Program engagement has a significant impact on ad engagement. Neuroscience measures found a strong positive correlation between program engagement and the engagement of ads placed within those programs, particularly for ads in the first two positions. This "program halo effect" indicates that ad effectiveness is influenced by the surrounding programming context. Traditional metrics like GRPs do not necessarily reflect a program's true engagement level. Measuring program engagement provides insights that could improve ad placement strategies and TV upfront negotiations.

1. Program Engagement Power:
Programs Do Affect ad
Engagement
Steve Weaver
Network Research Director
Nine Network Australia

2. Background

3. Background

4. Background

5. Background
• TV currency a measure of airtime efficiency
• Cost per thousand the standard bearer of
airtime trade
• World rapidly changing
– CFO driven marketing
– ROI accountability
• Continual search to find measure of effectiveness
of advertising airtime

6. Problem
Engagement
“Turning on a prospect to a brand idea
enhanced by the surrounding context”
ARF Definition, December 2005

7. Engagement

8. Objective
• To establish a measure that is able to
demonstrate that commercial creative shown in
highly engaging content will generate a better
ROI than if shown in low engaging content
• That the measure can be simple to understand
• That the methodology is capable of adapting to
the changing media landscape and applied to
other mediums

9. Method
Neuroscience
6 S tan d ard B reak S ets
A B C D E F
S tan d a rd Ad B rea k D es ig n
O rd e r A 1 P ro m o T V C 1 E T V C 2 R T V C 3 E T V C 4 R
O rd e r A 2 P ro m o T V C 1 R T V C 2 E T V C 3 R T V C 4 E
E = E m o tio n a l. R = R a tio n a l.
Mem. Enc. Bias
Ad PIB 1 0.55 0.01
Ad PIB 2 0.58 -0.03
Ad PIB 3 0.59 0.02
Ad PIB 4 0.55 -0.01

10. Method
The Detail
Achieving representative program content within the
“limitations” of a test environment
• Two groups of 50 respondents viewed segments of 12 programs
– Group A viewed programs 1 to 6
– Group B viewed programs 7 to 12
• Each program was followed by one of the 6 standardised
ad‐breaks
• For each group, the 6 programs and ad‐breaks were viewed
over a 60 minute test session
• The program:ad‐break pairs remained constant
– Eg: Ad‐break #1 always followed Program #1, etc
• To counteract potential order effects, the presentation order
of the program:ad‐break pairs was varied

11. Analysis
GRP’s – Airtime Value Based on Efficiency
Sarah Connor Chronicles 5
Friday Night Football 6.3
Farmer Wants a Wife 9.1
Funniest Home Videos 6.8
RPA (Observation Doco) 9.8
The Footy Show 7
60 Minutes 9.8
Getaway (Travel Show) 7.7
The Today Show 2.1
CSI: Miami 7
Canal Road (Local Drama) 5
Pushing Daiseys 0
Source: OzTAM

12. Analysis
Q Scores – Airtime Value Based on Claimed Engagement
Sarah Connor Chronicles 36
Friday Night Football 47
Farmer Wants a Wife 26
Funniest Home Videos 22
RPA (Observation Doco) 54
The Footy Show 31
60 Minutes 21
Getaway (Travel Show) 24
The Today Show 19
CSI: Miami 43
Canal Road (Local Drama) 29
Pushing Daiseys 0
Source: ADA Q Scores

13. Analysis
Memory Encoding
Sarah Connor Chronicles 0.9
Friday Night Football 0.73
Farmer Wants a Wife 0.73
Funniest Home Videos 0.71
RPA (Observation Doco) 0.7
The Footy Show 0.64
60 Minutes 0.64
Getaway (Travel Show) 0.6
The Today Show 0.59
CSI: Miami 0.55
Canal Road (Local Drama) 0.53
Pushing Daiseys 0.52
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

14. Analysis
0.9
0.85
y = 0.7162x + 0.1296
0.8 2
R = 0.5305
0.75
Ad Break Engagem ent
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Program Engagement
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

15. Analysis
Memory Encoding – Program and Pod Engagement
0 .9
Sarah Connor Chronicles 0.71
Friday Night Football 0 .7 3
0.57
0 .7 3
Farmer Wants a Wife 0.83
0 .7 1
Funniest Home Videos 0.64
0 .7
RPA (Observation Doco) 0.65
0 .6 4
The Footy Show 0.67
0 .6 4
60 Minutes 0.58
0 .6
Getaway (Travel Show) 0.51
The Today Show 0 .5 9
0.48
0 .5 5
CSI: Miami 0.55
0 .5 3
Canal Road (Local Drama) 0.5
0 .5 2
Pushing Daiseys 0.48
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

