Highlights from Ball State University’s Media Studies

1. Highlights from Ball State University’s Media Studies Michael Holmes, BSU Center for Media Design Jim Spaeth, Sequent Partners Market Research Council, 18 January 2008

2. How can you compare value among media when media measurement is siloed?

3. Bill Moult & Jim Spaeth • MSI • ARF • IPSOS-ASI • BASES …. • A media and brand value metrics consultancy

4. A consumer-centric media insight and R&D facility Applied insight and innovation focused on today through the next three to five years Deliver actionable insight into the implications of digital technology Close industry ties to remain relevant and ensure practical value Supported by the Digital Exchange grant from the Lilly Endowment

5. The Middletown Timeline Various social scientists visit Muncie for related work BSU establishes Center for Middletown Studies – hosts researchers from around the world First sociological studies by the Lynds (“Middletown”) 1920s 1940s 1960s 1980s 2000s 1930s 1950s 1970s 1990s Second round of Middletown studies build on success of the first 1977-82 – 50th Anniversary of first study – exercise repeated (“Middletown Three”) MiddletownMedia Studies

6. Observational studies

7. - % Why do observation? MMSI results suggested self-report measures under-report media reach and duration

8. The observational method • Trained observers “shadow” participants for a day (2 observers per day) • Locations, life activities and media exposure are logged with a portable device carried by observers • Interviews and/or questionnaires provide additional measures (demographics, sociographics, psychographics)

9. AlphasmarttmDana smart keyboards equipped with a custom “Media Collector” program Observers categorize media exposure, life activities, location and apparent attention, via touch screen & keyboard Data are logged to file every 10 or 15 seconds Media Collector software

10. The research process

11. Category systems

12. Category systems: media

13. Observer training Training sessions are minimally a half-day; two half-day sessions are common Trainers use an interactive training tool Refresher sessions are given as needed Observers have online access to the training tool and support information (FAQs, etc.)

14. Observer training Importance of the research Expectations & responsibilities Personal safety precautions Grounds for termination Equipment overview How to do observations Accuracy test

15. Observer training: observation Overview Location, Life Activity & Media categories For media categories Definitions & example images Definition quizzes (video examples) Using the Media Collector software Video-based accuracy test

16. Observer training: software (subset of the software slides)

17. Observer training: software Telephone and computer while working, at work Television while exercising out of home Game console while socializing, at home Training videos show typical behavior in context while animating the steps to log the exposure in the Media Collector software

18. Participant recruitment • Relatively small sample sizes compared to survey methods • Selection filters negotiated with client • Careful scripting is necessary • Often not an immediate, individual decision; multiple contacts required • Attractive incentives required • Stratification & purposive sampling

19. Observations • Typically scheduled one week in advance • Each participant is observed for one day • Participants are distributed across days of week • Observers and participants are matched in gender and race • Observation begins with prompted recall of time and media use from awakening until entry of observer • Time and media use from observer departure until sleep are gathered in a follow-up call

20. Accompanying instruments • Demographics & sociographics • GIS analysis allows exploration of sociographics at block cluster level • Media devices and services inventory • Psychographics • Big 5 personality inventory • Media satisfaction & dependence • Emotional uses & gratifications of media

21. Descriptive analyses • Individual “Day in the Life” timelines • Media time budgets • Concurrent media exposure • Media daily reach/average duration • Group comparisons • Day, day part and location breakouts • Six Degrees of Engagement™

22. Middletown Media Studies II The Media Day Concurrent Media Exposure The Computer: A Medium for All Reasons

23. Middletown Media Studies II:a day in the life of 350 consumers

24. Mobile phone elsewhere Landline telephone at work Radio in the car LEGEND 27-year old female, Muncie, Indiana, 2005

25. Media time budget, MMSII Split of the 8 hrs 41min time spent with media on an observed day, adjusted to 12 hrs 2 min including concurrent media exposure 31% of the media day is simultaneous exposure to two or more media 58% of the media day exposure is concurrent with other life activities

26. Mapping the major media Daily Reach% of consumers spending some time during the measured day with each of the media Daily Reach Daily Durationaverage time in minutes spent during the measured day among users of each of the media Daily Duration

