The Brill Beat

CNSI: Cancelled New Series Investigation

Just four weeks into the fall 2011 season, five new series have already met with an early demise.  The failed five are: Charlie's Angels (ABC), How to be a Gentleman (CBS), H8R (CW), Free Agents (NBC) and The Playboy Club (NBC).  That these series were virtual flops-on-arrival hardly comes as a surprise.  In fact, Primetime TV Insight co-author, Steve Sternberg and I accurately predicted that these series would be among the first to fail in our 2011 Fall Preview Report (released back in early August).  On a more positive note, nine shows have received full season pickups.

There are several reasons behind these quick cancellations:

The Show is Derivative:  Viewers embrace new shows that have refreshing and unique points of view.  Just because one show works, doesn’t mean that audiences will roll out the welcome-mat for obvious knockoffs.  Bad imitations will invariably breed outright rejection.

Poorly Executed Comedies:  The best sitcoms (see The Golden Girls, Seinfeld and Modern Family), were successful, because the characters were interesting, appealing, had great on-screen chemistry and were embraced by audiences who wanted to watch them week after week.  Conversely, when a sitcom features one-note characters and also requires a laugh track for joke recognition, it’s not long for this world.  

Self-Destructive Scheduling Practices:  Networks have an annoying habit of pitting similar series directly opposite each other with the purpose of hurting their competitors versus airing a smart counterprogramming alternative and growing the time period instead.

Below is our post-mortem assessment for each of the five Flatliners:

Charlie's Angels (ABC) Cause of Death:  ABC attempted to update this cheesy 70’s series by re-imagining the Angels as former bad girls and transforming the fatherly character of Bosley into a hot Latino.  In the end, there was little chemistry between the characters and they lacked the charisma to keep viewers interested enough to tune in to see what happens next.  NBC’s decision to opt against picking up remake Wonder Woman was a wise one.  Remakes, with the exception of CBS’s Hawaii Five-O rarely ever work.

The Playboy Club (NBC) Cause of Death: This drama, set in the sixties, was NBC’s failed attempt to capitalize on the success of AMC’s critically acclaimed period piece, Mad Men.  To make matters worse, NBC also slotted the drama directly after family-friendly competition series, The Sing Off, a scheduling move that still hurts my head.

How to Be a Gentlemen (CBS) Cause of Death: CBS introduced two new comedies featuring the unlikely friendship between two characters that come from very different backgrounds and lifestyles.  2 Broke Girls was an instant success because the characters quickly endeared themselves to audiences.  How to be a Gentleman failed because the characters alienated audiences.

Free Agents (NBC) Cause of Death: American adaptations of British Comedies, generally have disastrous results. (see Coupling for reference).  The Office, on the other hand, is one of the rare exceptions.

H8R (CW) Cause of Death: This silly and short-lived reality series featured ordinary people who get to meet the very celebrities they love to hate.  Since it aired opposite The X Factor in the hour, H8R was unable to get any love from viewers,

We expect several additional rookies to be M.I.A. prior to the onset of November sweeps. About one third of the them will be toast by the end of fourth quarter. Typically, two thirds of all freshman entries will never get to be sophomores. 

Several additional new series, including ABC's Once Upon a Time and Man Up, NBC's Grimm and Fox's I Hate My Teenage Daughter will get underway later this fall.

Stay tuned..............

 

The Future of Media is NOW!

When the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee first envisioned the landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study back in the fall of 2005, we were inspired by the industry’s concerns regarding the future of the media environment, ongoing fragmentation and their resulting fear that consumers will be impossible to reach with advertising messages. Specifically, we had sought to verify or dispel several popular notions about current video usage behaviors such as:

• The 30 second spot is dead

• No one under the age of 30 watches TV; they’re all streaming video on the internet.

• No one watches live TV. Everyone is recording TV shows on their DVRs. (note that in 2005, DVR penetration was in less than 7% of TV households).

It was clear that our industry was obsessed with the world of tomorrow when it didn’t even have a handle on the current landscape. We decided to develop the definitive consumer media map that would provide a reality check regarding how they go about accessing content throughout their day. 

The research was intended to be consumer-centric and media neutral. While our focus was on TV and Video, we also measured usage of non-screen media such as magazines, newspapers and radio via computer-assisted direct observation. Findings from this $3.5 million dollar study significantly increased our understanding of how consumers access content within the context of their daily lives and changed the conversation regarding the TV screen.

