at P&G. The second half of 2016 brought a host of media quality issues to the forefront of marketers’ minds with fake news, extremist sites, and “Methbot” dominating the headlines. Transparency and trust will continue to be key issues in digital advertising this year.
  • Proactive Management Works. IAS research showed significant performance variation between campaigns using ad fraud prevention (1.6% fraud incidence) and those that did not (13.2%).
  • Timing Matters. The risk of ad fraud increases in the late hours of the night, while people are sleeping. Ad fraud begins to climb at 12:00 a.m., peaks at 4:00 a.m., then declines slowly till it reaches a steady level at 8:00 a.m. and throughout the day.
  • Brand Safety Improved, But Remains a Focus. The volume of brand safety infractions decreased compared to H1 2016, from 9.5% to 8.6% of impressions on all buy types flagged on objectionable content in H2. However, with the advent of fake news and the increase in violent and extremist content, brand safety remains a critical issue for advertisers.
  • Video Viewability Increased; May Invite More Fraudsters.  Considered more effective than display advertising, video ads continue to grow in demand. As such, video CPMs and subsequent expectations of quality are high. Over a sample of six billion impressions, video viewability showed significant improvement compared to H1, increasing from 40.0% overall to 58.2%, and outperformed desktop display viewability for the first time. Still, advertisers need to keep close watch on video campaigns as the higher CPMs make the medium more susceptible to fraudsters.

Tim Bourgeois (@ChiefDigOfficer) is a partner at East Coast Catalyst, a Boston-based digital consulting company specializing in strategic roadmaps, digital marketing audits, and online marketing optimization programs.

Industry-Research

The Associated Press offers a guide to artificial intelligence in the newsroom

At the Associated Press, the news department leaders were the first to suggest trying artificial intelligence. They were motivated by two mega trends in the media business: “the relentless increase in news to be covered and the human constraints associated with covering it.”

In 2013, the AP teamed up with Durham, North Carolina-based Automated Insights to automate the production of certain types of news stories directly from data. They started with sports and then extended the initiative to corporate earnings reports. Since then, the AP has continued to experiment with AI and recently published “A guide for newsrooms in the age of smart machines” based upon on its own learnings as well interviews with dozens of experts in the fields of journalism, technology, academia and entrepreneurship.

What they’ve found is that “artificial intelligence can do much more than churn out straightforward sports briefs and corporate earnings stories. It can enable journalists to analyze data; identify patterns, trends and actionable insights from multiple sources; see things that the naked eye can’t see; turn data and spoken words into text; text into audio and video; understand sentiment; analyze scenes for objects, faces, text or colors — and more.”

Key Takeaways

Among the key takeaways in the report is that, in the field of journalism, AI has potential to:

  • Attend to menial tasks and free journalists to engage in more complex, qualitative reporting.
  • Enhance communication and collaboration among journalists.
  • Enable journalists to sift through large corpuses of data, text, images, and videos.
  • Help journalists better communicate and engage with their audience.
  • Empower the creation of entirely new types of journalism.

In addition to providing insights into the practical journalistic applications of AI, the report covers the relevant technologies in this field—including machine learning, supervised learning, natural language processing, robotics, computer vision, and more. It looks at the potential impact of AI on journalists and journalism. It also considers ethical, philosophical and practical implications of implementing AI within media environments.

Above all, the report focuses on the potential for AI-human “collaboration” in which journalists are freed from many of the craft’s more mundane or repetitive tasks. Rather, leveraging AI can save organizations time and money, while being better equipped “to keep pace with the with the growing scale and scope of the news itself.”

Industry-Research

Nearly half of political news content tweeted is fake

The rapid spread of misinformation—better known these days as fake news—was named one of the top 10 dangers to society by the World Economic Forum in 2014. Powered by automation and algorithms, fake news is amplified more than ever on social media. In fact, orchestrators of fake news rely heavily on social media to create web traffic, drive engagement, and influence political views.

