Voices: the CMB Blog

With the National Football League (NFL) projected to make over $9 billion this year, it is the most profitable and popular professional sports league in the US. Despite this, the NFL is struggling to fill its stadiums, with overall attendance experiencing recent declines. While attendance numbers reached a high of 17.4 million for the 2007 season, it fell to 16.6 million in 2011. Although it has rebounded, totaling 17.3 million in 2013, attendance remains a concern.One likely reason is that the “experience” of watching a game from home has begun to rival or even surpass that of attending one live. Advances in TV technology give fans a better view, and programs, such as NFL RedZone and DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket, make it possible to watch live action from multiple games at once. In addition, the cost of attending an NFL game has continued to rise. In 2013, the average price per ticket was $82, up 3% from 2012 and more than 50% from 2003. Parking, meanwhile, averaged $31 and beer, $7. Taking into account only these purchases, which does not include money spent on food, memorabilia, or tailgating, a pair of fans will spend over $200 to attend a single game. Watching at home will cost only a fraction of this amount.

As a result, NFL teams are overhauling their customer experience efforts, making an attempt to keep fans coming to their stadiums. For the 2014 season, all teams must meet minimum standards for Wi-Fi and cellular connectivity, and some teams have already taken this a step further. The New England Patriots, for example, have a Gameday Live app, which allows fans access to game replays, live field cameras, statistics, league scores, restroom wait times, weather, traffic and more. The Atlanta Falcons have a similar app, Falcons Mobile, but theirs also includes exclusive opportunities for season ticket holders to stand in the tunnel as the players run out, hold the flag on the field during pregame, or receive an in-game visit from a Falcons cheerleader. In addition to these apps, many teams are planning to improve the view by installing new mega video boards, and the San Francisco 49ers newly constructed stadium includes a “fantasy football lounge” so fans can follow their fantasy team.

The franchise that takes the grand prize in these efforts, however, is the Jacksonville Jaguars. Investing $63 million in renovations this past off-season, the Jaguars revamped their video boards and installed an interactive fan area. Highlighting these installments are the two largest outdoor displays in the US, which measure at 362 feet wide and 60 feet tall, and a two-story Party Deck. The Party Deck includes cabana-style seating areas, video screens, bars, and two large spa-type wading pools and other water features.

While the continued profitability and popularity of the NFL is not in doubt, the primary viewing venue of fans is. The battle to reach consumers will continue, as more NFL teams strive to bring added comforts to the stadium. 

Lindsay is an Associate Consultant at  South Street Strategy Group. South Street Strategy Group, an independent sister company of Chadwick Martin Bailey, integrates the best of strategy consulting and marketing science to develop better growth and value delivery strategies.  

Another Super Bowl weekend is upon us and it’s another year that my team isn’t in it. Worse yet a dear friend (and client) of mine forced me into an early-season wager pitting my poor team against her juggernaut Denver Broncos, to see who would have a better season. Unfortunately, the Pats are out of the Super Bowl, and I am out one lobster dinner. 

Luckily, I’ve got a cunning plan to recoup that loss and I’m happy to share it: your office's Super Bowl Squares. I can hear you already “Jim, Super Bowl Squares have all the strategy of the card game War!" But I’m here to explain how you can get an edge in this classic living-room lottery. So if you are looking to get a leg up on your best friend, 86 year old aunt, or 13 year old nephew you’ve stumbled onto the right blog. 

At CMB we pride ourselves on turning data into actionable decisions. So with that backdrop in mind:

You already know that some combinations are preferred over others (specifically combinations containing zeros, threes, and sevens).  But do you know how much better one combination is than another? Well, assuming you are in one of the pools that pays out quarterly here’s what you need to know:

There are 28 combinations that have a positive expectation. That is, if you had one of these combinations every year, you’d expect to win more money than you lost (of course that assumes you are playing for money, which obviously none of us are!). Anyway, here are the 28 combinations that you should feel pretty good about:

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

7-7

7-4/4-7

7-3/3-7

4-0/0-4

4-1/1-4

3-3

4-3/3-4

7-1/1-7

6-0/0-6

4-4

6-3/3-6

1-0/0-1

7-6/6-7

But what if you don’t have one of those combinations?  Well, this is where the “turning data into actionable decisions” part comes in…There are 5 combinations worth paying a substantial premium for. Yes, that’s right if you aren’t lucky enough to get a good combination you might consider taking action and finding someone who isn’t good at math (or hasn’t read this blog) and buying their combination. Below are the five combinations that each have an expectation of at least 4x. So if you can separate Aunt Millie or little Bobby from one of these squares for anything less than 4 times the per square price, you’ll be doing ok.

7-0/0-7

0-0

3-0/0-3

However, maybe you’ve been lucky enough to land one of these top 5 combinations and you're watching the game with people who overvalue these combinations.  I’ve already told you that you should be willing to pay up to 4x for each, but what if you wanted to sell?  Since only 0-0 has an expectation greater than 7x, try to get someone to pay in excess of 7 times the buy-in for the others. For 0-0, get at least 9x.

Lastly, maybe you are one of those people who like to zig when others zag. Here are two combinations that have a close to even money expectation (actually around .8), but may seem to others to be far worse. Perhaps you could make someone an offer of 50 cents on the dollar for one of these:

3-1/1-3

4-6/6-4

Whatever you do, stay warm, enjoy the game, don’t eat too much, and NEVER drink and drive.  Good luck!

Jim is VP of CMB’s Financial Services practice, he'll be watching the big game on Sunday...and DVRing Downton Abbey.

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

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.

As we prepare for Super Bowl XLVII we thought we'd share, once again, Jim Garrity's tips for picking Super Bowl Squares. Originally published 4/4/2011.