27. Reach/Duration from MMSII

28. Impact of age and gender differs by media

29. Linking media and other activities:Six Degrees of Engagement™

30. High School Media Too A Teen Pilot Study

31. High School Media Too (2006/2007) • Methodological pilot study: is it possible to recruit and observe teenagers? • Single-school setting in Muncie, Indiana • 15 participants, age 13 to 17 • Observed during a school day

32. Teen media exposure 7:00am 12:00am 15 teens averaged 7 hours, 5 minutes of media exposure Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

33. Teenagers = screenagers 7:00am 12:00am Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

34. Council for Research ExcellenceMedia Consumption and EngagementPilot Study2007

35. CRE MCE Pilot Study • Ball State and Sequent Partners selected through RFP process • Pilot was a methodological demonstration and learning experience • 50 participants in Indianapolis • Our first probability sample • Preparation for a large, multi-city study • Our first study outside of Indiana

36. CRE MCE Pilot Study Method: • Pre-recruit mailer • Sent by Nielsen • Explained study • Telephone recruit for initial agreement • Calls by Nielsen RIs • Confirming and scheduling the observation • Telephone calls by BSU • Observation • Next day call-back • Self-completed questionnaires

37. CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met: • Sample representation of target groups of interest (ethnic, inner-city, high-tech) • Robust data capture (16 hours/day) • Reasonable comparison to NSI • Credible observer training • Useful survey instruments • Measurement across multiple video platforms and multiple video locations • Identifying potentially unmeasured video

38. CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met: • R2 = .94 for May • R2 = .97 for February

39. 100% TV 90% 80% 70% 100% 60% 90% Daily Reach (incidence of use) 50% 80% 70% 40% 60% DVD Penetration 50% 30% 40% Web video 20% 30% DVR 20% Computer video 10% 10% VCR Portable video 0% 0% TV Computer Web DVD VCR Portable DVR 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 video video video Average minutes per user CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met:Video reach and duration across platforms Portable video: portable DVD and digital video players Computer video: DVD on computer and stored digital video Web video: partial-screen and full-screen streaming video

40. CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met:Multiple video locations 11% of video viewing was out of the home The largest block of out-of-home viewing was “other” (friends’ homes, restaurants & bars, etc.) Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

41. CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met:Potentially unmeasured video 13% of video viewing was in currently unmeasured forms Measured • At home: TV, DVD, VCR, DVR Potentially unmeasured • Out of home: TV, DVD, VCR, DVR • Portable video • Other computer video: DVD, stored, streaming Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

42. CRE MCE Pilot StudyMapping media consumption Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

43. CRE MCE Pilot Study:Video playback is mostly DVDs and DVRs Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

44. CRE MCE Pilot Study:Though still small, video playback on the computer has become a reality Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis Computers are used at home mostly for the web (followed by email and software) and at work mostly for software and email (followed by the web)

45. CRE MCE Pilot Study:Video playback on mobile phones? … too early to tell Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

46. Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis CRE MCE Pilot StudySix Degrees of Engagement™

47. CRE MCE Pilot Study • Met all of the Council’s success criteria • Important lessons learned regarding recruitment • Demonstrated that observation could shed light on viewers use of video • Across all platforms • In all locations

48. Future directions • In-depth quantitative ethnographies • Understand how consumer’s use of media is changing • How media experiences and brand communications might be enhanced • Cross-platform studies • Understand how consumers access content across media platforms • How cross-platform usage and satisfaction might be improved • How cross-platform advertising works and might work better • Media Acceleration Panels • What new media devices and services are consumers going to adopt and how will they use them • Large scale multimedia studies • To address the industry’s need for real multi-media understanding, insight and planning

49. Limitations • Expensive compared to other methods • Possible observer effect • Potential sampling bias; high-cooperation rate random samples unlikely • Cost limits sample sizes & number of days per participant • Observer reliability difficult to quantify • Cultural barriers to implementation

50. Strengths • Consumer-centric • Provides rich and detailed data • Does not rely on self-report • Supports quantitative & qualitative analysis • Allows parallel analysis of media behavior and other activities • Scalable from special-purpose to omnibus studies • Can integrate other methods