IMPLEMENTING A MEDIA

CONSUMPTION MODEL

Don E. Schultz Martin P. Block Joseph J. Pilotta

A theoretical media consumption rather than a media distribution model was proposed at the ESOMAR 2004 WAM conference to provide understanding of how media advertising works in the 21st century. This paper reports on how the model was populated with data from the Fall 2004 SIMM Study (SIMmultaneous Media). The authors demonstrate the model can be populated, and provide new learnings on cross-andsimultaneous media usage and consumption. How foreground and background media can be identified is also demonstrated. A clustering model of audience media consumption suggests radically different methods of media planning going forward. Steps for the future of media planning summarize the next research initiatives.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta

BACKGROUND ON THE MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

At the 2004 ESOMAR WAM Conference, Professors Don E. Schultz, Northwestern and Joseph J. Pilotta, Ohio State, presented the paper: Developing the Foundation for a New Approach to Understanding How Media Advertising Works (Schultz and Pilotta, 2004). They hypothesized that as substantial changes had recently occurred in the advertising landscape, a new model of how media advertising works was needed. They posited that media advertising impact could likely be explained by measuring audience media consumption rather than through the traditional advertising message distribution model. They based their approach with three core issues: 1) the advertising industrys reliance on derived assumptions of how media advertising works, rather than on provable measures; 2) their marketplace observations of available new data sources and measurement techniques; and 3) the advertising industrys reliance on outbound, efficiencyoriented message distribution systems to define advertising impacts and effects. All, they suggested need to be re-thought.

THREE CRITICAL CHANGES DRIVE MEDIA ADVERTISING UNDERSTANDING

Schultz and Pilotta posited three critical marketplace changes which they believe support their media consumption model. 1. Simultaneous Media Consumption Advertisers have always known consumers multi-task with media, i.e., flipping through a newspaper while in front of the TV, listening to radio while thumbing through a magazine, and so on. Yet, these consumer media behaviors have received little advertiser or researcher attention since the historic focus has been on distributing media advertising, not on understanding its impacts or effects. Starting in 2003, BIG Research began studying simultaneous media consumption (SIMM Studies). Data came from consumer-reported, onlinegathered research about consumer media usage along with consumer-reported purchase preferences and behaviors. Conducted twice yearly, with a statistically projectable national consumer base each time, the research is delineated on the basis of the 14 age/sex cells found in the 2000 U.S. census. The research, now in its sixth iteration, has found widespread consumer simultaneous media usage, usually in the range of 40% - 65%, depending on the specific media combinations. Thus, simultaneous media usage/ consumption is a fairly often occurrence in todays marketplace. SIMM studies also identify the media forms being simultaneously consumed, and the amount

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model of time devoted to each media form, both individually and simultaneously. This evidence of simultaneous media consumption likely changes many of the traditional rules of media analysis that have been in place for years. 2. A Cognitive Model of Consumer Behavior Great strides have been made in understanding how the human brain works. Using neural network research, brain scans and Magnetic Response Imaging (MRI), researchers have developed new understandings of consumer information processing. Now commonly referred to as cognitive psychology (Zaltman, 2003), these findings challenge traditional behaviorist views. Rather than the behaviorist teaching and learning model, (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961 and Colley, 1961), cognitive psychologists suggest advertising information is acquired continuously from multiple sources, stored often subconsciously in the brain, and then assessed and assembled on demand by the individual. Clearly, today consumers are active media seekers, choosing what forms of media they will attend to, when and how often. (BIGResearch, 2004). They are not passive receivers who can be moved through some type of hierarchy at the will of the advertiser. Further, cognitive concepts raise major questions about traditional advertising research techniques using consumer questionnaires about products, services and advertising. All assume consumer knowledge is stored in conscious memory (Zaltman, 2003) which is likely incorrect. Traditional media advertising research, therefore, may not provide very accurate methods of explaining how media advertising exposures actually work or how media itself is consumed. 3. Cross-Media Synergy Since media audiences are simultaneously using multiple forms of advertisingladen media, cross-media interactions and synergy become critical in understanding how media advertising works. Marketers have tried to estimate media synergy in the past but few models have been successful or accepted. The most prevalent is an approach, the Media Imperative, developed by Appel (1975). Yet there is little if any proof that this concept is accurate in todays marketplace. Media Imperatives provide a relevant model if one assumes separately placed media by the advertiser and separately consumed media by the audience. In a simultaneous-usage intensive marketplace, serious questions arise. Naik and Raman (2003), using advanced analytical techniques, have been able to identify and measure cross-media marketplace synergy. They have demonstrated methods that parse out the interaction and synergy among two media forms when used together either simultaneously or sequentially in the

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta marketplace. They found some media combinations are simply not additive, i.e., one media exposure added to another in a different media form do not result in two exposures. Instead, aggregated exposures may become multiplicative or actually offset or even destroy the value of the other when combined by consumers. Although the impact and effect of media synergy is a critical issue in understanding how media advertising works, this type of analysis has been little used in media advertising models and even less used in media measurement.