16. PEP Score
PEP – Program Engagement Power
Index of Program Engagement
Index of Engagement Conversion to Ad Break
Program Engagement Index Engagement Conversion Index
Program A Program Engagement = 0.9 Program A Program Engagement = 0.9
Program A Ad Break Engagement Score = .71
Program A Differential = 0.78
Database Average Program Database Average
Engagement = 0.65 Differential = 0.914
Program Engagement Index (Prog A) = Conversion Index (Prog A) =
(0.9/0.65)*100 (0.78/0.914)*100
= 138 = 85
PEP= 112

17. Analysis
PEP Score
Sarah Connor Chronicles 112
Friday Night Football 98
Farmer Wants a Wife 118
Funniest Home Videos 103
RPA (Observation Doco) 104
The Footy Show 106
60 Minutes 98
Getaway (Travel Show) 92
The Today Show 89
CSI: Miami 97
Canal Road (Local Drama) 92
Pushing Daiseys 90
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

18. Analysis
Cost per Engaged 000
Sarah Connor Chronicles $36
$40
Friday Night Football $34
$33
Farmer Wants a Wife $31
$37
Funniest Home Videos $25
$26
$19
RPA (Observation Doco) $20
$38
The Footy Show $40
60 Minutes $27
$26
Getaway (Travel Show) $30
$28
The Today Show $10
$9
CSI: Miami $62
$60
$21
Canal Road (Local Drama) $19
$0
Pushing Daiseys $0
Cost per 0 0 0 Cost per Engaged 0 0 0

19. Analysis
Ad Engagement is Affected by Program Engagement Halo
Spot engagement differs by program
TVC1 TVC2 TVC3 TVC4
0.9
0.81 0.76
0.8
0.69
0.7
0.62
0.59 0.56 0.55 0.55
Spot Engagement
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
A B
Program
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

20. Analysis
y = 1.2046x - 0.1746 y = 1.0691x - 0.1318
Program Ad1 Engagement Program Ad2 Engagement
R2 = 0.7127 R2 = 0.6548
1.00 0.90
0.80
0.80 0.70
0.60
Ad Eng
Ad Eng
0.60 AdBreak AdBreak
0.50
Linear (AdBreak) 0.40 Linear (AdBreak)
0.40
0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Program Eng Program Eng
Ad Positions 1 & 2 have the strongest relationship with Program Engagement
y = 0.5863x + 0.2125 y = 0.4416x + 0.2911
Program Ad3 Engagement 2 Program Ad4 Engagement 2
R = 0.3279 R = 0.1862
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
Ad Eng
Ad Eng
0.50 AdBreak 0.50 AdBreak
0.40 Linear (AdBreak) 0.40 Linear (AdBreak)
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Program Eng Program Eng
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

21. Analysis
Program Halo Effect
Correlations between program engagement and ad engagement
0.8
r2=0.71
0.7
r2=0.65
0.6 r2=0.57
0.5
0.4
r2=0.33
0.3
r2=0.19
0.2
0.1
Ad Break Ave. 1st in break 2nd in break 3rd in break 4th in break
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

22. Analysis
Program Halo Effect
Program
Engagement Halo
Ad Pod

23. Analysis
Program Halo Supports Previous Research on
Power of Solus
0.7
0.6
35%
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Neuroscience Std Pod Sport Engagement Sport Std Pod Sport Solus Ad
Global Average Engagement Break
Source: Neuro Insight Cricket Study

24. Analysis
Program Halo Supports True First in Break
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.64
9.4% 0.64
0.62 0.62
0.62
0.61
0.6
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.52
1st Ad in Break 2nd Ad in Break 3rd Ad in Break 4th Ad in Break
PIB
With Promo Without Promo
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

25. Analysis
Linking Back to More Commonly Accepted Measures
Correlation between PEP and Ad recall
0.45
y = 0.6499x - 0.1606
2
R = 0.4646
0.40
0.35
0.30
Ad Recall
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Program Engagement
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

26. Analysis
Linking Back to More Commonly Accepted Measures
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

27. Analysis
Linking Back to More Commonly Accepted Measures
Correlation between PEP and Ad recall
0.45
y = 0.6499x - 0.1606
2
R = 0.4646
0.40
0.35
0.30
Ad Recall
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Program Engagement
Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

28. Conclusions
• Program engagement using neuroscience measures do not
correlate with claimed engagement measures
• Traditional high GRP programs may not necessarily be highly
engaging
• Ad Effectiveness is affected by program
– Implications for traditional copy‐testing methods
• Program Engagement correlates strongest with PIB 1 & 2
– Implications for how broadcasters value last in break
• Program Engagement Halo wears off across the pod
– Implications for value of true first in break
– Implications for value of solus and shorter ad pods
• Program Engagement correlates with Ad Recall

29. Next Steps
• Extend Database for programs yet to air
– Make the model predictive
• Extend Database to multi‐platform
– Supplier already established similar finding for radio
• Test Market with supportive client to buy
schedule of high PEP programs vs standard
schedule in control market