We also learned that time spent with different devices was concurrent and that increased use of one medium was not at the expense of other media. Interestingly we learned that the age group that spent the most time with content was not Adults 18-24; rather it was the Digital Boomers (Adults 45-54) who spent 9½ hours per day with screen media versus 8 ½ hours per day for all other age groups. It turns out this group embraced classic forms of media content like older consumers and newer forms of digital media like younger ones. For more information on about the VCM and the CRE, please click here. www.researchexcellence.com/committees/vcm_clientpresentation.pdf

Back when we initially conceived the study, the video iPod was just getting introduced. By the time our study went into the field in 2008, we had to take iPhones and HDTVs into account.  Who would have ever envisioned back then, that in 2011 consumers would now have access to such a wide array of portable device options: iPads, e-readers, the explosion of smartphone adoption, as well as the availability of live TV (in addition to streaming video) on these devices.  

Consumers have always had an insatiable appetite for content.  This appetite continues to be fed by technological enhancements.  The technologies that do the best job of enhancing and facilitating consumers’ ability to access and consume content, however, whenever, and wherever they prefer to do so will be widely and rapidly adopted. 

At the same time the ability and desire to access content on-demand will be offset by the human desire to connect and have shared experiences with each other. It is for this very reason that TV shows will continue to be scheduled and viewers will continue to seek out their most desired content when it airs “live” or “near live” in order to be part of the conversation.

Marshall McLuhan once referred to the TV medium as a “Global Village”. Social Media, on the other hand, has transformed the media environment into a myriad of town hall meetings; those who actively engage in sharing information can be thought of as town criers. Mass Media and Social Media will be forever intertwined. Think of the social media conversation surrounding a given TV show or event as a virtual water cooler.

From the early days of cuneiform writing,  people have sought to disseminate information and share their experiences peer-to-peer.  We migrated from knocking on our neighbor’s doors, riding through town on horseback, to making phone calls, sending emails, texting and tweeting.  The current “Occupy Wall Street” effort was organized peer-to-peer via social media and continues to build momentum since its September 17^th inception. Just this past week, when word got out regarding Bank of America’s

plan to charge an additional $5 monthly fee to debit card users, the backlash via Twitter and Facebook were so widespread that it undoubtedly was the catalyst behind BofA’s ongoing web site malfunctions.

Digital and Social Media usage had exploded in the past few years. Globally there are about two billion people are on the Internet, there over five billion people connected via mobile phones, and Facebook claims 750 million users. 

Social media, (as with any other medium), is used across all age groups.  In fact, 60 percent of U.S. Facebook users are over age 35, and the average age of the typical Twitter user is now 39.

According to Pew Research, over 42% of adults over 50 use some form of social media. The ease of video-sharing technology also appeals to multiple age groups.

Although social media gives voice to a variety of points-of-view, people are tribal in nature and tend to seek out those people who embrace shared interests and values.  This is yet another reason why planning, buying, and guaranteeing media delivery by age and gender has no relevance, yet the current state of audience measurement keeps us stuck in the time warp of doing business as usual.  Age and gender similarities have little or nothing to do with determining content or technology choices. Rather, these choices are more a function of lifestyle, life-stage and mindset.

Media research companies need to shift their focus from just measuring audiences to the medium or platform, to measuring consumers by their shared transmedia experiences and lifestyle preferences. 

It is also abundantly apparent that our industry continues its ongoing obsession with the world of tomorrow while still unable to have a proper grasp of the current state of the media landscape.

Let’s start with some methodological research that helps to better inform the relationship between consumers and content.  Clearly, a second generation Video Consumer Mapping Study would be ideal. Regardless of whether the CRE undertakes that effort, here are just two of the many important research questions that need answers.

1) In addition to measuring how many, how often and how long audiences are exposed to a given medium, how about some research that gets at where and why this choice of medium made?

2) How does the relationship between social media and engagement with TV content impact:

• Ratings performance?  
• Receptivity to an ad message?

What are your pressing research questions?

Send them to shari@shariannebrill.com and I will publish them in my next blog post.

The B.S. Detector

The B.S. Detector

From time to time I will be providing commentary on research practices that make my blood boil, especially when questionable findings are published by the press or presented in meetings without any regard to the methodology being used. 

