Voices: the CMB Blog

It’s always exciting when we get the opportunity to conduct research that garners interest from everyone from the guy staring at his tablet on the train to the executives of the largest media companies in the world. We got that chance, when CMB partnered with the Council for Research Excellence to lead a study exploring how mobile media devices (tablets, phones, and laptops) impact overall television viewing behavior.

Highlights of the study include:

• Mobile TV viewers tend to be younger (mean age 35), higher income professionals with graduate degrees, and reflect more ethnic diversity than non-mobile-TV users;

• Mobile TV viewers are often heavy overall TV viewers and are more likely than non-mobile-TV viewers to be TV show opinion leaders and to use social media to talk about TV.

• Viewers are more commonly engaged when watching TV on a mobile device than when watching on a television set: they are less commonly doing unrelated tasks on other devices, and more commonly doing activities related to the show they are watching (e.g., looking up info about the show, posting about the show on social networks, etc.) when on a mobile device.

You can download the report here: TV Untethered: Following the Path of Mobile Content

Watch the presentation here: 

Posted by Chris Neal. Chris leads CMB’s Tech Practice. He enjoys spending time with his two kids and rock climbing.

In March of 2011 a movie was released in theaters, with all the hallmarks of box office success, it starred a handsome Hollywood newcomer and a seasoned Hollywood veteran, it had an intriguing plot, and it was released during the traditionally uncompetitive winter/spring movie season. So, when the movie, Limitless, debuted at #1, it was no surprise.

Now this sounds like a typical Hollywood hit, but there was something about this movie that made me (self-proclaimed movie buff since age 8) pay a bit more attention. The main plot device was a product: an experimental drug that allows the user to use 100 percent of his brain, and this product played a crucial role in character development and the overall plot. Could this movie increase demand for a similar type of drug in the real world, specifically for a segment of the US population that previously hadn’t been very demanding of that product? In short, could this movie make a target market aware of a need that they didn’t even know they had before?Fired-up about this epiphany like Peter Finch in Network, I boldly predicted to a friend that a certain company might actually run short of supply of the drug, because the movie would uncover previously unknown needs to a large segment of the US population, and that segment would consequently want to start buying like the floor traders at the end of Trading Places. (Yup: two movie references, one sentence.) After all, I had previously seen the effect that movies could have on product demand in the past:

• Top Gun = approximate 500% increase in the number of Naval aviator applications to the US Navy as well as a 40% increase in sales of Ray-Ban Aviator sunglasses (in a decade that had been decidedly keen on Ray-Ban Wayfarers, which themselves were allegedly given a sales boost after Tom wore them in 1983’s Risky Business)

• Lord of the Rings = 40% increase in New Zealand tourism from 2001 to 2006

• Field of Dreams = an isolated cornfield in the middle of Iowa that gets 60,000+(!) visitors per year

• 300 = sudden spike in GoogleTrends for Mark Twight and his CrossFit-like workouts that made the actors look like Spartan warriors

• And then of course there is the sad story of what Supersize Me did for the demand of ol’ McDonald’s Big Mac and its friends

So, I had seen this sort of thing before, and – wouldn’t you know it – about three months after opening night, this certain company publicly announced to its stockholders that it did not have enough supply to meet demand for the drug: they were plum out!

Coincidence? I think not! Well, at least I didn’t think so at the time. You see, I wasn’t a market researcher yet, so I didn’t really consider the hundreds of variables that could be involved in the outcome of something (in this case, that “something” being a company’s unexpected shortage of a certain type of product). Besides, it was a pretty bold and insightful prediction, it wouldn’t be the first time a movie drove up demand for something! So, the fact that my prediction actually came true gave credence and justification (at least in my own mind at the time) to the fact that the movie must have had the effect that I predicted it would!

Well, now that I have a few market research years under my belt, I see the situation a bit differently. In the article “Advertising Analytics 2.0” from the March 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review, I was happy to see that they DID talk about movies having an effect on product sales…but “cinema” is only one of hundreds of variables that are taken into account and run in a software analytics engine that determines the true weight and importance of each variable. So, the only way to determine whether or not the “movie variable” was actually significant in Limitless would be to get fancy and use some of those new Analytics 2.0 techniques, run an analysis of the effects of all the possible variables – and, after watching CMB’s analytics team in action, I can tell you that this means a lot of variables. Any of which could have played a part in either an increase in demand or a shortage in supply or both happening simultaneously. There are a few possible scenarios that led to a shortage in supply, and a lot of different variables that could’ve caused each of those scenarios to occur.

