1. Social TV Viewing,
Word of Mouth,
and Ad Effectiveness
Co-viewing and out-of-home viewing
 Gregg Liebman, SVP Turner Broadcasting
 Brad Fay, COO, Keller Fay Group

2. Two Rival Models for Watching TV Together
(aka “Co-Viewing”)
 “Distraction” model
– The presence of other people
distracts people from on-screen
content, reducing value to advertiser
– See “How Co-viewing Reduces the
Effectiveness of TV Advertising”
(2011) by Steven Bellman et al.
 “Social Influence” model
– The presence of other people leads to
more emotional engagement and the
sharing of advertising content, leading
to higher ad effectiveness
– See The Face to Face Book, by Ed
Keller & Brad Fay, forthcoming from
Free Press in May 2012
Which is (more) correct?

3. The Distraction Model
 2011 Australian study by Bellman et al
– Literature review includes studies back to 1965 on
detrimental effects of co-viewing
– New study found one-third lower day-after ad
recall for commercials co-viewed vs. viewed alone
– Explanation was “loss of [mental] processing”
when others present
– Suggested advertisers “demand that they pay a
lower price for co-viewed spots”
 Caveats
– Only metric to show deterioration was “delayed”
ad recall after 24 to 36 hours; nothing about intent
or actual purchase
– Study acknowledged enhanced ad recall when
viewers talked about the commercials, suggesting
opportunity to “fine tune and ad’s creative so that
it deliberately generates talk among co-viewers”

4. The Social Model
 Has a long “pedigree” as well
– Personal Influence (Free Press: 1955) by
Katz & Lazarsfeld suggested that ads work
by fostering conversation (“two step flow”)
– Word of Mouth Advertising a strategy
offered by psychologist Ernest Dichter in
1966 HBR article
 More recent indications at ARF conferences
– NFL audiences have billions more conversations about advertisers than
non-audiences, during broadcast season
– Much higher advertiser WOM levels for “out of home” 2010 World Cup
audiences
– Sports & out of home audiences involve more “co-viewing” than usual—
could this be the reason why?

5. 2011 Turner Study Tested Social Model Directly
 Study related NBA Eastern Conference
Finals
– Six game series, Chicago vs. Miami, May 2011
 Keller Fay’s TalkTrack® WOM survey
expanded to measure WOM for ECF
advertisers
– With a booster sample, responses collected
from 2,240 males ages 18-54 during series
– Comparisons made to WOM levels during off
season (4,232 interviews); NBA regular
season (5,209) and early playoff rounds
(1,071)
 As with all TalkTrack® surveys
– Representative sample of consumers kept track of category/brand
conversations for 24 hours
– Brands recorded in a diary on open ended basis
– Survey collected details on conversations, media exposures (including NBA
viewing), and demographics

6. Focus on Advertiser WOM during ECF Broadcast
 Examined WOM levels for ‘$750K+ Advertisers’ and ‘Top 12’ according to ad spend
– Top 12 Advertisers
 T-Mobile, Adidas, Miller Lite, State Farm, McDonald’s, Hyundai, E-Trade, Disney
Studios (Cars 2 & Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Microsoft (Microsoft
Windows & Windows Phone), Chrysler/Dodge, Sprint, and Progressive.
– $750K+ Advertisers:
 In addition to the Top 12 Advertisers, those spending $750K+ include Apple (iPhone &
iPad), Gatorade, Taco Bell, Unilever (Degree & AXE), Coca Cola, and Heineken.

7. Findings
Turner NBA 2011 ECF Social Viewing
Study

8. Talk About Advertisers Increased During Playoffs
Projected Weekly Mentions of NBA Playoff Advertisers Among Men 18-54, in Millions
Off Season NBA Regular Season Early Playoffs Eastern Conference Finals
+39.9 Million
Overall
+30.1 Million
335.0 Overall
295.1 295.3 303.8
193.1
163.0 163.6 165.5
$750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers
Base: Brand Mentions Among Males 18-54 (Off Season, n=40,097; NBA Regular Season, n=52,162; Early Playoffs, n=10,812; Eastern Conference Finals, n=19,529)
NOTE: $750K+ & Top 12 Advertisers according to ad spend. Includes advertisers that were tracked during the entire time period examined.
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, Off Season Reflects June 14th – Oct. 24th, 2010; NBA Regular Season Reflects Oct. 25th, 2010 – Apr. 10th, 2011;
Early Playoffs Reflects April 11th – May 15th, 2011; Eastern Conference Finals Reflects May 16th – 29th, 2011.

9. 38% Followed NBA Playoffs Closely
% of Men 18-54 Following NBA Playoffs During Eastern Conference Finals
Very
Not At All, Closely, 20%
43%
Viewers – 38%
Somewhat
Closely, 18%
Only
Slightly, 19%
Base: Respondents (Males 18-54, n=2,240)
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

10. Over Two-in-Five Viewers Watched The Playoffs
Outside of Their Own Homes, In Social Settings
Specific Location of Eastern Conference Finals Viewership Among Male Viewers 18-54
At Home 93%
At Home Only (NET) 57%
At A Bar/Restaurant 28%
At Someone Else’s Home 24%
At Work 7%
Out of Home (NET) – 43%
While Traveling Between Places 3%
Someplace Else 3%
At An Airport 2%
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882)
NOTE: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Percentages do not add to
100%, as respondents may have watched the NBA playoffs in multiple locations.
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