HOW MEDIA ADVERTISING WORKS BASED ON A MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

Using the basic concepts and the three marketplace observations, Schultz and Pilotta developed a consumption model of how media advertising likely works and which was presented at the 2004 ESOMAR/ARF WAM Conference, Geneva, June 2004. Figure 1 MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

R e sp o n s e
P o t e n t ia l F ra g m e n ta t io n O f A t t e n t io n (M e s s a g e Im p a c t D il u t e d ) P o t e n t ia l S y n e rg y V ia S im u l ta n e o u s M e d ia U s a g e (M e s s a g e s R e in f o rc e d )

M e d ia C o n su m e r

M e d ia E x p os u re

M e d ia E x p os u re

M e d ia E x p os u re

F o re g ro u n d / B a c k g ro u n d M e d ia T im e A llo c a t e d T o E a c h M e d ia F o r m

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model As shown, the model is based on the media consumer, not the media advertiser. The audience determines media exposure, not the media delivery system. The consumer selects the media form(s) they will access and use. They determine the amount of time they will spend. Thus, consumers define the number of advertising messages to which they will be exposed, not the advertiser, no matter how much money he or she spends or how pervasive the messages might be. SIMM Studies provide consumer-reported estimates of time spent with each of 27 separate media forms. Media exposure by media form and individual provide the base for the media consumption model. In the SIMM studies, consumers also report when and what media forms are used simultaneously and in what combination, i.e., when television and online were used together, etc. When media advertising forms are used simultaneously, one is generally dominant, i.e., the person is watching television but also flipping through a magazine. Weve termed these media exposures foreground(dominant) and background (secondary). Importantly, consumers can shift their focus from one medium to the other and then back in an instant. This ability to shift from one media form to another raises the question of whether media is processed sequentially or in parallel (Bluedorn et al, 1992). Clearly, not all consumers process information or access or use media in the same way (Blumler, 1979; Buchholz and Smith, 1991). Thus, there likely is no mass media audience per se. There are simply large numbers of people doing many of the same general things, perhaps at the same time, but in radically different ways. Therefore, media distribution models cannot likely explain how media advertising works, particularly in a simultaneous media usage environment. Thus we argue the media the consumer selects and the way that media exposure time is spent provides a better explanation. In the process of media consumption, and the attendant advertising being delivered through those media, the audience is impacted by two other factors. One is the previously discussed synergy between media forms. This synergy occurs when the same message appears in multiple media forms whether they are presented sequentially, i.e., one after the other, or, in parallel, that is, at the same time. Naik and Raman (2003) demonstrate that this synergy can either enhance or detract from the impact that either one of the individual media have on the media consumer. Given that consumers determine the media they consume, the sequence or simultaneity of that consumption, the duration of that consumption and the mental method in which the exposed information is taken in, processed, stored and used, an advertising message distribution model of how media advertising

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta works today appears to be far too simplistic. An audience media consumption model would seem to be superior in spite of its inherent measurement challenges. Based on the response of the 2004 WAM Conference participants, the model we proposed has been populated with data from the Fall 2004 SIMM Study. First, however, we digress to comment on the relevance of and support for the incidence of simultaneous media usage.

