1 MDAS 3 Screens Study Digital Media – consumer habits and trends 29 January 2008.

1

MDAS 3 Screens StudyDigital Media –

consumer habits and trends

29 January 2008

2

A consumer insight& brand consultancy

that specialises inmedia brands

A background inadvertising

account planning

Based inCentral London,but with global

coverage

A permanentteam of 20

What is Sparkler?

An extended team of experts

from video production to econometrics

3

Who we’ve been working with recently

4

Objective for the 3 Screens Study

To understand the differing roles and value of video content across all 3 screens – and the opportunities for

advertising within this

5

Methodology: qualitative research in five markets

6 x 1.5hr research groups in each market

(extensive media diary pre-tasks)

The bulk of the project involved

research with consumers in markets

selected specifically for being

relatively progressive in terms of

online viewing, but with very different

media marketplaces overall

6

Two segments in each market

PROGRESSIVE MAINSTREAM ADVANCEDOwnership and usage of PVR,

Internet, multimedia-enabled

mobile devices

View AV content online more

heavily

View AV content on mobile

devices, and share online/mobile

AV content

Ownership and usage of PVR,

Internet, multimedia-enabled

mobile devices

View AV content online via a PC

(NB: In Spain and Brazil respondents

were not screened for PVR

ownership)

In researching mainstream behaviours we soughta realistic gauge for future global video consumption

7

Our Swedish sample

M 40-55Children 13-18

in home

F 18-24 No children in home

Progressive Mainstream M

F

30-40

30-40

Children 5-11 in home

Children 5-11in home

Advanced M

F

25-34

25-34

No children in home

No childrenin home

Gender AgeChildren in home

Screen usage

Project

managemen

t,

recruitment

&

moderation

by GfK

Sverige

Fieldwork

took place in

Stockholm

26-28 Nov

2007

All groups

attended by

Nick Davis

9

Presentation headlines

1 HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICSPLAY OUT ON SCREEN

3 THE CHALLENGE OFTHE IN-SCREEN CONTEXT

4 CONTENT AS COMMS

5 TOWARDS A NEW ADVERTISING MODEL

2 CONTEXT, THE GREAT DICTATOR

10



4 CONTENT AS COMMS



11

An initial insight…

Different householdsfeatured differentvideo behaviours

Interpersonal householddynamics were played out

in these 3 screen behaviours

12

Viewing habits differed according to household needs

Teen familyhouseholds

Partnerhouseholds

Viewing most pulled apart

Viewing most pulled

together

Young familyhouseholds

NEED

Togetherness& Proximity

NEED

Solitude& Space

13

This is reflected in where video is consumed in households

Teen familyhouseholds

Partnerhouseholds

Teens seek solitude/connectedness via useof laptop in bedrooms

Mums use PC in studyas way to get somequality time alone

Young familyhouseholds

Partners watch new USdramas together on

laptop in the bedroom

14

Different screens perform different roles at different times

Mums’ behaviour here the most ‘mainstream’example of progressive mainstream behaviour

NEED

Togetherness& Proximity

NEED

Solitude& Space

PCTeens seek

‘connectedness’,web 2.0 immersion

PCMums seek

‘my moment’, useas surrogate screenfor TV programmes

TVMums seek

family bonding &shared experiences

TVTeens seek

time alone, awayfrom familymembers

15



4 CONTENT AS COMMS



16

We sought to understand where primacy lay

Q. When it comes to video, is it content or screenthat is the most important consideration for consumers?

A. People’s video needs are not fixed and fluctuatedepending on the viewing context at any given time

PRIMACY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM EQUATION

17

Context is a critical part of the video viewing experience

Quality context is equally as important as quality content to a given video viewing occasion, but harder to define and control

Content(where quality

is easily-defined)

Context(where quality is not

so easily defined)

THE VIDEO VIEWINGEXPERIENCE

18

Cultural context

Out-of-screen context

At any time there may be up to 3 viewing ‘contexts’ at play

In-screencontext

It is a combination of these contexts that will inform whetherit is screen or content that assumes ‘primacy’ in a given scenario

19

Content connects the screens but context divides them

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

CONTENT

CONTEXT CONTEXT

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXTCONTEXT CONTEXT

TV Desktop LaptopiPod/PSP

Mobilephone

“The content – good programmes, a decent film, interesting news clips – that’s what is interesting. Where you watch it is more and more uninteresting – it’s

becoming irrelevant”(Male, Sweden)

20

Some content is more naturally cross-platform



CONTENT TV DesktopMobilephone

LaptopiPod/PSP

CONTENT

NEWS

DRAMA

SPORT

21

In future, context may become relatively less definitive

CONTENT LaptopCONTENT

NEWS

DRAMA

SPORT



This will perhaps be driven by new viewingbehaviours and narrative forms

22

Screen size helps define the context

Private

One viewer

Social

Multiple viewers

Personal

Few viewers

TV PC MobileDevice

23

As such, TV has a ‘Sofa Effect’…

TV has evolved to become a space of its own

TV is also a low commitment zone, easy to enter and experience

TV IS THE BENCHMARK FOR VIDEO VIEWING EXPERIENCES

SOFAEFFECT

Familiarity

Comfort,relaxation

Companionship

Hub of the home

Cinematic

Professional content

“TV is like a room that you enter”(Male, Sweden)

24

The laptop brings with it ‘Context Anarchy’

ALONEWITH

OTHERS

FIXED LOCATION

ON THE MOVE

25

…because of this, laptops can generate a Sofa Effect too

CONTEXTANARCHY

SOFAEFFECT

26



4 CONTENT AS COMMS



27

Video viewing on PC is a proactive and committed act

(TV IS ON)