To understand the threat and impact of fake news, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) studied 22 million tweets that contained hashtags related to politics leading up to the 2016 US Presidential Election. The research, “Junk News and Bots during the U.S. Election: What Were Michigan Voters Sharing Over Twitter?,” identified 138,686 users from Michigan, a battleground state evenly split between both presidential candidates, Clinton and Trump. The state of Michigan was specifically selected because the two presidential candidates were equally supported, limiting political biasness in the research.

The Twitter data revealed that Trump-related traffic (57%) significantly outpaced Clinton-related traffic (20%) and neutral content (13%). Importantly, the research uncovered that professional news and fake news are close to a one-to-one ratio when it comes to political news tweets. Further, nearly a quarter of political tweets (23%) contain fake news links. and a full 47% of the political news content can be classified as political propaganda. Needless to say, social media’s proliferation of fake news is reason for concern.

Social platforms provide a fertile environment for the fast spread of fake without the necessary vetting and questioning of the information. Significantly, the Oxford Internet Institute defines “professional news” as that produced by major news brands. The information displays “the qualities of professional journalism, with fact-checking and credible standards of production. They provide clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners, and the content is clearly produced by an organization with a reputation for professional journalism.” And, while social platforms claim to be addressing the problem, premium publishers consider ensuring the accuracy of the information they report fundamental to their business so that they can deliver value to the reader and maintain consumer trust.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

How to engage multitasking, multiplatform consumers

The avalanche of mobile services and apps has led to a sizeable shift in media consumption towards mobile. But the smartphone is not always competing for people’s attention. To the contrary, a new report from Deloitte tells us the smartphone enhances TV viewing experience. But this bright spot can’t disguise the brand imperative to re-think advertising to engage audiences, not annoy them.

Drawing on a survey of 2,131 U.S. consumers Deloitte’s 11th Digital Democracy Survey highlights how key audience segments including Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z (in other words, a broad spectrum of user ages 14 and above) interact with mobile, video, TV and the Internet.  While the findings are not surprising, they are an important confirmation of people’s attitudes and behaviors and the trends sure to shape the future of media.

Optimizing Experiences

“The shift to streaming, mobile, on-demand services and personalization are significant opportunities in 2017,” Kevin Westcott, vice chairman and U.S. media and entertainment leader, Deloitte LLP, says in a press release. “Brands can bring new value, services and incredibly entertaining content to the empowered consumers across all age groups in a manner that can be monetized.”

But it won’t be a walk in the park. Yes, there is ample proof that American consumers streamed, “binge-watched” and demanded more media than ever in 2016. However, there is also an increased reliance on social networks (and friends) to make purchase decisions.  Social recommendations are proving “more influential” than traditional advertising, the report says. For example, nearly one-third (27%) of Gen Z respondents say an online recommendation from someone within their social media circles can highly influence a buying decision.

Multitasking also makes it tougher for traditional media, such as TV, to grab (and keep) audience attention. The shift to second-screening may enhance the viewing experience. (I’m thinking here of the uptick in mobile app interaction and social media sharing that coincides with the broadcast of cult shows like The Walking Dead). It also detracts from the effectiveness of TV advertising. The verdict from Deloitte: “Enlisting online influencers and creating social buzz” are likely the more effective avenue for getting through to younger consumers.

Remastering Marketing

Another barrier that companies need to overcome is the quality of their advertising – or rather the lack of it. The report reveals the vast majority (more than 80%) of consumers will skip an online video ad if allowed. And 67% of consumers are tuning out mobile ads on their phones because they find them irrelevant. Against this backdrop, a large percentage of respondents are reaching to ad-blocking tech to snuff of unwanted advertising. (Although, to be fair, their motivation is linked with the desire to improve the speed and performance of the content and videos consumed online and on mobile.)

Amid the doom-and-gloom data that leads us to believe consumers hate ads, a few surprise findings (buried on page 12) show the way for brands to improve the experience for consumers and the effectiveness of their advertising. More than half of all consumers say they would be willing to receive advertising on their smartphones based on location.  Significantly, 46% said they would pay more attention to an ad if they were able to make the call on whether they view it or skip it.