BACKGROUND ON MEDIA CONSUMPTION AND SIMULTANEOUS MEDIA USAGE

Since the 2004 WAM Conference, the proposed media consumption model has been presented and discussed on four continents with both academics and practitioners. A frequent question has been We know simultaneous media usage occurs, but, is it really possible? Isnt it likely the media forms are simply being used sequentially in shorter time frames rather than being processed in parallel? Thats a legitimate question since most traditional media distribution models have assumed separate advertising message distribution and effects and, as a corollary, separate media form consumption over time. Thus, we watched television. We listened to radio. Separately and independently. Little thought was given to the possibility the media consumer might be using all those media forms simultaneously. The reason for this is because most audience measures of message distribution have been single-source, i.e., television viewing studies, newspaper reading studies, radio listening studies and so on. Those studies were developed to estimate the size of that media vehicles audience at some point in time. Again, determination of the potential number of messages being distributed, not the amount of media consumed. Thus, we might term current media audience measures temporal since they measure media distribution or potential for exposure. The SIMM Studies might be termed as experiential since they are based on media audience consumption. While both use time as a critical variable, the two approaches are dramatically different. A fairly substantial research stream exists that demonstrates that multitasking, or simultaneously doing more than one thing, is a fairly common human trait (Feldman and Hornik, 1981; Hendrick et al, 1968). Unfortunately, that research seems to have eluded advertising media researchers or planners. Thus, we review it briefly below since it is an important part of the media consumption experience. Human multi-tasking has commonly been referred to as polychronicity, i.e., the ability to engage in two or more tasks simultaneously (Bluedorn et al, 1992). When a person watches television and reads a newspaper at the same

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model time, they are practicing polychronicity (what we term simultaneous media usage). This human behavior occurs widely in other areas, certainly beyond media usage. The historic use of polychronicity has focused on how people use their time (Kaufman et al, 1991). This relates directly to our view of media consumption. Media consumers decide what medium or media they will access, when and how they will consume it and in what manner, all done separately and individually. While some media consumption does occur in groups, each individual determines how they will process each media form or combination of media, i.e., whether sequentially or in parallel with other media forms. Thus, only the media consumer can truly confirm whether or not the media was actually consumed at a certain point in time and whether or not the attendant advertising was included in that consumption. External measurement systems may suggest the presence and exposure of the consumer in the media distribution channel, but only the media consumer can attend to it. A second key point is why consumers attend to various media forms. There is substantial literature outlining the uses and gratification of various media (Buchholz and Smith, 1991; MacInnis and Price, 1987; Blumer, 1979). While this may be important in understanding why and how media are selected, we do not attempt to explain how media choice decisions were made. We are interested in the reported behaviors of media choice and levels of consumption. Thus, the SIMM data, in which consumers report their media behaviors, provide sufficient inputs for the model developed. The third key concept, particularly in simultaneous media consumption, is whether or not people can actually consume more than one medium at a time. That is, can respondents concurrently process the information being distributed through multiple media forms? Again, there is fairly extensive academic research suggesting people use their time along a continuum (Bluedorn et al, 1992; Hall, 1983; Hall and Hall, 1990). One end is bounded by monochronicism, that is, people who engage in only one activity at a time. To accomplish multiple tasks, they allocate time to the various activities, sequentially. At the other end of the continuum are people who engage in multiple activities at the same time, i.e., polychronicism. They manage multiple tasks through parallel processed and managed activities likely based on information that has been processed in parallel, for example, a mother feeding the baby, talking on the telephone with a neighbor while at the same time jotting down items for a shopping trip later than afternoon. All three tasks are being accomplished essentially at the same time, i.e., polychronistically. We argue some media consumers do the same thing with media exposures, that is, they process them in parallel, thus the results of our SIMM studies.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta When these concepts of polychronicity and our new understanding of cognitive consumer psychology are related to media usage, it is clear portions of the media-consuming population can simultaneously engage in media consumption, and likely advertising message consumption too, using several media forms at the same time. In summary, the critical ingredients for populating our media consumption model are a) the media form selected by the audience member for consumption, b) the amount of time devoted to each medium individually (we use time as the key variable since we have no measure for attention), c) to various media forms simultaneously, i.e., degree of monochronic or polychronic behavior, and d) explanatory variables that provide insights into how the content of the media consumed has, is or might impact the media consumers behavior.