So, is it crazy to think that movies have the potential to dramatically increase demand for a product, when the right conditions are met within the movie? Well…maybe; for Supersize Me, the effect is obvious, but for Limitless, the effect of drivers is not perfectly clear and the conclusions are obtainable yet less certain. But, what’s important is the fact that sometimes, completely unbeknownst to anybody – there could be an unforeseen variable or set of variables out there, and they could ultimately have a profound effect on your product or industry. It could be a shift in consumer viewing habits, it could be a general economic shift, or maybe, just maybe, it could be a movie. Either way, you won’t know until you start asking the right questions and digging through all the possible variables.

Jonah is a Senior Associate Researcher, he’s been a movie buff since he saw India Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark when he was 8 years old. (If you ever need a “movie guy” on your trivia team, he’s your man.)

Planning on joining us in Nashville for TMRE?
Use our discount code for 25% off admission.

This weekend, my 10 year old Jack sat on our comfy couch with a big screen TV just feet way, but he chose to curl up with the iPad to watch his episode of Star Wars.  In just a few clicks of the remote he could have watched it in HD on a beautiful big screen. I found myself wondering why. Was it a few clicks too many to reach On Demand?  Was it just more convenient to pick up the iPad and watch his show in a few taps? There’s no doubt consumer behavior is changing when it comes to how we watch TV and the big screen doesn’t always win.

This week the Council for Research Excellence (CRE) released a study they commissioned Chadwick Martin Bailey to run to understand the impact of mobile media devices on overall TV viewing behavior. Next week Chris Neal, leader of CMB’s Technology and Telecom practice will be joining Laura Cowan, research director at LIN Media and co-chair of the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee at the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) Audience Measurement 8.0 conference to present the results. The conference takes place June 10-11, 2013 in New York City.

This study indicates that Jack is not alone in choosing the iPad over the big screen. In fact the study found the majority of “mobile” TV viewing occasions happen at home—82%  of tablet TV viewing occasions happen in-home and even 64% of smartphone viewing occasions happen here.  One of the key drivers of that choice is simply convenience:  it’s easy, the television set might be in use by someone else, and/or some consumers don’t have the same online streaming capabilities to their TV that they have on mobile devices. Check out more results of the study here.

“Much of the TV being watched on mobile devices is currently being distributed by online subscription services (e.g., Netflix, Hulu),” according to Neal. “There are opportunities for networks, pay TV providers (e.g., cable, satellite, fiber) and content owners to boost their libraries available via mobile devices and make their mobile apps more compelling so they don’t lose audience share as consumer viewing habits change.”

Interested in learning more? Check out the ARF Audience Measurement conference next week in New York and download CMB’s self-funded research on this New Age of Television

Kristen is CMB's VP of Marketing, a mom of two, and enjoys streaming content through Amazon Prime on the rare occasion she can get her iPad from Jack. Follow her on Twitter: @KristenGarvey

When the 820 consecutive home game sell-out streak ended on April 10^th at Fenway Park (just two games into the 2013 season), the Boston Red Sox found themselves in a unique situation…Red Sox brand loyalty was no longer just a guaranteed thing.Since the Red Sox won the World Series in ’04 and again in ‘07, brand loyalty has come easy to the team – the fans were just there, happy to support their world champions.  But after a rocky end to the 2011 season and a weak 2012, loyalty has waned and the organization actually needs to re-build that loyalty again.

So where do they start?  Obviously on the field actions play tremendously into brand loyalty of any professional sports team. If the team is winning, fans will come to cheer them on and if the Red Sox continue their already hot start to the 2013 season that may help to re-build the loyalty all in itself.  But besides just winning games and acquiring new and exciting players to drive fans into the ballpark - what have the Sox done to keep Red Sox Nation committed and coming back to the brand?

• Commitment to the brand’s heaviest users:  A new loyalty program has been put in place for the brand’s repeat purchasers (i.e., the devoted season ticket holders who come to game after game). Enrolled into a tiered loyalty program, they can earn points towards rewards (such as throwing out the first pitch at a game) every time they scan their loyalty card at the ball park or make a purchase at a concession stand. By committing to their heaviest users and brand advocates, the Red Sox are aiming to keep their best customers happy. 

• In-Game Promotions:  To show fans they are valued and appreciated, the Red Sox put promotions in place at food stands around the ballpark for the start of the season, including Kids Eat Free and $5 Beers. Even with high ticket prices, these promotions might drive both new and old fans into the ballpark and provide them with a great customer experience once they are in the door of friendly Fenway Park.

• Rebuilding brand trust:  Maybe most importantly, the Red Sox have campaigned to bring trust back to its fans. The Red Sox have always had brand loyalty— even in the 86 year stretch without a World Series win – but trust kept those fans believing that soon their suffering would be over. After the 2012 season, many fans were left feeling that the team had quit on them and weren’t committed to winning.  To combat this mentality in 2013, commercial, print advertisements and billboards showcase players with the message that “What’s Broken Can Be Fixed” and “162 Ways to Restore the Faith.” New manager John Farrell has also promised to do everything he can to help the team win.  However, while this assurance and transparency with the fans is reassuring off the field, the team now must follow through with this commitment on the field to truly gain back the trust.  

