1. Scheduled broadcast television will always constitute the majority of viewing
2. The majority of viewing will always be passive
3. Simultaneous social media activity will remain niche – it will primarily be a substitute for when people aren’t physically in the room with you
4. A form of modified Pareto principle will persist (maybe not 80% of viewing on 20% of channels, but 60% of viewing on 5% of channels is believable)
5. Watching TV on a “computer” will peak in a few years – it will be doubly squeezed by web enabled “television” and “mobile” devices

Any other predictions, or disagreement with the above?

sk

“Bringing research to life”.

Ick.

There are over 20,000 results in Google for this horrible, horrible cliche.

And it’s completely meaningless.

Was the research dead beforehand? Have a couple of verbatim quotes and vox pop videos literally brought sentience to the project?

Coming at it from the opposite angle, the expression is quite Stalinistic – “One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic”

But mainly, it is just an excuse for poor communicators unable to make data or research interesting, relevant or memorable.

So, please, no more playing God and no more bringing zombies back from the dead. Find a way to let the work speak for itself.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcmhitchhiker/

NB: I know that zombies are technically undead and a better analogy would have been Frankenstein’s monster, but when the options are comparing respondents to gormless, instinctive fools or a vengeful yet misunderstood creature, what are you going to do?

I like the IAB. They’re nice people, and do good work. I’m even a member.

But… Internet overtakes TV to become UK’s biggest ad sector ?

No.

As I pointed out this time last year, their reporting is a bit disingenuous (click through to see a nice chart – a product of my ability to devote greater time to blogging).

The headline finding this year is that online represents 23.5% of all UK spending, whereas TV represents 21.9%

However:

• Online conflates search, classified, display and email
• Press display and classified (conveniently separated) combined account for 29.5% of ad spend
• Display represents less than a fifth of all online spend
• If my mental arithmetic is performing better than it was previously (no guarantee), online video advertising is about 2/3 of a % of all online advertising
• Despite PWC auditing, the data is still ultimately self-reported. Online video spend was caveated last year because many respondents didn’t notice the change to the survey, and grouped video into display (as they had done in previous years)

There are still plenty of good stories within the data – online advertising is the only growing medium (though this is driven entirely by search).

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/expressmonorail/

We’ve recently set up our Essential Research blog. It’s started well, albeit a little slowly. Go check it out.

The main reason for the slow start is that we are currently crazy busy. However, a second reason is that the majority of us have never blogged before. And as those who have their own blog know, it is a little scary to begin with.

What do I write about? Who will read it? What if it is rubbish?

I’m quite happy with how this blog has evolved. But the number of blogs I’ve had is in double figures (I think), and it has taken me 6 or 7 years to get into a position of (relative) confidence.

So, using a combination of my past experiences and the advice of others that are quite proficient in the space, I’ve created a little guide on blogging.

See below – it is a draft, and particular to research, but I’d be interested to know where it could be improved.

Click on the picture for a larger (and readable) version.

Yes, I like mnemonics.

Incidentally, the further reading list is:

• 101 essential blogging skills from Skelliewag
• Mashable’s guide to using free media for your blog
• IBM’s corporate blogging policy
• Chris Brogan’s 40 ways to deliver killer blog content
• Advergirl’s tips to start blogging

All images are taken without credit. Sorry. If one of the images is yours and you’re not cool with my use then let me know and I’ll change it.

sk

In my last post, I attempted to make a few calculations around the return on conversation. Rather embarrassingly, I suffered a temporary mindfreeze regarding the definition of a percentage, and so my calculations were out by a factor of 100.

This is my blog, and – unless I am directly linking to someone else – everything here is the work of me and me alone. This has its upsides and drawbacks.

One of the obvious drawbacks is my idiosyncratic quality control. Sometimes I may dwell over a post and its formulation for an age, other times I will quickly bash something out without due consideration to checking grammar, logic and facts.

For the most part, the reader may know no different. Some posts may be perceived to be a better quality than others, but unless there is a really obvious error – like yesterday – there is little indication as to how long the post took, or how much effort was put in. As Mark Twain once alluded to, it often takes longer to craft a succinct output.

In my day job, this doesn’t happen. There are project leads, but there aren’t projects with only one person working on it. It may take slightly longer to coordinate around different individuals, but ideas are bounced off of one another, different perspectives are compared, and details are checked. Nothing leaves the office until at least two people – one of whom is normally at a senior level – are happy with it. This is a crucial component of our approach – we require absolute conviction in what we are doing.