POPULATING THE MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

The data used was derived from BIGresearchs fall 2004 Simultaneous Media Usage Study (SIMM) of 14,039 respondents surveyed from 23 September to 2 December 2004. All online responses from double opt-in email respondents were collected. The surveys are anonymous, self-administered and free of interviewer bias. The questions asked are grouped under 10 basic categories; demographics, lifestyle, media influence on spending, frequency of purchases online, website most often shopped, seeking advice before buying, frequency of giving advice before purchase, retail shopping and planned purchases, media behavior, census region and other factors. Questionnaires are designed to be completed and returned very quickly. A sample stratification system tied to market realities ensures an adequate representation of all consumer groups defined by age, sex, income, and geographic distribution. Fourteen samples were taken simultaneously: seven age groups for males and seven age groups for females. These fourteen large samples are combined into a master sample, usually between 10,000 to 15,000 respondents. Samples of this size enable detailed cross-tabulation and a more accurate measurement of the various market groups. Each cross-tabulation is dynamically balanced. BIGresearch, as an online research company, adheres to a survey standards policy based upon a well posed random sample weighted to reflect the total U.S. population. A similar policy has been adopted by other research organizations, i.e. American Demographics. A recent technical review of the the research companys data collection process methodology and the application of computer intensive statistics to analyze and manage the data was conducted by Jerome Friedman, Professor and former Chairman, Department of Statistics, Stanford University.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model For purposes of this paper, several variables were re-coded or combined. Time spent with the media was re-coded into minutes per day (1,440 maximum). The top category was open-ended (four hours or more), thus, maximum time spent with any medium by any individual was 270 minutes per day. Media usage reports may therefore be conservative. Weekday (five days, Monday Friday) times were averaged with weekend times (two days, Saturday Sunday). Media influence was asked in the context of seven product categories, i.e., a) electronics, b) apparel/clothing, c) grocery, d) home improvement, e) automobiles, f) pharmaceutical and g) travel. These were averaged to provide the overall influence proportions. Simultaneous media usage was measured at three levels: a) regularly, b) occasionally and c) never. To simplify the analysis, regularly was assumed to mean 70% of the time and occasionally was assumed to mean 30% or more of the time. In addition to media usage, respondents were asked questions about recent purchases in the seven categories along with anticipated future purchases. Retailers identified are the first mentioned as the overall favorite retailer in a particular product category.

MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MODEL FOUR AREAS

Schultz and Pilotta suggested four elements could populate the media consumption model: 1) time devoted to media consumption by media form; 2) when, how often and with which media forms simultaneous usage occurred; 3) evidence of the presence of foreground and background media and the classification of those media by form; and 4) evidence of media synergy, that is, the enhancement of or detraction resulting from various media combinations. We provide results of the first three model specifications. Media synergy studies are currently underway but not ready to report. The results of the model specifications based on Wave 5 of the SIMM studies are: 1. Time Consumed with Various Media Forms Respondents to SIMM Studies are provided a list of 27 media forms ranging from television to direct mail to Yellow Pages. These include a number of interactive media as well; i.e., the Internet, Web Pages and the like. Table 1 clearly shows media usage is pervasive among SIMM respondents. All media forms are used, and, many quite extensively by a large portion of respondents. Assuming a total of 1,440 available minutes per day (24 hours x 60 minutes) media usage is clearly one of the primary daily activities of the average respondent.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

10

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta Table 1 AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION AS A PERCENT OF THE DAY FALL 2004 (1,440 MINUTES)
Minutes TV Internet Radio Newspaper Magazines Direct Mail 145.6 128.6 74.6 36.4 29.0 20.4 Percent of day 10.1 8.9 5.2 2.5 2.0 1.4

While television and the internet account for a disproportionate amount of reported media consumption, media forms requiring reading still also account for a substantial amount of time. Television is often considered the primary advertising delivery form for many marketers. Interestingly, approximately 22 percent of SIMM respondents report no television usage at all. When non-television users are excluded from the survey analysis, TV usage rises to nearly 185 minutes per day, close to what traditional media rating services have found. (See table 2.) Table 2 SAMPLE INCLUDES THOSE THAT REPORT WATCHING NO TV
Average minutes Total sample Exclude No TV 145.57 185.84 Percent of sample 100.0 78.3*

Maximum minutes capped at 270 per day. * 21.7% excluded

Somewhat surprising was the empty quintile of media consumers. While one might understand the lack of television usage by a portion of the total media audience, its hard to explain the nearly 22% of the sample who reported no media usage among the 27 media forms requested. Figure 2 below shows the anomaly.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model Figure 2 ALL MEDIA CONSUMPTION BY QUINTILES

