Category Archives: digital media

Can Major League Tech Overcome Apathetic Fans?

I noticed something yesterday that got me thinking about the role tech plays in rejuvenating “old” products.  In this case, the product is baseball.  If you’re over the age of 50, baseball was probably the first sport you came to love and follow because when my peers and I were kids it truly was the American past-time.  College football and the NFL were a distant second; the NBA was barely surviving, and soccer was something they did in Europe.

The Harris Interactive folks have been running a poll for many years which tracks which sport fans label as “their favorite.”  As you can see in this document, baseball has been falling for most of the almost 30 years they’ve been measuring this.  In 1985, baseball was about even with pro football when fans answered the question “If you had to choose, which ONE of these sports would you say is your favorite?”  By 2011, those responding “pro football” were 2.5x greater than those responding “baseball.”   One might expect that baseball’s audience would be older – there’s plenty of research to support that – and this poll identified the 50-64 segment as the one with the most avidity for the game.

The modern MLB logo was first used in 1969.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That’s why, when I read this piece yesterday, I had a thought.  Another research company, Scarborough, found about the same percentage of “avid” baseball fans as did the Harris study.  However, it also found a lot of strength for the game among Gen Y fans.  Generation Y are the “echo boomers,” the children of boomers like me.  In fact:

54% of Gen Y MLB Fans more likely than all MLB Fans to have used a mobile device to read a newspaper in the past 30 days, 84% more likely to have listened to internet radio in the past 30 days and 22% more likely than all MLB Fans to typically watch reality TV. Gen Y MLB Fans are more than twice as likely as all MLB Fans to have visited Twitter in the past 30 days, 59% more likely to have read or contributed to a blog in the past 30 days and 68% more likely to have watched video clips online in the same time period. Gen Y MLB Fans are 131% more likely than all MLB Fans to have visited Hulu.com in the past 30 days and 65% more likely to have visited YouTube.com in the same time frame.

So this is my thought.  The game isn’t any faster nor has there been a breakthrough in game presentation that is stirring interest.  What is going on here in my mind has to do with the thing that MLB does better than any other sports league ( and I say that as someone who was once responsible for this at a major sports league):  digital media and technology.  Baseball’s tech arm, MLBAM, is widely recognized as the leader over the last decade.  Their commitment to make their games available on all devices was revolutionary at the time and their “At Bat” product is terrific.  I think this is what’s driving the reemergence of the sport among younger people.  It’s accessible, it’s presented in a manner they understand, and it’s everywhere they are.

Could it be that new technology is making our oldest professional sport new again?  What do you think?  How can it do the same for other “old” businesses?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, sports business, Thinking Aloud

If An Ad Falls In The Forest…

comScore published the results of a study they did with a number of major advertisers on the subject of ad delivery.  While the study came out last week, it feels as if there is a bit of a drumbeat starting to happen and I thought I’d join the band (hey – we’re always out front here at the screed).  There is an excellent summary of the study on Exchange Wire and if you care to read the entire thing you can download it by clicking through here.  In brief, to get a better handle on the issues associated with display ad delivery and validation as well as to test-drive  comScore’s method for this validation called vCE, twelve leading marketers participated in a U.S.-based charter study, called the vCE Charter Study.

Image representing comScore as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

The biggest point to come from the study, which seems to be the headline on the growing number of blog posts that reference it, is that 31% of ads delivered were never seen by a consumer.  It also called out that 72 percent of the campaigns studied had some ads running beside “unsafe” content as determined by the advertiser and that a small percentage (4%) of ads targeted to the US ran outside the country.

For a medium that touts itself as highly measurable and targeted, these aren’t great results.  Then again, none of the articles I’ve found put these numbers into any sort of context.  How does this compare to print, for example? As we’ve said before, stats by themselves are pretty meaningless unless you have something with which to compare them.  There is also an interesting nugget that surfaces about ads running lower on pages, or “below the fold.”  There is a common misperception that ads delivered “above-the-fold” are seen, while ads delivered “below-the-fold” are not.  Surprisingly, the findings demonstrate that some ads delivered “above-the-fold” were not seen because users quickly scrolled past them before the ad had a chance to load, and many ads placed “below-the-fold” delivered a high opportunity to be seen.  This might mean that inventory “below-the-fold” can be priced as premium as long as the publisher can prove it was viewed.

To me this all screams out for some human intervention.  Digital ad buying has become a mechanized world as one ad platform talks to another and humans stay out of the mix for the most part.  Buyers need to examine sites for more than their audiences.  Sellers need to pay attention to the analytics that show more than traffic but also “heat maps” of usage.  Both sides need to do a better job of quality control.  One can question comScore’s motives a bit since they’re also selling a delivery validation tool that will allow for both sides of the digital media equation to get more accurate numbers.  Commendable, I guess, but I wish there was some way to redo the numbers based on more human involvement as well as to compare the results with TV and print “opportunities to view.”

What are your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under digital media, Helpful Hints

LCD

If you managed to get through middle school math (I’m hopeful that means most of you), you’re familiar with the term “Lowest Common Denominator.” In math it’s a way to combine unlike fractions by finding a common ground. In business, it’s a way to screw yourself up. You see, there’s another nonmathematic use of LCD and it refers to the lowest or least sophisticated level of something, and that’s the subject of today’s screed.

As anyone who has worked in broadcasting will tell you, the ratings system is a sort of shared myth. Nielsen puts out numbers, TV executives believe them and TV buyers believe the TV executives. Of course, it says right on the front of the ratings book that they’re only accurate up to a point, and like any number based on a sample the results are really a range. That range can be pretty wide as the number of folks in the sample who did something declines (so the published rating for American Idol is probably closer to the truth than the rating for a show ranked 125).

Which is why I find this disturbing:

TubeMogul is bringing Online Campaign Ratings to its RTB video ad platform. The agreement between TubeMogul and Nielsen means advertisers and agency trading desks can cross-reference GRPs for audience age and gender demographics with impressions and clicks to get a fuller sense of a campaign’s performance.

Simple announcement which a number of folks covered.  Except, of course, when one reads further:

While TubeMogul is able to relay metrics like impressions and clicks in real-time, Nielsen’s GRP numbers are only available daily, as with their broadcast GRP metrics. Also TubeMogul’s advertisers will have to log in to the Nielsen dashboard separately to view GRP numbers alongside metrics on TubeMogul’s platform.

In other words, we’re bringing down digital’s great system of non-sampled measurement to the LCD of TV.  That’s bad business in my book.  I realize that the advertising ecosystem isn’t quite able yet to deal with a completely different set of metrics, especially metrics presented in real-time, but the further we dumb down the standards the more likely it is that those lower standards become the norm instead of temporary fixes.

Digital measurement isn’t perfect.  Faulty implementations, disreputable folks cheating via bots and other ways, and an overwhleming amount of data we don’t often present well are issues.  But even with these and other faults the reporting and accuracy is better than what we used in TV, which any TV or agency person will tell you is pretty much a fantasy if you get them talking over a drink.

We can do better!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media