Professional sport teams are a unique brand; sometimes no matter how much loyalty the Red Sox organization might try to create – advertising, loyalty programs, promotions, none of it will matter without a competitive team on the field.  However, it’s times like this when the Red Sox can show their dedicated fans they really are valued. They must maintain their brand advocates and deliver on their promise of a committed ball club in order to keep Red Sox Nation faithful even when the League Standings on the Green Monster might show the Red Sox slipping a few games behind the dreaded Yankees. 

Jen Golden is a Senior Associate Researcher at CMB. She’ll never forget the first time her Dad took her to her first Sox game and she saw the Green Monster for the first time – her brand loyalty for the team has never wavered since.

Interested in joining our team? We're hiring, check out the opportunities here on our Career page.

Those who know me understand that I am not afraid to admit I love reality TV.  Combine that love with an interest in pop culture (generally), and a passion for understanding what people do and WHY they do it, and you have a match made in heaven. So obviously Catfish—the MTV series —is right up my alley.

Talk of "Catfishing" seems to be everywhere these days, but for the uninitiated, I’ll give you the quick (Wikipedia) definition: “A Catfish is a person who creates fake profiles online and pretends to be someone they are not by using someone else’s pictures and information.”  Put simply:  Catfishing is a relationship built on deception.

So what does Catfishing have to do with online qual?

As a qualitative researcher, I have to build “relationships” with strangers all the time, both online and in-person.  I can guarantee you that these relationships are genuine, authentic and honest—at least from my end.  My ultimate goal is to better understand research participants as human beings—how they live, what they value, what makes them ‘tick’, etc.  Most of the time, I truly feel that those I’m spending time with (both online and offline) are also being authentic and honest with me. Notice I said most of the time. 

Though it doesn’t happen often, it IS possible to come across a phony (AKA “Catfish”) in an in-person setting.  There are some pretty savvy people out there who seem to know how to make their way into a focus group for some extra cash.  Thankfully it’s rare—and most of the time these folks get weeded out before they even enter the room.  Online qualitative research, on the other hand, is ripe for Catfish.  Unless we are conducting video web-based research, there aren’t any visual clues to help us validate identities.  Therefore, we can’t be 100% sure that the person we THINK we are talking to is really that person.

The good news is that as researchers, we can take measures to protect ourselves from these Catfish participants online—it just takes a little effort and creativity.  Here are a few methods I’ve used successfully in the past:  

• Demographics:  If you have a participant that has an annual income of $50K and claims to spend an average of $10K a year on vacation, you’ve got yourself a red flag.  Taking the time to cross reference demographics with online responses can be extremely helpful in getting to the truth.

• Common sense:  Individual responses don’t stand alone, but pulled together they create a story.  At the end of the day you either have a story that makes sense or you don’t, and a story that doesn’t make sense is another red flag.  Just as one would do when moderating an in-person group, there are times when you must revisit what someone said earlier, and if necessary, request clarification.  (In the immortal words of Judge Judy: “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.”) 

• Consistency:  A lack of consistency can be another red flag.  If a participant says one thing, but contradicts themselves sometime later, there might be a problem.  Here’s an example:  in a recent “vacation” study we had a participant who changed her dates of a travel a few times (not unusual).  She later confirmed purchasing a package (air, hotel, car) for a family of 5 one week prior to departure (somewhat fishy … especially for someone who was very price sensitive).  Her “confirmed” travel dates were from the 25th-30th of the month—and when she hadn’t checked in, as requested during that time, we reached out to her to find out that she was “already home” on the 29th.  Suspicious?  Very.  This lack of consistency—along with several other red flags—confirmed our suspicions that she was not being truthful and she was pulled from the study.  Again, to quote Judge Judy, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory.”

• Engagement:  There are always going to be participants who choose to do the bare minimum in order to get their incentive.  However, a lack of engagement and openness—coupled with any additional red flags—requires some investigation.  Is the participant just taking the easy way out by answering questions in as few words as possible, or are they skipping key questions altogether?  Skipping key questions (e.g., “Tell us what you like best about product X”) could be a sign that they really don’t use product X after all.  Again, it’s important for the moderator to probe accordingly and if the probes go ignored … you guessed it … another red flag.

With online research (and plenty of Catfish) here to stay, we need to continue to be vigilant in crossing our T’s and dotting our i’s.  I, for one, am ready to catch them … hook, line and sinker.

Anne is CMB’s Qualitative Research Director.  She enjoys travel and thanks to DVR, never misses an episode of Judge Judy. Anne especially loves being able to truly “connect” with her research participants—it’s in her Midwestern blood.   

Learn more about Anne and her Qualitative Research team here.