90 0

11

80 0

70 0

60 0

M in utes p er Day

50 0

40 0

30 0

20 0

10 0

3
M ed ia Q u in tile s

Since SIMM studies are conducted online, respondents had to be using the internet simply to log survey response. Apparently, they did not consider online as a media form. Advertisers clearly do, commonly budgeting for and buying various online media as part of their go-to-market media strategies. SIMM respondents dont perceive media in that way. This raises major concerns about whether a difference exists in how advertisers and consumers see and consider media. If so, that could raise major questions about our media measurement systems. Advertisers and their agencies may need to re-evaluate their media terminology, bringing it more in line with how consumers define media to avoid future confusion. An interesting insight into common media advertising lore vs. what is really happening is a comparison between SIMM reported media consumption in Fall vs. Spring 2004. As shown in table 3 below, reported usage of media in Fall 2004 was generally some 15% - 20% less than that of Spring of the same year. For example, reported media usage declined by nearly 17% for newspapers, by nearly 20% for direct mail. Other media form usage declines fell in between. Media audiences clearly are not stable throughout the year, with considerable ebb and flow. That raises some additional questions about the sweeps type of measurement system used with broadcast media and their accuracy in reflecting the actual audiences for various media vehicles during non-measurement times.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

12

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta Table 3 AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION IN MINUTES PER DAY MEDIA TURN-OFF FROM POLITICAL SEASON?
Fall 2004 TV Internet Radio Newspaper Magazines Direct Mail 145.6 128.6 74.6 36.4 29.0 20.4 Spring 2004 179.6 156.8 101.6 43.7 35.6 25.3 Change -34.0 -28.2 -27.0 -7.3 -6.6 -5.0 Percent -18.9 -18.0 -26.5 -16.6 -18.5 -19.6

In Fall 2004, television ratings services reported substantial declines in viewing by younger men. SIMM data suggests major declines occurred in all age categories, not just men, and those declines occurred in all media forms. In the mid-1970s, Appel presented the concept of Media Imperatives (Appel, 1975), suggesting that media forms are replicable/substitutable. While Appel may have been right in the mid-1970s, the concept of Media Imperatives does not seem appropriate today even though it does seem to have its adherents. Table 4 AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION BY TOP QUINTILES
Top Quintiles TV Internet Radio Print (News & mags) All media Total TV 270.0 211.3 190.6 204.9 238.0 145.6 Internet 199.3 267.3 177.1 187.4 231.4 128.6 Radio 97.5 103.1 220.9 114.1 160.5 74.6 News 55.6 54.7 57.0 105.7 87.5 36.4 Mags 43.4 44.8 44.5 81.4 67.1 29.0 Direct 32.0 35.3 30.7 40.0 45.7 20.4

When we populate the media consumption model, there are few single Media Imperatives found. If the audience does not use one medium, they likely do not use another. In other words, there are clearly people who use very little media and those who use a substantial amount. SIMM data shows that if the

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model audience uses one medium, they tend to use many media. If they are heavy media users in one form, they are heavy media users in all others. Thus, the idea that an advertiser can reach certain target audiences by substituting one medium for another or adding another media form does not appear viable. Today, all media are Imperatives for some media consumers and there are no media Imperatives for others. 2. A Radical New Media Segmentation Approach Consistent with the findings above, additional analysis was conducted on media consumption patterns among SIMM respondents. If Media Imperatives are not relevant, how might one go about identifying specific media audiences to gain insights into media usage? Consumers obviously access various media for specific reasons. Some historic research in this area exists (Buchholz and Smith, 1991; Blumler, 1979). The problem is these studies focus primarily on single, not multiple media usage, i.e., why do people watch television or why do they read newspapers? (Smith and Reinhardt, 1997). We have been unable to find studies or research to this point that looks at consumers using multiple media either sequentially or simultaneously. Thus, we have found little research to provide insights into why individuals or audience groups use or dont use multiple or no forms of media. Simultaneous media consumption indicates a consumer-driven need or at least a demonstrable consumer capability to parallel process information from incoming media sources. Earlier, we discussed monochronic-polychronic capabilities and consumers time allocation. Further analysis was conducted to gain additional insights. One notion is that consumers are constructing internal resource networks for themselves. These are used to solve problems, meet challenges and enable them to conduct a very complex lifestyle. Our premise is each consumer develops his or her own internal network of information sources. They turn to these networks when faced with any type of decision. For example, they may rely on their own experience. They may ask another person. They may seek answers through the web or through the internet. Or, they may simply observe what is occurring around them. These internal networks develop, expand and change on a continuous basis as needed (Schultz et al, 2005). Each person continually updates his or her network for present and future use. If this hypothesis is true, some people likely continuously seek to expand their information networks through various forms of media usage, including wordof-mouth, while others are content to accumulate information as it occurs.