Quality control is absolutely vital. Without it, there is no trust.

So, mea culpa – the quality control on this blog has been found wanting. I’ve relearned an important lesson, and I hope this doesn’t affect your impressions of this blog too negatively.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hotcherry/

EDIT: As has been pointed out, I made a rather embarrassing miscalculation in the original post, which made me seriously underestimate the CTR. I evidently need to evaluate my quantitative credentials

My previous post on conversation monitoring was tweeted and retweeted by several individuals. Firstly, I’m grateful that people both read this blog and are motivated to share something I’ve written.

However, the additional traffic that this Twitter activity generated has left me wondering how valuable this social activity is to individuals or organisations that look to spread their message through this sphere.

What follows are some rough numbers given that:

1. WordPress.com stats are pretty basic
2. I’ve left it two weeks to do the maths, and so follower numbers will have changed
3. Follower overlap and actual exposures are unknown

Nevertheless:

• To my knowledge, the post was tweeted/retweeted 10 times
• Combined number of people following those who linked the post is 10,354 as of today
• The post probably got 100 additional hits as a result of Twitter activity

A couple of guesstimated calculations:

• At an absolute level, this represents a click through rate of 1%
• If I made the assumption that 5,000 followers are unduplicated (the largest follower count for a retweeter is over 3,000), the CTR changes to 2%
• How many of the followers would have seen the tweet? A fifth? That changes the CTR to 10%

10% is OK for a CTR, but it isn’t spectacular. The best ad campaigns with a strong call to action (e.g. competition entry) would achieve that.

The argument is that these 10% are going to be of a much higher quality than random visitors – they have acted upon a social recommendation and are likely to be engaged and interested in the content.

But that argument should work for the click through itself. If someone you follow and trust is recommending something, shouldn’t you be more likely to click through than if it were a random link or ad?

There a few issues at play here, which are causing this level of CTR

• Noise – Twitter is popular; there are a lot of tweets and links to browse and skim
• Ambient intimacy – often, it is enough for me to know that person X has linked to a post on conversation monitoring by @curiouslyp. I may prefer to browse the remaining tweets rather than click through to this post
• Power laws – if the post on conversation monitoring was by @jowyang or @chrisbrogan I may click through since they are renowned experts. Who is @curiouslyp and what would he know about this topic?
• Nature of followers – my prior post was relevant to the PR community – very active on Twitter. I suspect posts of a different subject matter are unlikely to be spread and consumed to the same degree

It is nice to think that the future is social, and that these networks will power traffic in future. But those perpetuating this – in my opinion – myth are those for whom power laws benefit, and who spend an inordinate amount of time on social networks (most likely because it is there job to do so). The average person does not have the time nor inclination to follow through on many, let alone all, posts or links.

So, in my opinion, the return on conversation is pretty minimal. Nevertheless, I did find it interesting to map how my post spread through Twitter via social graphs and, to repeat, I am grateful to the few that took the time to read and pass on my post.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ironmonkey480/

Over on the Essential Research blog, I have responded to a post by a social media conversation monitor who eulogised the death of focus groups.

In that post, I have outlined why focus groups themselves aren’t the issue; rather it is shoddy application. Here, I want to expand on that a bit. It is my contention that conversation monitoring is more flawed than traditional research, and should not be used for major corporate decision.

Alan Partridge once declared himself to be a homosceptic, and in a not dissimilar way I am doubtful of the efficacy of social media monitoring.

In terms of numbers signing up, the social space is still increasing. However, the number of active users within this universe will remain limited – the late arrivals will be the more passive and occasional users. This space is increasingly asymmetric, with network effects and power laws distorting the flow of information.

Topics of conversation will by nature revolve around the major players – whether individuals, blogs or organisations. The larger the hub, the weaker the concentration of signal to noise.

As a small example, consider blog commenting. Aside from the odd spam comment, the contributions I get here are all genuinely helpful. Because this is a relatively small blog, there are few people commenting out of self-interest. Moving to the larger sites, comments are filled with spam, self-promotion and unquestioning advocacy/contrariness. Genuine debate and discussion still exists, but it is diluted by the inanity surrounding it. This on its own creates difficulties for sentiment analysis, but clever filters can overcome this.