It’s a report that reinforces what has become my mantra: People want what they want – when, how and where they want it. Consumers crave more geographic relevance in their advertising and they want more control over the advertising they have to view as a condition to access and enjoy content. Clearly, brands are well advised to adapt their advertising approach to these consumer requirements. There is no guarantee the changes they make will trigger a conversion, or win customer loyalty. But it’s sure to grab at least some attention. And in a world where consumers are multitasking and massively reliant on their social circles, a little attention can mean major traction.

Peggy Anne Salz is the Content Marketing Strategist and Chief Analyst of Mobile Groove, a top 50 influential technology site providing custom research to the global mobile industry and consulting to tech startups. She is a frequent contributor to Forbes on the topic of mobile marketing, engagement and apps. Her work also regularly appears in a range of publications from Venture Beat to Harvard Business Review. Peggy is a top 30 Mobile Marketing influencer and a nine-time author based in Europe. Follow her @peggyanne.
Industry-Research

3 Things standing in the way of engaged time metrics

The idea of the “Attention Economy” as a currency on the internet goes back to at least 1997. So, 20 years later, we should have this engaged time metric figured out, right?

From a technological perspective, we do. We can accurately measure the time a reader spends actively reading a page, versus measuring how long a browser tab was left open with a page. Ads can measure engagement or time spent viewing.

However, we need to separate the technical ability to measure engaged time from the adoption of the metric as a valuable evaluation construct. Has the reality on the ground changed when it comes to using time to understand an audience?

Adoption at an Individual Level

We attempted to answer this question by partnering with Digiday’s CUSTOM studio on a research survey. Based on responses of almost 300 members of the Digiday audience, engaged time has gained a great deal of traction with journalists and reporters.

Time-on-page (the broader term we used in the survey questions) ranked the highest for what people use to evaluate their own work.  If you interpret this chart another way, it indicates that 50% of people working in publishing see time spent with their audience a personal goal for their work.

However, we also asked about which metrics people were responsible for reporting back to their company. When asked this way, time-on-page dropped to the sixth position – out of nine total choices.

While individuals may understand and value time-on-page as a way to show that an audience cared about the work of a piece, organizations are still prizing pageviews, impressions, and social sharing.

The disconnect between these two sets of responses emphasizes the gap between how writers view their relationship with their audience and that relationship’s value to the business. If the writer’s goal is to engage the reader, but the business still makes money from impression numbers, how can those two align?

Barriers to Organizational Adoption

In addition to the data from the survey, the report revealed specific challenges that companies face in trying to adopt any new metric or goal. Here are three takeaways:

  • Inconsistent messaging from leadership. Though executives are usually not immersed in analytics every day, leadership still sets the tone for how employees view company success. According to one of participant in the research, inconsistent messages from management can make things more confusing: “It shifts with whoever is in charge. Some new person comes on and says, ‘This is our prime metric. This is what we’re shooting for.’ And then they go off and work somewhere else and someone else comes in.”
  • The right vs wrong metric mentality. Conversations need to stay away from “the right” metrics and lean more towards what success means. Employees want their work to be successful; focus on that first and then connect the metrics to how to get there.
  • A lack of expectations and benchmarking. With new metrics, you have to indentify the status quo in order to tell if something is performing better or worse than expected, or to show improvement over time. For metrics that aren’t as intuitively understandable as pageviews or visitors, what kind of benchmarking or expectations can be set?

Over the coming years, which organizations will ensure that the goals for their audience relationships, employees’ work and business models will align? And which will be able to adopt time as a measure of how their audience values the work they do? I suspect we’ll be able to tell soon enough.

The full research cited in this article can be found on Parse.ly’s website.

clarecarrClare Vice President of Marketing at Parse.ly, which partners with digital publishers to provide clear audience insights through an intuitive analytics platform. She writes and speaks about all the ways companies can use digital analytics to improve their operations and reach their audience goals. Prior to joining Parse.ly, Clare spent five years on the publishing side as the Director of Marketing and Online Operations at Greentech Media. Previous to that, she did digital marketing and business development at ThePoint.com, the precursor to Groupon, and Venus Zine. Originally from Ohio, she graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in Environmental Sciences.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

As content consumption evolves, so must media and marketing strategies

Streaming online content continues to grow as social media and over-the-top services appeal to more consumers, especially to Millennials and Gen Z audiences. In fact, almost half (49%) of all US consumers now subscribe to a paid streaming video services with almost 60% penetration among Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z.