13

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

14

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta Simultaneous media consumption may well be explained by how people use their time and the media, i.e., monochronically or polychronically. Simultaneous media consumption could well indicate polychromic or parallel processing, while single media usage may signal a monochromic and sequential approach. Thus, we might group consumers based on their use of media, how they allocate their time and how they process information. Table 5 is a first attempt to segment or better said, aggregate audiences based on media consumption, reported usage patterns, propensity to accept or give information and the information delivery capability of the specific media form which they report using and the various combinations of media they employ while engaged in media consumption. Table 5 CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Speed Cluster 1 Low Media (the zeros) Cluster 2 Linear Media Consumers Cluster 3 Information Hounds Cluster 4 Network Creators Overall Network
(% influenced) (% simultaneous)

Media time 19 480 554 678 434

% of total 22% 38% 17% 22% 100%

3.3 9.3 37.3 12.7 14.0

4.0 10.4 19.6 29.2 13.8

In the table above we assume simultaneous media usage indicates a polychronic approach to time allocation and the ability to parallel process the media accessed. Further, we classify the media forms based on how quickly information is available from that source, i.e., access time, updating, currency and the like. We hypothesized these two variables would provide an indication of a) whether the person was creating or adding to his or her internal network and b) whether or not the person gave or sought information from others. If the person was creating their own internal information network, it seemed logical the faster they could obtain information, the better. Variables for the number of times simultaneous media usage occurred in the SIMM data ranged between 0 and 16. Giving and receiving advice was operationalized by using the media influence responses from the SIMM data. (A major section of the

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model SIMM study asks: How much influence does each media form have on your purchasing decisions?) These variables ranged from 0 to 14. Speed was operationalized by media form, i.e., the web and internet deliver information quickly, while magazines and outdoor are relatively slower in distributing their messages. Correlational analysis indicated that speed was only weakly correlated to the network creation variable (slightly over 0.3). (See the appendix for the technical details on how the cluster analysis was developed and implemented.) Cluster analysis was conducted to understand why simultaneous media consumption occurred and what we believe it means. As shown above, the data formed four basic clusters. The Zeros are the same 20% or so of the population who consume, or at least perceive they consume, little or no media. (See figure 2 above) Cluster 2 appears to be the traditional, sequentially processing monochronic media users. We have dubbed them Linear Media Users. They tend to be the audience which has traditionally been assumed by advertisers and media owners. They have little need for speed, they accept information as it occurs and they make little effort to multi-task in any way. They also tend to be information receivers rather than information givers based on their reported data in the SIMM studies. Clusters 3 and 4 seem to be heavily influenced by the internet and forms of instant information access and use. We have called Cluster 3 the Information Hounds. These are heavy media users and also heavy information givers. They may be the group who use the media intensively for multiple reasons, i.e., entertainment, games, leisure, etc. along with information gathering. They are likely the advocators and word-of-mouth deliverers of information to others. They use substantial amounts of media, use media forms that deliver information quickly and appear to be more polychronic in their use of media consumed, i.e., using the media to gather information so they can provide expertise to others. Cluster 4 appears to be the internal Network Creators. That is, they are heavy media consumers but gather information at slower speeds, i.e., tending to use media forms with more difficult access and less speed. They continuously monitor the media they consume, some of it monochronically and some polychronically. These may well represent the hard to identify influencers, the base of people who comprise groups such as Gladwells Tipping Point where they heavily impact others through their activities, visibility and comments. (Gladwell, 2002).