But despite the internet being open, we will cluster around likeminds. Group think creates an echo chamber. danah boyd has pointed out that teenagers network with pre-existing friends. It is my observation that the majority of adults network with those in their pre-existing spheres. Planners chat to planners. Cyclists to cyclists. Artists to artists. Mothers to Mothers. These categories aren’t mutually exclusive, but the crossover is minimal compared to likeminds.

Remember the Motrin outrage? The mainstream majority remain blissfully ignorant. This may have been because it was resolved before it had a chance to escalate to the mainstream media, but it nevertheless shows the limited nature of social media echos.

Of course, some products or services target the early adopting, tech savvy ubergeeks and so for these companies they should obviously engage where their audience is.

But for the rest? Despite my assertions above, I do view monitoring as useful, but only as a secondary tool. Tracking conversations as they happen is a useful feedback mechanism, but few companies are going to be nimble enough to implement it immediately (once they have separated the meat from the gristle and verified that this opinion is indeed consensus).

Surveys and groups are indeed limited by taking place in a single point in time, and through these it is difficult to extrapolate long-term reaction. The Pepsi taste test being one notorious example.

But there are plenty of longitudinal research methodologies that are suitable. Long-term ethnographic or observational studies can track whether attitudes or behaviour do in fact change over time. These can be isolated in pilots or test cases, so that any negative feedback can be ironed out before the product or service is unleashed to the general public.

This is where traditional research still prevails: the controlled environment. Artificiality can be a benefit if it means shielding a consumer basis from something wildly different from what they are used to.

This takes time though, and some companies may prefer to iterate as they go, and “work in beta”. Facebook is an example of this – they have encountered hostility over news feeds, Beacon, redesigns and terms of service.Each time, they have ridden the storm and come back stronger than ever.

Is this a case study for conversation monitoring effectiveness? Not really. They listened to feedback, but only implemented it when it didn’t affect their core strategy. So, the terms of service changed back but the news feed and redesign stayed. Features intrinsic to its success.

Should Scyfy have gone back to being the Sci-Fi channel due to the initial outrage? Perhaps. Personally, I think it is a rather silly name but it didn’t do Dave any harm. If they have done their research properly, they should remain confident in their decision.

Conversation monitoring can be useful, but it should remain a secondary activity. A tiny minority have a disproportionately loud voice, and their opinions shouldn’t be taken as representative of the majority. When iterating in public, there is a difficult balance between reacting too early to an unrepresentative coalition, and acting too late and causing negative reaction among a majority of users/customers.

Because of this, major decisions should be taken before going to market. Tiny iterations can be implemented after public feedback, but the core strategy should remain sound and untouched.Focus groups and other research methodologies still have an important place in formulating strategy.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff-bauche/

Last Wednesday I attended the IAB’s mobile forum (presentations are uploaded here).

It was an illuminating afternoon, though mainly in terms of what I didn’t take away. Mobile is still nascent as a media platform, and the industry understanding of it is still at a fairly basic (in my opinion) level.

Most information on how people use mobile seems to be on potential behaviour rather than actual (though there were exceptions).   As such, the emphasis of the event was very much on inspiration rather than effectiveness or impact. In part because of the fragmented nature of mobile (different handsets, networks, operating systems, functionality etc), it is difficult to emerge with overarching advice on using mobile.

However, it is clear that it is a medium ripe for innovation. Nearly all of the speakers had case studies as illustrations on how mobile can be used in new and interesting ways. These include:

• Fitness First cold-texting people with information on their local gym (once people had responded with their postcode)
• Comic Relief raising £7.8m through people messaging in to pledge donations that would be added to their monthly bill
• The ringtone from the Cadbury’s “eyebrows” advert was downloaded over 250,000 times in less than a month
• Pizza Hut’s pizza-building application where you can shake to remove toppings, click to order it (including regional discounts) and play a game while you wait for it to arrive
• Ikea augmented reality tool to superimpose furniture into your living room
• An Ocado shopping app that requires a four digit pin rather than a username/password each time you want to purchase.

Despite not coming away stunned, there were some useful pieces of information that I picked up at the event.