SELECT VIDEOCONTENT

Viewing of (long-form) video on PC can encompass a number ofsteps that suggest a commitment to view and imply a highlyfocused, and highly valued viewing occasion and experience

(PC IS OFF)

TURN PC ON,LOAD SOFTWARE

(BROWSECHANNELS)

SEARCH FORVIDEO CONTENT

SELECT VIDEOCONTENT

(NO BROWSEOPTION)

PC TV

“When I watch something on the computer it feels like an active

choice”(Male, Sweden)

28

However, the value of TV video content is generally higher

TV

PC

Mobile devices

SIZE OF SCREEN

PERCEIVED VALUE

OF CONTENT WATCHED

Typically…First time viewing

Priority quality content

Typically...Occasional viewingMid priority content

Typically…Repeat viewing

Low priority content

The perceived value of video content increases with screensize and screen quality – people seek high quality experiences

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

LARGE

MEDIUM

SMALL

29

High quality content moving acrossthe screens can change this…

TV

PC

Mobile devices

Typically…First time viewingPriority content

Latest high quality USdrama downloaded

before release on TV

Film viewed on PSP

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

LARGE

MEDIUM

MEDIUM/ HIGH

SIZE OF SCREEN

PERCEIVED VALUE

OF CONTENT WATCHED

“If there is something special you really want to watch,then you watch it on the Internet” (Female, Sweden)

30

TV is thus the screen most likely to assume ‘primacy’

More likely to be screen primacy More likely to be content primacy

TV PC Mobile Device

People are more likely to naturally gravitate towards TV for videowhereas PC and mobile devices’ multi-functionality means

they are more likely to be used to satisfy a specific content need

THE ‘MULTIFUNCTIONALITY EFFECT’

31

Multi-functionality can lead to distracted viewing

TVMobileDevice

PC

On PC especially, video has to compete with multiple otherfunctionalities, leading to a more distracted experience overall

THE ‘MULTIFUNCTIONALITY EFFECT’

Video sole function Video primary function Video secondary function

32


On PC, the biggest distractions are within the screen

In-screencontext

PC distraction levels far

higher due to multiple internal

functionalities of the screen

TV and PC feature similar

distraction levels in terms

of the environmental

context

For laptops the ‘multi-functionality’ effect of the in-screencontext can often sit alongside external distractions too

33



4 CONTENT AS COMMS



34

People predominantly share video content in two ways

Sharing content

Both are social, but in different ways

PCTV

Sharing contentviewing

experiences

35

With ‘Networked Sociability’, content becomes comms

Networked Sociability

Content as comms

PCTV

Sociability

Content as content

36

This has implications for the user and the content itself

Networked Sociability

Content as comms

PC

USER

Gains a sense of ‘connectedness’ to others and a feeling that they are to some degree the producer of the content they are sharing

CONTENT

Immediate, in that it can be shared at a specific moment in

time, yet also gains a potentially greater lifespan in that it can be

stored for later reference

37

Within this type of behaviour, UGC varies in its value

Communicator

Creator

Content

UGC

LEVEL 3: sense of networked sociability

through content delivered as commsby a trusted and personal source LEVEL 2: sense of ‘connectedness’

andaffinity with those who created the

content

LEVEL 1: some value may be derived though low quality production a

feature

VALUE

The ideal UGC value here suggests clear opportunities for networked professional content

38

In laptop usage, we saw a ‘Communion Device’ for video

This comes from the combination of ‘Context Anarchy’ and ‘NetworkedSociability’ together with notions of personalisation and control

Any context

Any context

Any context

Any context

39



4 CONTENT AS COMMS



40

Cultural context


The big challenges for online ads are in-screen

In-screencontext

A number of defining idiosyncrasies of the in-screen context on PClead to low tolerance of advertising on this screen (especially laptop)

41

Expectations of platform control also impact on tolerance

In the highly active platform context of PC where control mechanism are abundant, advertising adds an uncontrollable element

It could even be seen that advertising contradicts the medium

USER CONTROL

AD TOLERANCE

Lower(more push)

Higher(more pull)

Higher Lower

42

The world of online video demands a different approach

Long-form ‘lean back’ content

Passive, with pushed content

Mass media/shared screen

Simple in-screen context(with established advertising breaks)

Strategy: DISRUPTION

Mixture of short- and long-form content

Active, content pushed and pulled

Personal screen

Complex in-screen context(no established advertising breaks)

?

LaptopTV

43

Integration is more appropriate online

Advertising needs to complement its

environment – which is increasingly

personalised, user-controlled,

interactive and complex, with

various types of video

content viewed in different ways

The aim should be to be relevant,

in the most appropriate manner



Personal screen


Laptop

Strategy: INTEGRATION

“On the computer it’s all about your interests so advertising has to be relevant” (Female, Sweden)

44

Ads could become ever more subtle and ‘woven in’

DISRUPTION

Eg Traditional ‘spots’

INTEGRATION

Eg Ad-funded Content

Indirect valueto end user

Advertising createdas a self-consciousstandalone ‘piece’

Direct valueto end user

Advertising createdto blend in to its

environment

Target bydemographic

Target byjourney

45

Some early thoughts on how value can be added



Personal screen


Laptop

ADAPTABLE FORMS

CONTROLLABLE(WITHIN NETWORKS)

INTEGRATED; RELEVANTTO VIEWER JOURNEY

SIMPLER NARRATIVES;OPTIMISED SEGMENTATION

AND TARGETING

ONLINEADS

46

Contact Details

58-60 Berners Street

London

W1T 3NQ

t: +44 00 20 707 99 555

e: [email protected]

1 MDAS 3 Screens Study Digital Media – consumer habits and trends 29 January 2008.

Documents

Transcript of 1 MDAS 3 Screens Study Digital Media – consumer habits and trends 29 January 2008.