Back in my agency days I was given the nickname "B.S. Detector" (hence the title of this column) because of my penchant for calling out the organizations as well as presenters who report findings that defy reality.  Further, when these wacky findings are published by the trade press as fact, they often do even more damage and often have a disastrous effect on our business.  I, along with my fellow media research pros, are the ones who have to deal with the fallout, mop up the mess and set the record straight for our clients. 

Several months ago, the trade press (you know which ones you are) published top-line findings from a study that weekly time spent on TV and the Internet have reached parity, at 13 hours per week, a finding that is just plain ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about media usage patterns and trends.

This is not the first time this company whose name starts with the letter "F" has gone public with questionable information, nor is the second or third time. 

Here are two other instances: 

1) Back in 2000 company 'F' predicted that DVR penetration would climb to 40% U.S. by 2004. Many content companies and marketer altered their business plans based on this wildly off-the-mark forecast. By the way, as of April 2011 DVR penetration has finally approached the levels that were supposed to occur nearly eight years ago.

2) During a recent ANA TV conference, an executive from company "F" made the claim that advertisers have cut back on their investment in TV, which was blatantly false. He was called out on the carpet by David Poltrack who proceeded to tear him a new one and went so far as to calling his statements "B$L$H*T!" Here is the link to the Ad Age article, which also features the audio clip of the incident. CBS Network Chief challenges Forrester

David is not the only media research executive who has expressed outrage at poor research practices. Steve Sternberg (author of The Sternberg Report) also had plenty to say regarding the peddlers of bad information. Please click on the link for his commentary regarding how the press reports TV research studies.

Not too long ago, Jack Wakshlag, Chief Research Officer of Turner unleashed his fury during a session at the Outfront Conference when he caught presenter, Networked Insights using yet another panned piece of "B.S"  research that depicted time spent online as being at parity with time spent with TV. When I questioned the presenter as to how the research was conducted, he did not have the slightest clue. Of course I chastised him for presenting information he was unable to explain. 

Were Jack and I, or Steve and David disruptive? Probably. Were we provacative? Yes. Were we out of line? Absolutely not!

For those of you who use or report research information but are not-researchers,  here are three basic guidelines that will help you determine whether a given piece of research has any merit.

1)The Sample: Is it based on probabilty or is it self-selected? Surveys and studies based on voluntary participants are fundamentally flawed.

2)The Media Measurement Technique: Is the research method well suited for the task at hand? Recall (Self-reported) is acceptable for reporting the incidence of a media activity, "Did you watch TV last week?,"  The technique is not well-suited for measuring time spent with a given medium, as in "How many hours did you watch TV last week?" A more structured recall method that has participants keep track of time spent by time interval (electronic diaries) is somewhat better. However it falls way short of techniques that measure media use as it happens.

Historical studies have shown that when recall techniques are used, consumers will consistantly under-report time spent with TV, while overstating time use with more socially accepted media choices such as: online,  mobile and print. In fact, the CRE's Video Consumer Mapping Study documented the severe limitations of the recall method for time use. When followup interviews were conducted with VCM participants the day after they were observed, once again, time spent with TV was wildly underreported, and time spent online and with mobile devices were frequently overstated. In fact, one of the participants told us that he remembered using his iPhone for over two hours, when in fact he was actually observed using his iPhone for just 17 minutes! 

3) For those of you in sales, you need to take responsibility for the quality of the research you use in pitches and presentations.  If you can't explain the data on the chart then do not present it to me.

4) For those of you who are reporters, don't automatically regurgitate the vendors' press releases unless they are forthcoming with the methods used. I don't care that you are not researchers. That is not an excuse.  There are plenty of us in this business who are.  I, for one, would be happy to consult with you to vet the information to see if the findings have merit, and so would my industry brethren.

It has now become my personal mission to call out the purveyors of Bull$#&! research along with those of you who publish it or present it without question.  

Trust me.  You don't want to be next.

  

The $64,000 Question: Do Reality Producers Rig Results?

The final episode of ABC's recently concluded 11th cycle of Dancing With the Stars posted over 24.2 million viewers, its biggest audience in six years. The finale also delivered it best performance in Adults 18-49 in five years. What led to the sudden heightened interest in the dance competition's outcome?  As with any popular reality competition show, it comes down to either clever casting or a widely publicized "voting controversy."  Season 11 of DWTS had both. The savvy stunt casting of Bristol Palin (whose only claim to fame consists of being the daughter of Sarah) had a polarizing effect on audience. Despite scoring the fewest amount of points from the judges, Bristol somehow managed to remain in the competition week after week.