Interestingly, cable and satellite subscriptions remain steady at 74% of US Households. This can likely be attributed to pay TV subscriptions bundled with Internet services. US consumer media habits are shifting significantly. To better understand these changes, Deloitte’s Digital Democracy Survey offers insight into the multi-generational view of consumer technology, media, and telecom trends.

Key takeaways:

  • Binge watching becomes the new norm. Close to three quarters (73%) of US consumers report binge watching. Nearly nine in 10 Millennials and Gen Z say they binge watch video content. Deloitte defines binge watching as viewing at least three or more episodes in one session. It’s time for marketers and content produces to think differently about reaching the binge-watching audiences. An advertiser may want to try product placements in a series for added frequency. Content producers may want to think about new distribution strategies such as releasing content as a bingeable mini-series instead of offering a feature-length movie. Of the content streamed, paid streamed content comprises 35% of consumers streaming time and free services take up 40% of stream time.

  • Social recommendations are proving more influential than TV ads. More than a quarter (27%) of Gen Z consumers report that an online recommendation from someone within their social media circles can highly influence a buying decision. This can be more impactful than TV ads (18%).
  • Advertising struggles for attention. When the TV is turned on, it competes with everything for attention. Nearly all Gen Z and Millennials (99%) report multitasking when they are watching television reporting an average of four other activities occurring simultaneously. Further, eight in 10 (80%) consumers’ report skipping online video ads when allowed, and just over two-thirds (67%) of consumers report mobile ads on theirs phone are irrelevant.
  • Digital ad avoidance is growing. Almost half (45%) of Millennials use ad blocking software on desktop. Forty percent report using it on their smartphones with 85% doing so to improve the speed and performance of their online experience.
  • Relevant and optional are key to engaging ads. More than half of all consumers say that they would be willing to receive geographically relevant ads on their smartphones. Further, nearly half (46%) of consumers say they pay more attention to an ad they can skip versus an ad they cannot skip.
  • Social media usage is ubiquitous. A full 84% of all consumers are active on social networks. Penetration is higher among Millennials (96%) and 93% Gen Z (93%).
  • Social media helps in connecting consumers to companies. Consumers interact with corporations, with more than 70% of Millennials reporting that they used social media to interact with customer service in the last year. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Millennials find their interaction with customer service on social media more positive than connecting with customer service on the phone (70%).

Consumers are now conditioned to watch content whenever, wherever, and on whatever device they choose. The constant availability of streaming content and social media offer new opportunities in the marketplace. Advertisers and content creators can form new relationships with the consumer, interacting with and personalizing the consumer experience.

Industry-Research

Understanding the impact of mobile multitasking

The mobile device is the command center for the hyper-connected consumer. Increasingly, it provides the point of access to the Internet of Things (loT). Today’s publishers and brands need to understand cross-device usage and identify the best pathway to attract and engage the hyper-connected consumer. In order to identify the appropriate channels and marketing opportunities, Verto Analytics analyzed cross-device usage in their research report, “Multitasking and Mobile Apps: New Ways to Measure Consumer Behavior.”

It’s no surprise that mobile device usage is on the rise. On average, American adults own five devices, such as PCs, smartphones, tablets, and wearables. In Q4 2016, PC usage totaled an average of 104 minutes per day. That’s slightly less than consumer’s total mobile device usage, which averaged 75 minutes per day on smartphones and 39 minutes per day on tablets (totaling 114 minutes per day).

Mobile apps also drive usage and far exceed mobile web usage. In fact, consumers spent 6.9 billion hours on mobile apps compared to 1.2 billion hours of mobile web usage in December 2016.

Mobile App Usage

Overall, consumers have an average of 89 apps installed on their smartphones and use approximately 25 each week and only eight per day. Fewer than 10% of all apps installed on a smartphone are used daily.

Device sessions:

  • 56% of all device sessions are still single-app sessions.
  • 19% show at least three distinct apps being used in a single session.
  • 9% show at least four distinct apps being used in a single session.
  • 5 to 4% of all smartphone sessions are multitasking sessions.