15

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

16

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta While in its early stages, there is enough evidence to suggest media audiences can be segmented and/or aggregated in ways quite different than simple demographics or even psychographics. It is here that the SIMM studies may have their greatest impact. Analysis of how consumers access and consume the media clock time (time of consumption) and by factors such as monochronic (sequential) or polychronic (parallel) experiential time usage may also indicate why and how the reported media consumption occurred. Aggregation and clustering techniques may provide interesting new analytical approaches to understanding how media advertising works from a consumers, not an advertisers, view. 3. Simultaneous Media Consumption The SIMM data has enabled us to expand our understanding of audience media consumption and simultaneous media usage. Simultaneous media usage occurs among all forms of media. (See Chart #8) Thus, it is not restricted to a limited number of media forms nor is it consistent among those media forms. Some media do, however, have greater simultaneous use than others. Table 6 SIMULTANEOUS CONSUMPTION PERCENT
Foreground Background Difference Online Watch TV Mail Watch TV Newspaper Watch TV Online Listen to the radio Magazines Watch TV Mail Listen to the radio Radio Read the newspaper Online Read the mail Magazines Listen to the radio Online Read the newspaper Radio Watch TV Online Read magazines 25.7 23.7 22.4 18.3 18.8 15.7 14.3 13.9 12.8 7.2 7.7 6.2 21.8 19.4 16.1 16.1 14.2 14.0 14.0 10.2 11.0 5.7 4.0 5.0 3.9 4.3 6.3 2.2 4.7 1.7 0.3 3.7 1.9 1.5 3.7 1.2 Total 47.5 43.0 38.5 34.4 33.0 29.7 28.2 24.1 23.8 12.9 11.7 11.2

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model Online and television are the dominant media forms consumed by SIMM respondents. Thus, the incidence of simultaneous usage is naturally greater. Interestingly, however, all media forms are consumed simultaneously at some time or another, i.e., there are few truly single usage media forms. This raises some interesting questions about how media audiences can be identified and measured. For example, do single medium usage reports have much value if simultaneous media usage is so prevalent? Foreground and background media forms do exist, at least for consumers. We have developed a method for determining foreground and background media usage. Table 6 above also provides the comparisons necessary for that calculation. To identify foreground and background media, we compared two measures of the same media combination. In the SIMM questionnaire, respondents were asked, When you are online, do you watch TV? and 25.7% of respondents said they did. The question was then reversed and asked as When you are watching TV do you go online?, and 21.8% of the SIMM respondents said they did. While the media consumption forms are the same, using online and television simultaneously, the consumer considered one to be primary and the other to be secondary. The difference between the two responses gives the 3.9% difference shown. Thus consumers can clearly identify foreground and background media, even if advertisers cannot. Table 7 ONLINE TENDS TO BE FOREGROUND
Foreground Background Difference Online Watch TV Online Read the mail Online Listen to the radio Online Read the newspaper Online Read magazines 25.7 13.9 18.3 7.2 6.2 21.8 10.2 16.1 5.7 5.0 3.9 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.2 Total 47.5 24.1 34.4 12.9 11.2

17

TV TENDS TO BE FOREGROUND
Foreground Background Difference TV Listen to the radio TV Go online TV Read the mail TV Read magazines TV Read the newspaper 4.0 21.8 19.4 14.2 16.1 7.7 25.7 23.7 18.8 22.4 -3.7 -3.9 -4.3 -4.7 -6.3 Total 11.7 47.5 43.0 33.0 38.5

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

18

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta In the SIMM Fall, 2004 study, online tended to always be the foreground medium among the six major media. Television was generally the background medium. Although results are only from the Fall 2004 SIMM study, if they hold in the future they raise questions about the traditional media notion that TV is the dominant medium and should always lead the media plan. Using SIMM data to populate the media consumption model, we can identify which media forms are used simultaneously. We can also identify which is the foreground and which is the background medium in these simultaneous usage situations. These media differentiations raise major questions about what is a media audience? How should media be bought? How should media be scheduled, etc.? 4. Evidence of Media Synergy Our fourth consideration was media synergy, i.e., how media forms interact when used at the same time in the marketplace. We are presently conducting studies with Professor Naik, using some of his more advanced analytical techniques. Those studies are not yet complete. We do have some early concepts that suggest media can be evaluated in new ways. One is to identify hard media, i.e., media that drive consumer marketplace responses and soft media, i.e., media that support and enhance the response to hard media. This provides further evidence that media forms are not just additive, they may well be multiplicative, and, in some instances, based on preliminary studies, it may be they conflict and reduce the impact of each other.