11. Viewers Watched the Playoffs By Themselves and
Socially
% of Male Viewers 18-54 Watching NBA Playoffs “Very Frequently”
With/Without People During Eastern Conference Finals
By Yourself 48%
With Family/Friends 29%
With Acquaintances/Strangers 14%
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882)
NOTE: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs.
Figures in the chart represent those who reported "very frequently" watching playoffs with or without people, therefore, percentages will not add to 100.
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

12. Viewers Watched the Eastern Conference
Finals in a Variety of Scenarios
Dynamics of Eastern Conference Finals Viewership Among Male Viewers 18-54
At Home & Social* 29%
At Home & Not Social* 21%
Out of Home & Not Social* 20%
Out of Home & Social* 17%
Varied Viewer** 38%
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Viewers, n=882)
Note: “Viewers” are defined as respondents who said they “very frequently” or “somewhat closely” followed the 2011 NBA Playoffs. Percentages do not add to 100%,
as respondents were able to indicate multiple viewing scenarios.
*Defined as respondents who watched at specified location (or net of locations) and indicated they were “very frequently” by themselves, with friends/family, or acquaintances/strangers.
**Those who were not frequently watching by themselves, with friends/family, or acquaintances/strangers
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®: May 16th – May 29th, 2011

13. Men Who Followed the Playoffs Were More Likely
Than Non-Viewers to Talk About Advertisers
% of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to Total
Non-Viewer Viewers (NET) Follow Somewhat Closely Follow Very Closely
114 121
111 109 113 107
89 85
$750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922; Viewers (NET), n=882; Follow Somewhat Closely, n=425; Follow Very Closely, n=457)
NOTE: Viewers (NET) includes those who “very” or “somewhat” closely followed the NBA playoffs, but not those who “only slightly” followed the games.
Non-viewers includes men who reported “not at all” following the playoffs.
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

14. Out-of-Home Viewers of NBA Playoffs Far More Likely to
Talk About Advertisers, Especially the Top 12 Spenders
% of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to Total
Non-Viewer At Home Out of Home (NET)*
At Someone Else’s Home At Work At A Bar/Restaurant
186
151 157 151
145 145 139
132
113 115
89 85
$750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: At Home, n=823; Out of Home (NET)*, n=378; At Someone Else’s Home, n=204; At Work, n=60; At A Bar/Restaurant, n=240)
*Out of Home (NET) includes At Someone Else’s Home, At Work, At a Bar/Restaurant, At an Airport (insufficient base size to show alone),
While Traveling Between Places (insufficient base size to show alone), and Someplace Else (insufficient base size to show alone).
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

15. Social Viewing Led to Much Higher
WOM Engagement for Advertisers
% of Men 18-54 Talking about NBA Playoff Advertisers, Indexed to Total
Non-Viewer Frequently Watch By Yourself
Frequently Watch With Friends/Family Frequently Watch with Acquaintances/Strangers
157 161
141 138
108 115
89 85
$750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: Frequently Watch By Yourself, n=421; Frequently Watch With Friends/Family, n=239;
Frequently Watch With Acquaintances/Strangers, n=103)
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

16. Combination of Social & Out-of-Home Drove
Greatest WOM Engagement for Advertisers
• Social viewing at home produced WOM engagementNBA Playoff Advertisers,than those viewing alone out of home.
% of Men 18-54 Talking about only somewhat higher Indexed to Total
Non-Viewer Viewers (NET) At Home & Alone Only Varied Viewer
Out of Home & Not Social At Home & Social Out of Home & Social
192
170
159
142 146
132
111 114
105 99
89 87 85 88
$750K+ Advertisers Top 12 Advertisers
Base: Respondents, Males 18-54 (Non-Viewer, n=922. Viewers: Viewers (NET), n=882; At Home & Alone Only, n=196; Varied Viewer, n=345; At Home & Social, n=237;
Out of Home & Not Social, n=168; Out of Home & Social, n=134)
Source: Keller Fay Group TalkTrack®, May 16th – May 29th, 2011

17. Implications
 Co-Viewing delivers a clear “word of mouth” benefit
– Increases engagement with ad content
– Social context probably raises “emotional” response, even if there is some
cognitive sacrifice
 Implications
– Media buying:
 Value of co-viewed formats may be higher than solo viewed formats
– Creative strategy:
 Creative for co-viewed program formats should be designed to drive conversation
– Programmers:
 A new reason not to give up on programing that appeal to the whole family
– Social Media:
 Opportunity to deliver “co-viewing” even when people are not physically together
– Research:
 Need to study other program genres (in addition to sports)

18. Thank You!
Gregg Liebman (gregg.liebman@turner.com)
Brad Fay, COO (bfay@kellerfay.com)
18

19. TalkTrack® Methodology
 Keller Fay Group’s TalkTrack®, a national syndicated
Mode of Conversations
program measuring word of mouth in all forms – Across All Categories
face-to-face, over the phone, and through the
Internet. Face-to-
Face
– Over three-quarters of all conversations occur 77%
face-to-face, as depicted in the pie chart. Other
2%
 The study involves 36,000 online consumers
annually, yielding approximately 360,000 Online
6%
conversational mentions of brands.
Phone
 Respondents are representative of the US population 15%
aged 13 to 69, use a diary to keep track of their
brand conversations, then complete an online survey
to gather detailed information about these
conversations.