Multitasking Sessions

Verto Analytics defines a multitasking session as using at least four different apps and at least seven differ shifts (movement from app to app).

Consumers are using multiple apps to engage with the external world. External environment apps allow consumers to interact with their environments. This category of apps includes fitness tracking apps, connected home and personal assistant apps, and streaming media apps combined with hardware.

Personal assistant apps (i.e. Amazon’s Alexa) currently make up only 4% of all usage. Verto Analytics predicts these apps will increasingly be incorporated into consumer’s multitasking behavior.

As one would imagine, social media services and messaging apps (such as Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, and WhatsApp) are most likely to be a part of a consumer’s multitasking behavior.

Multitasking Likelihood

Interestingly, the report found that the list of apps with the highest total number of returns does not necessarily correlate with the list of apps with the highest return rates (total number of people returning to the same app). The return rate is an important metric. It’s the ratio of multitasking sessions when a given app experiences a return against the total number of sessions of that app within a given time frame.

For example, if a consumer uses the Waze app once a day every day for a month (30 days) and on five of the those occasions, there is multitasking session (the consumer leaves and returns to Waze during the same session), the return rate for Waze is 18% (5/30). Waze, in this instance, had an 18% tendency to attract consumers back to the app during a multitasking session. What we learn from this is that the plays a central-role in a consumer’s session because it is actively used with other apps. Learning about how consumers actively use apps with other apps, often referred to as a smart hub, plays a key role in chart the consumer pathways to best target for frequent interaction and engagement.

Understanding multitasking, the best rate of return, and smart hubs offers insight into important mobile touchpoints. Brands and publishers need to identify and understand these points of interaction and their relationships to drive usage grown, engagement and monetization.

Industry-Research

A closer look at the boards of U.S. media companies

Media companies of all stripes – newspapers, video game makers, TV networks, etc. – are working furiously to navigate the choppy digital transformation waters successfully. At their helm are boards of directors tasked with steering these corporations through safely and prosperously.  For the first time, executive recruiter Spencer Stuart recently published the U.S. Media Board Index 2016, a study analyzing the latest data and trends in board composition, board practices and director compensation for 50 U.S. media companies.

The report highlights the latest data and trends in board composition, board practices and director compensation for 50 U.S. media companies (Media 50). Companies included in the analysis span household brands (Comcast, CBS, Disney, NYT), digital stalwarts (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo!) and old school publishing stalwarts (Gannett, Houghton Mifflin, Meredith, Time). The report also examines how media companies compare to the broader S&P 500 Index and the U.S. Technology Board Index.

Here are the highlights of the study.

  • The total average per-director compensation for media company directors is $277,788. Half of the total compensation comes in stocks, 30% in cash, and the rest in options and miscellaneous. Eight companies topped the $300,000 total compensation mark last year: Activision Blizzard, Alphabet, CBS, Electronic Arts, Facebook, IAC, LinkedIn, and Yahoo!. Alphabet was the only company that exceeded the $400,000 threshold ($425,000).
  • Most media boards (44 of 50) pay a cash retainer, and the average amount is $74,386. Time Warner pays the most ($145,000), with Disney in second at $105,000. Nine companies pay $100,000. Five companies pay no cash retainer, and five pay less than $50,000 annually.
  • 46 of the 50 media boards have at least one female director. Tenga (5), Viacom (4), and New York Times (4) lead the pack, with another eight companies at three female board members each. Charter Communications, New Media Investment Group, and Sinclair Broadcast Group have zero female board members.
  • Media boards are younger than their technology and S&P 500 company counterparts. 44% of media boards have an average age of 59 or younger, compared with only 15% of S&P 500 boards and 27% of tech boards.

Tim Bourgeois (@ChiefDigOfficer) is a partner at East Coast Catalyst, a Boston-based digital consulting company specializing in strategic roadmaps, digital marketing audits, and online marketing optimization programs.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

Native advertising continues to grow, but compliance issues remain

Native advertising is a compelling and profitable way for publishers to offer custom ad opportunities in the form of articles, video, programmatic and sound. What’s more, it provides a creative outlet for marketers, resulting in increased demand and desirability for publishers.