NEXT STEPS
Audience media consumption data is a superior method to help explain how media advertising works in the 21st century. Results presented here demonstrate: a) the data necessary to populate a media consumption model can be captured; b) various analytical techniques can be used to help illustrate and provide insights into what that media consumption means; c) we can explain and illustrate the impact of media multi-tasking by consumers to provide insights into how various media forms interact; and d) it is possible to use this type of consumer media consumption data to develop some interesting and perhaps unique ways of thinking about how advertisers might develop more effective media plans.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model Some of the areas we plan to investigate going forward are:
{

19

Word-of-mouth is generally cited as the most important media influence form in the SIMM studies. Little is known about how media consumption and word-of-mouth are related. There may well be relationships between media consumption and consumer reliance on word-of-mouth. Likewise, there may well be other connections between consumer media consumption and the propensity to either seek or give advice about products and services, i.e., the amount of advocacy engaged in by the individual consumer. The idea of media planning clusters has great intuitive appeal. This type of analysis can be considerably extended into: a) intent to purchase various product categories; b) by preferred retailer; c) by stated ownership such as pets or snowboards or vacation homes and the like; or, d) even by interest factors such as sports, gaming and the like. When consideration is given to how consumers allocate their time, media usage is only one factor. It may well be there are direct correlations between media consumption and other consumer activities and interests. A better understanding of heavy and light media consumers is important. If a large portion of the population does not believe they consume any media, that raises serious questions about why and how this occurs. Are consumers turning off to media or are they simply finding other, more valuable uses for their time? In a media-pervasive society, it is hard to imagine there are large numbers of people who say they dont consume media. What sources or resources do they use to obtain the information necessary for them to survive in an increasingly complex society and how might advertising be developed to reach them?

Much work is still to be done. This report illustrates that a media consumption model can be a viable and useful new tool for understanding how media advertising works in the 21st century marketplace. Hopefully it can assist in making advertising work better for both advertisers and consumers.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

20 REFERENCES

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta

Appel, Valentine. (1975). Magazine/Television Audience Segmentation Analysis: The Media Imperative. Address to the Annual Advertising Research Foundation Conference. BIGresearch. (2004). Simultaneous Media Usage Study (SIMM) Executive Briefing. Worthington, OH: BIGresearch. Bluedorn, Allen C., Carol Felker Kaufman and Paul M. Lane. (1992). How Many Things Do You Like to Do at Once? An Introduction to Monochronic and Polychronic Time. Academy of Management Executive, Volume 6, No 4. Blumler, J. (1979). The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratifications Studies. Communication Research, Volume 6, 9-36. Buchholz, Laura M. and Robert E. Smith. (1991). The Role of Consumer Involvement in Determining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising. Journal of Advertising, Volume 20, Issue 1, 4-28. Colley, Russell H. (1961). Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results. New York, NY: Association of National Advertisers. Feldman, Laurance P. and Jacob Hornik. (1981). The Use of Time: An Integrated Conceptual Model. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 7 (March), 407-419) Gladwell, Malcolm. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Back Bay Press. Hall, Edward T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York, NY: Anchor Press. Hall, Edward T. and Mildred Reed Hall. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hendrick, C.; J. Mills and C.A. Kiesler. (1968). Decision Time as a Funstion of the number and Complexity of Equally Attractive Alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 8 (March), 313-318. Kaufman, Carol Feller, Paul M. Lane, and Jay D. Lindquist. (1991). Exploring More Than 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 18 (December), 392-401. Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 29, 349-356. Lavidge, R.C. and G.A. Steiner. (1961). A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (Oct.), p. 59-62 MacInnis, D.J. and L.L. Price. (1987). The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 13 (March), 473-491. Naik, Prasad A. and Kalyan Raman. (2003). Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 40 (November), Issue 4, pp.375-389

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF

Implementing a media consumption model

Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927). Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Schultz, Don E., Ilchul Kim, Kerry Lenahan. (2005). Foundations for a New, ConsumerMediated Marcom Model, Working paper. Schultz, Don E. and Joseph J. Pilotta. (2004). Developing the Foundation for a New Approach to Understanding How Media Advertising Works. Proceedings of the ESOMAR/ARF Worldwide Audience Conference, Geneva. Skinner, B.F. (1950). Are Theories of Learning Necessary? Psychological Review, Volume 57, pp. 193-216. Smith, Michael P. and Hazel Reinhardt. (1997). The Changing Reader: Understanding the Forces Changing Newspapers. Evanston, IL: Media Management Center of Northwestern University. Zaltman, Gerald. (2003). How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

21

THE AUTHORS
Don Schultz is Professor Emeritus-in-Service in Department of Integrated Marketing Communications, Northwestern University, Medill School Journalism; and President, Agora, Inc., United States. Martin P. Block is Professor in Department of Integrated Marketing Communications, Northwestern University, Medill School Journalism, United States. Joseph J. Pilotta is Vice President of Research, BIGresearch, United States.

Copyright by ESOMAR / The ARF