• Chris Boddice from O2 made the comparison of a mobile phone to a personal assistant or life manager – it can do everything from diary management to your shopping via being an alarm clock
• Alex Kozloff from Orange made the point that in addition to being relevant and innovative, mobile marketing also needs to reassure. Trust is much more of an issue on your mobile (it has people’s lives on it, yet there is no anti-virus or anti-phishing software) and so consumers need to be reassured that your site/brand is trusted and that they aren’t going to be surreptitiously charged for anything. For people who pay for their data, zero-rating can be used whereby the advertiser foots the data charges to visit that site.
• Justyn Lucas from yodel warned of advertisers getting blinded by technology, and that the role of mobile should be established before deciding on how to proceed. In fairness, integrated marketing is hardly a new piece of information, but it is worth re-iterating
• Jonathan Abrahams from Admob revealed that they are now seeing more traffic from Andriod than they are from Windows Mobile. This reinforces the asymmetry of mobile use in that while iPhones and Google phones still have relatively small penetration, they are driving the use of the mobile internet
• The IAB’s Jon Mew said that the user experience should be paramount when browsing – from their first ad effectiveness study (for KitKat), they noted that respondents were much more likely to remember the ad if they had enjoyed browsing the site. Furthermore, regular users of the site were more likely to notice the ads (this was contrary to my assumption that the novelty of mobile ads would cause stand-out, but this effect is no different to other media platforms)
• Tim Hussain from BSkyB had some great tips on apps – which he argued should provide a richer more creative experience for your customer. He also alluded to the asymmetry of action – in 6 weeks more people were using the Sky EPG on the iphone than on the 300 other handsets it is available on AND the pc combined. He pointed out that the iPhone has a massive advantage in that, from our iPods, we are familiar with iTunes and the iTunes store and so the comprehension barrier has already been overcome.

Tim’s six tips for apps were

1. Understand the target audience
2. Ensure the app is different to a mobile website
3. Make it a destination, not a driver
4. It should either save time or kill time (I liked this point, even if it does overlook the other uses of an app, such as inspiration)
5. The idea should be aligned with the brand
6. The app should be integrated to the wider campaign

Additional statistics I picked up from the event were:

• Gartner predict that by 2012, 70% of all phones will be smartphones
• There is an average of 37 apps per iPhone in the UK
• Orange research suggests that 87% of mobile media users (“anything that a message can be delivered through” – so including SMS) use it at home
• 95% of us don’t switch our phones off
• Yahoo! is bigger than Google in mobile search (though I think this will change as iPhone/Google phones etc take share away from the network portals)

Although I didn’t pick up as much new information or knowledge as I was anticipating, it was an event worth attending. I’d particularly recommend Tim’s presentation on apps  – it can be downloaded here.

As the industry develops and matures, it is inevitable that our understanding of consumer behaviour and marketing effectiveness will improve – from my various discussions with people in the space there is definitely a market opportunity to fulfill some of these needs. I’m confident that the study I’m about to embark upon will contribute to this.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamshots/

In my post on mobile yesterday, I mentioned that the mobile internet is changing people’s conception of what a mobile can do.

Initially, a mobile phone was purely about communication. This is no longer the case. Broadly speaking, there are four main ways in which a mobile phone is now used:

• Communication
• Information
• Entertainment
• Utility

To illustrate the multiple ways in which a mobile phone can now be used, I shall give personal examples of how I have been using my iPhone in the month or so I have had it.

Foursquare is Mashable’s tip for the tool that makes location-based services acceptable for the masses. It is not yet available in London, but offers a nice title for the below 4×4 (i.e. four squared) examination of my behaviour.

By the way, I am not going to do a Morgan Stanley and extrapolate one person’s experiences into the behaviour of an entire generation. This is anecdotal only.

Communication

• Phone – this has been relegated to the position of “just another app”. On the iPhone, it has equal prominence with Mail, Safari and iPod
• Mail – I have both my Essential and Gmail accounts set up, and reply to emails when away from my desk/home
• Tweetdeck – my preferred Twitter client, which is free and works extremely well as an app
• Facebook – A big driver of mobile internet use, according to this report

Information

• BBCReader – this is an unofficial tool; the BBC should bring an official version to market as it is incredibly useful. I cache all of the top stories onto my phone memory, and then am able to browse the news while on the tube
• NYTimes – similar to the above, except that it is official and thus much smoother. They’ve started experimenting with disruptive interstitial ads, which I am willing to put up with in exchange for free access
• London Tube Deluxe – there are free versions available, but a handy tool to keep abreast of closures and delays, as well as planning journeys
• Flixster – it is US focused, but it does recognise my UK location and tells me my local cinemas and the showings. I can see the Rotten Tomatoes ratings, and review films I go on to see.