With this in mind, we at MediaRadar felt it was important to take a closer look at native trends for a more thorough understanding of best practices, as well as channels. So we recently published a study that observes the native advertising trends that emerged in 2016. The study, “Leaders and Lessons in Native Advertising,” examines thousands of native ads from nearly 13,000 brands.

Here’s what we found:

37% of publishers are not native compliant. In December 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its first-ever native advertising guidelines. At that time, only 29% of publisher sites examined were compliant. That number has increased by 119% year-over-year, however, with 63% of digital publishers having modified their native advertising to adhere to the FTC guidelines. Still, it leaves 37% of digital publishers that aren’t native compliant.

610 new advertisers bought native each month. Adoption and demand for native ad content was extremely high, with an average of 610 new advertisers using native content solutions each month. And many of these advertisers are open to purchasing digital packages – not just native as a standalone. This is good news for publisher ad sales because native continues to drive bigger deals for more revenue.

An average native campaign runs for two months. Renewal rates and campaign duration for native remain low overall. Based on 2016 data, native renewal rates are at only 33% across all media sites. An even smaller portion of those – 20% – renew less than 20% of the time. The average native campaign duration is only two months. However, sites with more established native programs have a 49% renewal rate. This includes sites with native programs where more than 50 brands are placing native buys.

Media & entertainment is most popular category. The top-five categories in native advertising from January to December 2016 include:

  1. Media and entertainment (3,198 brands using native campaigns)
  2. Professional services (2,017 brands)
  3. Finance and real estate (1,246 brands)
  4. Technology (1,231 brands)
  5. Retail (1,153 brands)

Takeaways

Overall, there has become a greater demand for native advertising content. More publishers are familiarizing themselves with the FTC native advertising rules than ever before. However, there is still room for improvement, with more than one-third of publishers remaining non-compliant. And while the number of native ad campaigns continues to grow, renewal rates and campaign durations remain low.

Also, the media and entertainment industry is the most popular native advertising category, setting itself apart from the rest of the pack in terms of native ad adoption. But this may change in the coming years, as native becomes more popular and more industries begin regularly investing in native ads.

Todd Krizelman (@ToddKrizelman ) is Co-Founder and CEO of MediaRadar (@MediaRadar). Growing up near the epicenter of technological innovation in Palo Alto, California encouraged him to become an entrepreneur and co-found of one of the world’s first social media sites, theGlobe.com. Krizelman also held leadership positions at Bertelsmann’s Gruner + Jahr and Random House. With his expertise in ad sales and innovation, Krizelman joined veteran web architect, Jesse Keller, to found MediaRadar in 2007.

 

Industry-Research

Young consumers may stumble onto news, but they know what they trust when they see it

New patters of content consumption are emerging from the way teens and young adults access news. It’s not surprising that both smartphones and social media usage play a large role here. According to the James L. Knight Foundation’s new qualitative research, How Youth Navigates the News Landscape, young consumers don’t follow the news as much as it follows them. In fact, young adults often happen upon news content by accident and then share it on social media and messaging apps.

Findings from the Knight analysis include:

  • Most teens and young adults express little trust in the news media. They often seek out multiple resources to confirm information that is read.
  • Young people see today’s news as something that is often created outside of traditional journalism channels. In fact, what is defined as news among young consumers includes social media, aggregators, messaging apps, and user-generated content.
  • Young news consumers express much doubt about the accuracy of the news and assume that some level of bias is unavoidable in much of the information they encounter.
  • Social media plays a significant role in how news is disseminated in today’s marketplace. Young consumers are exposes to varying degrees of news quality as well as biasness.
  • Facebook leads as the primary social media news source.
  • Young consumers think of user-generated content, especially live video accounting of events, to be more truthful than traditional news outlets.
  • Young adults see most of the news as depressing and sad.

While the research speaks to young consumers’ lack of confidence in news content in general, it also speaks their high levels of trust in specific news brands. Importantly, news outlets should provide clear branding and identification as it aids in informing the younger audience of the information’s accuracy.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.