Remember when audiences was "outraged" when mediocre singer Sanjaya Malakar was voted through week after week on American Idol Season 6 in spite of the harsh criticism from Simon and Randy? The web site, votefortheworst.com actually took credit for encouraging that outcome.  Fortunately, Sanjaya never made it to the finals. Votefortheworst, however, has remained popular through the years. This past fall it was moblizing its many minions to vote for Bristol, but so did many conservative websites. Hillbuzz.org, for example, provided instructions and phone numbers for Team Bristol and encouraged its rank and file to vote early and often. 

 When Brandy, who received far better scores from the judges, was eliminated and Bristol made it to the finals instead,  there were outcries of "foul play." Further, the sight of Sarah Palin in the audience transformed Dancing With the Stars into "Dancing with the Former VP Candidate's Daughter."  This so-called "voting controversy" suddenly became a metaphor for the run-up to the 2012 elections and it even became a major news event.

I happen to be a big fan of the Dancing with the Stars and have watched every single cycle. However, this was the first time I actually voted. Don't ask me who I voted for, because I'll never tell.

In brief, here's how the voting process works on DWTS.  Each couple's score is based on a 50/50 average of the judges scores and the public votes.  The public can vote for their favorite dancers each week by using any combination of these three methods:  toll-fee phone calls, the ABC/DWTS website and text messages.  The maximum number of votes allowed per method is equal to either the number of couples performing or five votes, whichever is greater.  According to exec. producer, Conrad Green, on the final night of competition a record number of votes came in which overwhelmed their  servers and phone lines. Exactly how many votes came in per contestant? Who knows?

In the end, sentimental favorite Jennifer Grey took home the mirrorball trophy, Kyle Massey finished second and Bristol Palin finshed third. So, while the best dancer actually won, we won't know by how much because the final tallies are not released to the public.  The producers knew that keeping BP around to the finals would heighten public interest and boost ratings levels. However, if they allowed her to actually take home the trophy, the Dancing with the Stars franchise would have been damaged.  To be fair, there's not a single talent competition show (including the above mentioned American Idol) that discloses its public voting distribution either.

Back in the fifties there were major scandals involving popular game shows including The $64,000 Question and Twenty-One.   Contestants who were deemed to be more popular with advertiser sponsors and better liked by audiences would often be supplied the answers in advance. That way, viewers would return week after week to root for their favorite contestants; ratings would stay high, sponsors would be happy and execs would be giving each other high fives (or whatever they did back then).  The story of the Twenty-One scandal was brilliantly retold in the 1994 movie, "Quiz Show."  Reigning champion Herb Stempel was forced to take a dive so the more popular contestant Charles Van Doren would win. Stempel blew the whistle on the producers which led to congressional hearings. In 1960, an ammendment was passed that made it illegal for producers to rig quiz show outcomes. By the way, for those of you who have yet to see this wonderful film, you can purchase a copy by clicking here: Quiz Show DVD 

Of course this ammendment doesn't extend to disclosing public voting results on reality shows, so if something less-than-above board is taking place, there is no way of legally calling it into question.  By no means am I suggesting that there should be a congressional investigation into the matter (there are certainly far more pressing issues on their plate), but I for one, would like to see a bit more disclosure and I am quite sure, so would viewers. 

Perhaps one day the secrets behind reality show voting will be revealed. In the meantime, I am already envisioning another hilarious SNL WikileaksTMZ sketch. (For those of you who may not know, that was the ficticious website featured during last week's cold opener). You can check out that WikileaksTMZ sketch by clicking on the link.

 

 

Welcome to The Brill Beat

I would like to introduce myself to you. My name is Shari Anne Brill. I am a media industry analyst who previously headed up programming and strategic audience practices on the advertising agency side of the media business.

My intention is for The Brill Beat to be your "go-to" destination for observations and opinions regarding the media landscape. This blog will cover a broad range of topics including (but not limited to) video content, consumer technology, pop culture trends, audience insights and research issues.

I hope that you find my commentary to be fact-based, informative, insightful, somewhat provocative, and hopefully, a fun read. I also welcome your comments, so please don't be shy. 

You can also follow me via Twitter (@shariannebrill).

Thanks,

Shari Anne Brill