Highlights from Ball State

University’s Media Studies

Michael Holmes, BSU Center for Media DesignJim Spaeth, Sequent Partners

Market Research Council, 18 January 2008

How can you compare value among media when media measurement is

siloed?

• Bill Moult & Jim Spaeth– MSI– ARF– IPSOS-ASI– BASES ….

• A media and brand value metrics consultancy

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

The Middletown Timeline

1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s 2000s

First sociological studies by the Lynds (“Middletown”)

Second round of Middletown studies build on success of the first

Various social scientists visit Muncie for related work

1977-82 – 50th Anniversary of first study – exercise repeated (“Middletown Three”)

BSU establishes Center for Middletown Studies – hosts researchers from around the world

MiddletownMedia Studies

Observational studies

Why do observation?

-

%

MMSI results suggested self-report measures under-report media reach and duration

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)

Media Collector software

Alphasmarttm Dana 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

The research process

Category systems

Category systems: media

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.)

Observer training

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

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

Observer training: software

(subset of the software slides)

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

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

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

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

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™

Middletown Media Studies II

The Media Day

Concurrent Media Exposure

The Computer: A Medium for All Reasons

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

LEGEND

27-year old female, Muncie, Indiana, 2005

Landline telephone at work Mobile phone elsewhere

Radio in the car

Media time budget, MMSII

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

Split of the 8 hrs 41min time spent with media on an observed day, adjusted to 12 hrs 2 min including concurrent media exposure

Daily Reach% of consumers spending some time during the measured day with each of the media

Daily Durationaverage time in minutes spent during the measured day among users of each of the media

Mapping the major media

Daily Duration

Dai

ly R

each

Reach/Duration from MMSII

Daily Reach and Duration for Various MediaAmong 350 adults in the Middletown Media Studies II

Television

Radio Any ComputerAny Online

E-MailWeb

VCRInst.Msg

All Phone

Software

Telephone

Mobile Phone

Print MediaMusic

Newspaper

MagazineBook

All Video

DVD

Other

Game Console

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 60 120 180 240 300

Daily Duration: Average Minutes per User

Daily Reach: Incidence of Use

Among 350 Adults

Impact of age and gender differs by media

5 Ad Supported Media Reach and Duration by Age and Gender Groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330Daily Duration: Average Minutes

Daily Reach: Incidence of Use

M18-34

F18-34

M35-49

F35-49

M50+

F50+

TVRadio

WebNewspapers

Magazines

Linking media and other activities:

Six Degrees of Engagement™

High School Media Too

A Teen Pilot Study

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

Teen media exposure

15 teens averaged 7 hours, 5 minutes of media exposure

7:00am 12:00am

Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

Teenagers = screenagers

7:00am 12:00am

Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

Council for Research ExcellenceMedia Consumption and

EngagementPilot Study

2007

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

CRE MCE Pilot Study

Method:1. Pre-recruit mailer

• Sent by Nielsen• Explained study

2. Telephone recruit for initial agreement• Calls by Nielsen RIs

3. Confirming and scheduling the observation• Telephone calls by BSU

4. Observation5. Next day call-back6. Self-completed questionnaires

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

CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met:

A18+ PUT MCE Pilot Compared to Indianapolis NSI

010203040506070

7:0

0AM

8:0

0AM

9:0

0AM

10:0

0AM

11:0

0AM

12:0

0N

1:0

0PM

2:0

0PM

3:0

0PM

4:0

0PM

5:0

0PM

6:0

0PM

7:0

0PM

8:0

0PM

9:0

0PM

10:0

0PM

11:0

0PM

A18

+ P

UT

NSI MAY NSI FEB MCE Jan-April

R2 = .94 for MayR2 = .97 for February

TV

Computer video

Web video

DVD

VCR Portable video

DVR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360Average minutes per user

Da

ily

Re

ac

h (

inc

ide

nc

e o

f u

se

)

CRE MCE Pilot StudySuccess criteria met:

Video reach and duration across platforms

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TV Computervideo

Webvideo

DVD VCR Portablevideo

DVR

Pen

etra

tio

n

Portable video: portable DVD and digital video players Computer video: DVD on computer and stored digital videoWeb video: partial-screen and full-screen streaming video

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

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

CRE MCE Pilot StudyMapping media consumption

Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

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

CRE MCE Pilot Study: Though still small, video playback on the computer has become a reality

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)

Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

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

CRE MCE Pilot StudySix Degrees of Engagement™

Methodological pilot, illustrative data only – not conclusive or projectable and not to be used for analysis

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

For more information:

www.bsu.edu/cmd