Entertainment

• Slugger – the game that has seen most usage. An addictive home-run derby game, which uses the iPhone motion detector as the aim for your swing
• iPod – ingeniously, this continues to work in the background while other apps are used. Apps themselves shut down when not in primary use, which means that if the Spotify app is approved, listeners will not be able to do anything else while using
• Tap Tap Revenge – a Guitar Hero esque game that provides free tracks to play along to, with the option of going on to buy them
• Simon The Sorcerer – I only downloaded this Monday and haven’t played it yet, but loved it when I was a kid. And at £1.19 it is far cheaper than any (legal) PC version

Utility

• Calendar – it automatically syncs with Outlook but not Gmail (annoyingly)
• Clock – I use my phone as an alarm clock. I’m not alone.
• Camera – I still carry around a digital camera for events, but the camera is good enough for basic daylight photos that can be quickly emailed
• Voice Memos – I haven’t had a great deal of need to use this yet. Aside from Twin Peaks impressions – “Diane, I am holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies”.

In terms of weight of behaviour, I would estimate the majority of my behaviour is centred on information and entertainment. My phone is incredibly useful in particular situations (thanks to my dodgy sense of direction) but I derive the most consistent usage on my commute. Reading material (whether free newspapers, a book or the Economist), my “standalone” iPod and my Nintendo DS are all seeing far less usage as a result.

However, this is just one anecdote. Some may use it primarily as a communication tool (whether telephony or social media) and others as a utility (e.g. Nike+).

One of the greatest things about the App store is the customization it affords us. Rather than just changing the look of a phone, we can now alter the functionality.

Therefore, if we are to understand how mobile media is to be used (and potentially how it can be monetized), we first need to understand people’s motivations and interests. And since customization is near limitless, we need to try and do this at the individual level.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigalakos/

I’ve been speaking to a lot of people about mobile recently – partially because I have finally got an iPhone, but primarily because I am working on a project around how mobile phones fit into the media landscape.

Mobile phones as a technology are unquestionably mainstream, and have been so for about a decade. There are currently more mobile phones than people in Europe, and a recent study suggested that children get their first mobile when they are eight years old.

However, mobile as a media has taken a lot longer to infiltrate mainstream behaviour. There have been numerous false dawns in the past – notably around mobile TV – but the time for mobile does finally seem to have arrived.

And the driver for that is the mobile internet.

SIDENOTE: The mobile phone has found some exceptionally important uses in the developing world – Mo Ibrahim’s work is a good place to start in this respect – but my research is focusing upon the West, and primarily the UK.

The four factors that have been influencing take-up of the mobile internet (in the UK at least) are

• Faster network/connection speeds
• Emphasis on unlimited data packages (even on pay as you go tariffs)
• Greater choice of content
• Better (in functionality and usability) handsets

In my opinion, the third and fourth points are a result of the iPhone. Relative penetration of the iPhone may still be low, and few of its functions may actually be “new”, but both the iPhone and the App store have changed the public’s conception of what a phone is and what it is used for.

To indicate how revolutionary it is, consider how many other phones are referred to by their brand name? Only BlackBerry, and that is arguably because it the initial emphasis was on email rather than telephony. The iPhone managed to set itself far apart from all other handsets on the market. It is aspirational and has caused other manufacturers to fundamentally change the way they design and market their handsets.

Furthermore, the iPhone has disrupted the mobile market. I believe iterative upgrading of handsets is still the most prevalent form of changing phones, but a significant minority are abandoning the previously well-formed “upgrade curve” and converging around high-end smartphones.

By changing the perception of what a phone is, a new coalition of users can be persuaded to change their willingness to pay. A person may have been willing to pay £20 per month for their mobile subscription to make calls and texts. However, that person may be willing to pay £35 per month for a smartphone subscription that gives them email, games, maps, videos and so on in addition to calls and texts.

These people may still have different levels of comfort with technology, and thus usage of the different features will vary, but the capability is there for all to engage in this new behaviour.

And that is quite exciting.

Not just in itself, but also in the effect this behaviour has on consumption of other media channels. The mobile extends the PC behaviour in complementary and competing ways, and it is important to understand the relationship that the two platforms have with one another (in addition to the other media channels – this remote record tool from Sky is a great example on how mobile can feed into the core business).

The environment is fast-moving and volatile, but it does appear that mobile is finally emerging as a media channel to be reckoned with.

I anticipate this a topic I’ll be returning to on numerous occasions – both here and on the Essential Research blog where I hope to update on the progress we are making on this project. In the meantime, I’m bookmarking all relevant articles and blogs here.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocoarmani/