At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 Annual re:think convention, David F. Poltrack, Chief Research Officer of CBS Corporation & President of CBS Vision and Kevin Bowen Principal of The Cambridge Group presented a presentation entitled The Future is Now: In Pursuit of a More Efficient and Effective Media Strategy. Advertising effectiveness is discussed with a focus on TV programming.

2. The Future is Now:
In Pursuit of a More Efficient and Effective Media Strategy
Presented by:
David F. Poltrack
Chief Research Officer, CBS Corporation
President, CBS Vision
Kevin Bowen
Principal,
The Cambridge Group

3. ch
arke ting and Resear
ESOMAR C onference on M
under a 'Ne w World Order'
992
Tokyo (Japan ), 6th‐8th, July 1
Tele vision Program
Multidimensio nal Approach to tive
dve rtiser’s Perspec
Evalu ation from the A
k
Presented by David F. Poltrac

4. The Future is Now:

5. Research Support Provided Across
the Marketer’s Decision Making Chain
Impact of a 1% Change On a Broadcast Network’s revenues
4. Broadcast Network = $180,000,000
3. Broadcast ‐ Cable TV = $200,000,000
2. Advertising ‐ TV Advertising = $190,000,000
1. Marketing ‐ Advertising = $220,000,000

6. Advertising and Marketing Expenditures
Total Marketing Broadcast
Year Spending Advertising Television Networks
% of Total % of Total % of Total Television
$ Billions
Marketing Advertising Advertising
1997 650 27.2 25.8 28.5
2002 880 24.0 26.7 26.6
2007 1,080 24.0 26.5 24.2
2008 1,065 23.3 27.5 24.6
2009 975 21.8 28.6 25.1
Source: Wilkofsky Gruen Associates, Inc.

7. Advertising and Marketing Expenditures
Total Marketing Broadcast
Year Spending Advertising Television Networks
% of Total % of Total % of Total Television
$ Billions
Marketing Advertising Advertising
1997 650 27.2 25.8 28.5
2002 880 24.0 26.7 26.6
2007 1,080 24.0 26.5 24.2
2008 1,065 23.3 27.5 24.6
2009 975 21.8 28.6 25.1
2010 1,015 22.7 29.3 24.2
Source: Wilkofsky Gruen Associates, Inc.

8. The Role of Advertising
SHORT TERM: GENERATE SALES

9. The Role of Advertising
SHORT TERM: GENERATE SALES
LONG TERM: BUILD BRAND EQUITY

10. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration
 CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the
resources of The Nielsen Company to…
– Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool
– Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising
medium
– Provide advertisers with research resources to:
 Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns
 Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns
 Measure long term contribution of television advertising to the
development of brand equity

11. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration
 CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the
resources of The Nielsen Company to…
– Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool
– Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium
– Provide advertisers with research resources to
 Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns
 NielsenCatalina Solutions Single Source Resource
– Television Viewing from Set top Boxes & Nielsen panel
– CPG product purchase records from shopper cards & Nielsen panel
– Data Base= 375,000 Households

12. Enhanced Analytical Approach
 Modeling dollar lifts controlling for penetration produces stable, statistically
significant results that are not driven by outliers.
 Key finding: behavioral targeting delivers 2½ times more ROI leverage than
demographic targeting.
Behavioral Target Demographic Target
$0.18 $0.18
$0.16
$0.14
$0.13
$0.12
$ Per Exposed HH
$ Per Exposed HH
$0.10
$0.08 $0.08
$0.06
$0.04
$0.03
$0.02
$0.00
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 -$0.02
Delivery Index To Top Category HH's Delivery Index To Women 18-49
Results normalized to average category penetration.

13. More Intuitive, Impactful Results
 A 20% increase in media delivery to  Campaign impact doubles with a 41%
heavy category users yields an increase in media delivery to heavy
additional $47 per thousand exposed category users, vs. a 103% increase in
households, compared to $19 for a media delivery to women 18‐49.
20% increase in media delivery to
women 18‐49.
Impact of 20% Increase in Media Delivery Increase in Media Delivery
Dollars per Thousand Exposed Households Needed to Double Campaign Impact
$47
2½ times more 103%
targeting leverage
$19 41%
Heavy Buyer Target Demographic Target Heavy Buyer Target Demographic Target

14. Targeting Heavy Category Buyers
vs. Age/Sex Demos
Top 50%
Heavy Snacks Snacks
Adults 18‐49 C3 A18-49 C3
Households Household
Program Index
Program Title Index
48 HOURS MYSTERY 139
FAMILY GUY 176
CLEVELAND 170 MIDDLE-WED 8PM, THE 140
AMERICAN DAD-SUN 7P 169 LAW & ORDER:SVU-THU 141
SIMPSONS-SUN 7:30P 168 DATELINE SUN-7PM 142
FAMILY GUY-SUN 9:30P 165 PLAIN JANE 142
VAMPIRE DIARIES 165 COUGAR TOWN 144
SIMPSONS 163 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS 145
SHAQ VS. 160 MEDIUM 147
MASTERCHEF 157 GOOD WIFE, THE 148
AMERICA'S TOP MODEL-9 155 SMALLVILLE 149
90210 147
PARENTHOOD 149
GOSSIP GIRL-MON 147
ROOKIE BLUE 152
SUPERNATURAL-FRI 147
OFFICE 156
HELLCATS 142
OFFICE 142 GLEE 160
WIPEOUT-TUES 142 LIE TO ME-MON 9P 167
AMERICA'S TOP MODEL-8 8PM 138 HELLCATS 180
PRMTME:WHT WOULD U DO-TUE 132 CSI: NY FRIDAY 181
NIKITA 132 PERSONS UNKNOWN 186
GLEE 127 FLASHPOINT 188
SUPERNATURAL-FRI 193
Source: Nielsen NPM, A18‐49 C3 Rating over HH C3 Rating and Nielsen Catalina Single Source data
for Heavy Snacks HH over All HH; Primetime, Regular; No Sports or Specials or Single Telecast Shows; 8/16/10‐9/18/10

15. A18‐49 As a Percent of Total Adult Population
2002‐03 2010‐11
Source: Nielsen Universe Estimates

16. A18‐49 As a Percent of Total Adult Population
2010‐11 2015‐16 (Est.)
Source: Nielsen Universe Estimates

17. A18‐49 is a Stagnant Market
Year‐Over‐Year Growth
A50+
A18‐49
Projections
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

18. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration
CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the
Research Resources of the Nielsen Corporation to…
– Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool
– Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium
Provide advertisers with research resources to
– Measure the short‐term ROI from their TV advertising campaigns
– Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns
The Right Message in the Best Environment
– Nielsen IAG Research findings on the performance of television
advertising

19. Higher Program Engagement Yields
Stronger Ad Recall
When viewers are more engaged with a show they are
also more likely to remember the ads within the show
70%
60% Correlation = .81
General Recall
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10% 30% 50% 70% 90%
Program Engagement
Source: Nielsen IAG; includes PE and GR for every regularly airing non‐sports programs measured Q1 2005 through Q2 2007;includes
repeats and originals, by day‐of‐week and network; limited to sample >=200; <5% of cases removed as outliers; final analysis based on 1,307 cases

20. Primetime 2010‐11 Nielsen IAG
Program Engagement Scores
Average PE Scores A 18‐49 Average PE Scores A 25‐54
Original Original
Quintile Airings Quintile Airings
1 84% 1 85%
2 79% 2 79%
3 74% 3 72%
4 66% 4 63%
5 49% 5 43%
Source: Nielsen IAG, Primetime Originals Only, Regular – No Sports; 9/10/10‐2/27/11
Page 20

21. Same Creative Performs Better
in High Engagement Shows
Brand “A” ‐ Retail Store Target=W18‐49
x
123 Inde
Program Engagement
Source: Nielsen IAG 1.1.08 – 6.8.10, Non‐Sports Programming only; Women 18‐49

22. Same Creative Performs Better
in High Engagement Shows
Brand “B” ‐ Snack Brand Target=W25‐54
de x
130 In
Program Engagement
Source: Nielsen IAG (measures combined impact of copy & placement) 10.1.09 –9.30.10. W25‐54

23. Same Creative Performs Better
in High Engagement Shows
Brand “C” ‐ Soft Drink Target=P13‐49
x
n de
4 I
20
Program Engagement
Source: Nielsen IAG 1.1.08 – 8.29.10, Non‐Sports Programming only; People 13‐49.

24. CBS and Nielsen Collaboration
 CBS assignment to Nielsen: Marshall all of the
resources of The Nielsen Company to…
– Document effectiveness of advertising as a marketing tool
– Document effectiveness of TV advertising as an advertising medium
– Provide advertisers with research resources to:
 Measure short‐term ROI from their TV ad campaigns
 Optimize their television and cross‐media campaigns
 Measure long term contribution of television advertising to the
development of brand equity

25. New Market Segmentation Approach

26. The Case for a Demand‐Driven Model
for Advertising
 The media environment is increasingly
complex and fragmented We now have an
 Traditional demographic‐driven buys opportunity to
often are not in full alignment with better understand
advertisers’ core prospects individuals both as
– Consumer targets are increasingly
defined by attitudes, motivations, consumers as well
psychographics, and other demand as media viewers –
characteristics
leading to better
 There is an emerging perspective that advertising
programming context and engagement
can enhance effectiveness alignment

27. Holistic View of the Prime Prospect
Prime Prospect
as a Consumer Synergistic Impact on:
Defined beyond pure
demographics
Ad Efficiency
Target Rich
Environment
+
Ad Effectiveness ROI+++
Higher Program
Prime Prospect Engagement Results in
as a Viewer
Higher Performing Ads
TV • Online • Radio • Print

28. Demand Landscape Segmentation Was Developed Based on a
Comprehensive Research Study of TV Viewing + Online Behavior
Quantitative Research Overview
 7,000 respondents ages 18‐65 who watch at least one hour of TV
Sample
Sample programming per week
– Quota sample of 600 for five major markets
 New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas
 14,000 TV viewing occasions profiled
 A 45 minute 150+ question survey covering lifestyle attitudes, cross
platform media demand, technology involvement/viewership
Demand
Demand behavior to define Demand Profit Pool segments
Profiling
Profiling  Benefits sought and situational viewing to define Need States
 Characteristics of favorite TV programs to define Program Palates
 Typing tools to overlay participating advertisers’ core prospects
 Extensive additional profiling on TV viewership, technology ownership
and interest, demographics, etc.
Media
Media  Linkage to actual TV viewing behaviors through Nielsen National
Behaviors
Behaviors PeopleMeter panel. Online, radio, and print are also being integrated

29. Creating the Demand Landscape
 We then clustered consumers on their overall
demand for media
– Level of involvement
– Media channel alignment . . . TV vs. online vs. other
– Technology adoption
– Programming affinity
– Time shifting habits

30. The Viewing Demand Landscape consists of Demand Profit Pools
and the Need States They Experience
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools
“To Whom ”
Consumers grouped by their underlying
Need States
motivations for media consumption
“For What”
Viewing occasions with a
distinct combination of
rational and emotional
benefits
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

31. Programming Palates Identify Where Different
Types of Content Play and Interact
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools
Programming Content C
Programming
Content A
Need States
Programming
Content B
Programming
Content D
Programming Content E
Programming Content F
Programming Content G
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

32. We Can Understand How Advertisers’ Targets Align With
the Viewing Landscape to Improve Advertising Precision
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”)
Illustrative
Snacking
Enthusiasts High Value Economy
Telecom Car
Vulnerables Prospects
Need States
Craft Beer
Experimenters Badge
Conscious
Drinkers
Snacking Luxury
Enthusiasts Car
High Value Prospects
Telecom
Vulnerables
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

33. To Whom… Demand Profit Pools
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools
“To Whom ”
Consumers grouped by their underlying motivations for media
Need States
consumption
“For What”
Viewing occasions with a
distinct combination of
rational and emotional
benefits
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

34. Six Distinct Demand Profit Pools Define the Range
of Consumer Media Engagement and Preferences
Demand Profit Pools
Role and Relationship with TV and Technology
TV Companions Media Sports Program Surfers & TV Moderators
Trendsetters Enthusiasts Passionates Streamers
Love TV Early adopters of Interest Dedicated to Select Seek to
for the content and anchored in favorite content minimize
companionship, technology. sports. Extends programs. across usage
on in the Social diffusers to other action‐ Willing to multiple
background oriented time shift to “screens”
programming watch
% of Population
16% 21% 15% 18% 15% 15%
Average # of Hours of TV Watched Per Week
43 42 36 35 30 24
Average # of TV Shows Watched Regularly
10 11 7 11 8 6

35. Demand Understanding Adds to the Traditional
Demographic Knowledge of Viewers
Demographic Skews by Demand Profit Pools
TV Media Sports Program Surfers & TV
Companions Trendsetters Enthusiasts Passionates Streamers Moderators
% of Total Pop 16% 21% 15% 18% 15% 15%
Demographic Older, women, Middle age, higher Men, older Younger, women Younger Older, higher
Summary lowest income income, with kids with kids, highest income
income
Male 34% 58% 80% 33% 49% 42%
Female 66% 42% 20% 67% 51% 58%
Age
18-24 9% 12% 9% 9% 31% 11%
25-44 31% 51% 34% 54% 46% 32%
45-64 60% 37% 57% 37% 23% 57%
% African American 16% 18% 11% 8% 14% 11%
% Hispanic 11% 21% 10% 10% 18% 14%
% Children in HH 37% 60% 32% 52% 42% 42%
Avg. Income (000s) $51 $71 $69 $77 $58 $71

36. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits
Top Genre Skews by Demand Profit Pool
TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts
– Game Show (163) – Science & Technology (136) – Sports (241)
– Soap Opera (160) – Investigative/News Magazine – National/World News (158)
– Local News (139) (135) – History (141)
– Suspense/Crime Drama (128) – Movies (127) – Game Show (129)
– Late Night Show (124)
Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators
– General Drama (178) – Adult Animation/Cartoon (197) – National/World News (160)
– Reality Show Drama (174) – Adventure/Action (131) – Home and Garden (144)
– Reality Show Competition (168) – General Drama (129) – Local News (142)
– Soap Opera (160) – General Documentary (124) – General Documentary (123)
Note: Self‐reported data; Types of programs watched last 7 days
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis

37. The Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct
Viewing Habits (cont.)
Top Program Skews by Demand Profit Pool
TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts
– The Young and The Restless – Boardwalk Empire (179) – Cable Sports (162)
(133) – Dexter (168) – Broadcast Sports (147)
– Good Morning America (124) – Cable Sports (117) – NBC Nightly News (121)
– CSI (121) – Sons of Anarchy (116) – 60 Minutes (119)
– The Good Wife (114) – How I Met Your Mother (93) – Undercover Boss (90)
– NCIS (112) – The Big Bang Theory (90) – NCIS (88)
Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators
– Desperate Housewives (155) – Teen Mom (149) – Extreme Makeover Home
– Grey’s Anatomy (153) – Jersey Shore (148) Edition (138)
– The Good Wife (147) – The Walking Dead (132) – 60 Minutes (126)
– Hawaii Five‐0 (141) – iCarly (130) – Dancing with the Stars (133)
– The Big Bang Theory (138) – Glee (121) – Good Morning America (129)
– Rules of Engagement (103) – NBC Nightly News (128)
– The Mentalist (116)
Note: Skews among programs that are generally within top 80 overall and top 35 within the Demand Profit Pool
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis

38. For What… Need States
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools
“To Whom ”
Consumers grouped by their underlying motivations for media
Need States
consumption
“For What”
Viewing occasions with a
distinct combination of
rational and emotional
benefits
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

39. Consumers Have Different TV Viewing Need States
for Which They Seek Distinct Benefits
TV Viewing Need State Summary
Authentic & Action & Family Inform &
Relax & Escape
Inspirational Sports Companion Equip

40. How…Programming Palates
Viewing Demand Landscape
Demand Profit Pools
Programming Content C
Programming
Content A
Need States
Programming
Content B
Programming
Content D
Programming Content E
Programming Content F
Programming Content G
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

41. Nine Distinct Palates Characterize Viewers’ Programming
Preferences
Programming “Palates” (% of Population Having Each Preference)
DRAMA ACTIVE/COMPETITIVE
Mystery & Edgy Drama Relationship Action Packed Competition
Suspense 15% 12% Drama 11% 10% 8%
– Mysteries with – Innovative – Romance with – Keeps me on – Showcases great
unexpected fantasy or fiction well developed edge talent
twists – Gritty and characters – Full of action – Fast‐paced
– Intelligent intense – Episodes linked
writing by continuing
story line
COMEDY
Inspirational Intelligent Slapstick Informational
Reality 11% Comedy 11% 11% 11%
– Real people with – Witty and light‐ – Silly style – Serious and
inspiring stories hearted comedy objective
– Easy to follow – Easy to relate to – Makes me laugh – Believable true
stories
Source: CBS Demand Landscape (2011), Q36, Q31; TCG Analysis

42. The Palates Encompass Distinct Groups of Programs
Programming “Palates” (% of Population Having Each Preference)
DRAMA ACTIVE/COMPETITIVE
Mystery & Edgy Drama Relationship Action Packed Competition
Suspense 15% 12% Drama 11% 10% 8%
– NCIS (218) – Walking Dead – Private Practice – Sports (129) – The Apprentice
– The Mentalist (280) (278) – Criminal Minds (191)
(213) – Boardwalk Empire – Parenthood (225) (127) – Sports (190)
– Bones (201) (273) – Grey’s Anatomy – CSI: Miami (125) – The Amazing Race
– Law & Order SVU – Mad Men (184) ( 211) – CSI: NY (122) (176)
(180) – Fringe (181) – The Good Wife – Survivor (167)
(164)
COMEDY
Inspirational Intelligent Slapstick Informational
Reality 11% Comedy 11% 11% 11%
– Extreme – Raising Hope (232) – The Cleveland – CBS Sunday
Makeover: HE – Modern Family Show (260) Morning (209)
(154) (218) – Family Guy (215) – 20/20 (170)
– Biggest Loser (152) – Mike & Molly – The Simpsons – National/World
– American Idol (197) (187) News (152)
(142) – Big Bang Theory – Two and a Half – Local news (114)
– Dancing w/ Stars (184) Men (134)
(126)
Source: CBS Demand Landscape (2011), Q36, Q31; TCG Analysis

43. Viewing Demand Landscape Frames Complex TV Media Market
and Identifies How to Win in Precise Areas of Demand
Viewing Demand Landscape – Programming “Palates
Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”)
Relationship Relationship
Relationship
Drama Drama
Drama
Edgy Drama
Comedy
News/
Mystery & Comedy Information
Need States (“For What”)
Mystery & Sports/ Suspense
Suspense Competition
Edgy Drama
Mystery & Suspense
Comedy Relationship
Drama
News/
Information
News/ News/
Information Information
Note: Programming Palates based on significant volume and index skews of shows at each intersection
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

44. By Overlaying Advertisers’ Targets with the Viewing Demand
Landscape, We Can Identify Target Rich Programming Environments
Viewing Demand Landscape
 We are also integrating online, radio and print to enable integrated optimized media buys
Demand Profit Pools (“To Whom”)
Snacking
Enthusiasts High Value Economy
Telecom Car
Need States (“For What”)
Vulnerables Prospects
Craft Beer
Experimenters Badge
Conscious
Drinkers
Luxury
Snacking
Car
Enthusiasts High Value Prospects
Telecom
Vulnerables
Note: Programming Palates based on significant volume and index skews of shows at each intersection
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); TCG Analysis

45. Advertiser Targets Can Share the Same Demographics but Have Very
Different Attitudes and Therefore Media Buys
Consumer Packaged Goods Consumer Durables
Segment A Segment B Segment 1 Segment 2
Demographics
Females 18‐49 49% 47% Females 18‐49 26% 29%
Females 50‐65 23% 24% Males 18‐49 25% 22%
Males 28% 29% Adults 50‐65 49% 49%
Media Demand Profit Pools
Primary Surfers & Program Primary TV Media
Streamers Passionates Moderators Trendsetters
Secondary Program TV Secondary Program Program
Passionates Companions Passionates Passionates

46. The Potential Power of Insight Into the
Viewership of Core Targets…
Top Genres Watched among High‐Spend Mobile Phone Vulnerables
(Percent Indicating as Top 3 Favorite; Index)
 Balancing Overall Reach with Quality Reach
High Spend
Total
Adults 18‐49 Mobile Phone
Population
Vulnerables
Situation Comedy 29% 95 87
Suspense/Mystery/Crime Drama 23% 88 78
Sports Programming 23% 88 152
Movie 20% 103 118
Local News 18% 72 102
Adventure/Action 15% 100 82
General Drama 12% 107 131
Adult Animation/Cartoon 12% 138 108
Reality Show Competition 12% 91 24
National/World News 11% 61 152
Science Fiction 11% 88 64
Cooking/Food 10% 77 123
History 6% 102 176
Home and Garden 6% 78 137
Game Show 5% 80 126
Reality Show Drama 5% 122 53
Soap Opera 5% 85 81
Late Night Show 5% 88 55
Notes: Boxed =Significantly above average; Self‐Reported Data; Top 3 favorite genres among those watched in the last 7 days; Total
Penetration must be 3%+
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011), Q59; TCG Analysis

47. For Each Advertiser, We Will Also Be Able to Quantify
the Potential Efficiency Gain from Reallocating Spend
GRP Growth By Reallocating Existing Prime Time
Spend Based on Demand‐Driven Approach
+20%
Disguised
+10%
Current Schedule
Recommended
Schedule
Total Adults (18‐65) Advertiser Target
Customer
Advertiser GRPs
Note: Impact of reallocating existing media buy to align with advertiser target Demand Profit Pools
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen and TCG Analysis

48. Impact of Reallocation on Ad Effectiveness
Ad Performance Improvement by Reallocating Existing
Spend Based on Demand‐Driven Approach
Illustrative
54% Current Schedule
Recommended
Schedule
General Recall Brand Recall Message Recall Likeability
Note: Impact on Ad Performance of reallocating existing media buy to align with advertiser target Demand Profit Pools
Source: Nielsen IAG

49. The Vision…
Create a System Which Enables Advertisers to:
 Go beyond Pure Reach to Quality Reach…Target
Rich Environments
 Define programming arenas of high engagement
 Define the power of advertising to convert
prospects & build brand equity
 Assess ROI implications

50. Next Steps
 Append online, print and radio behavior
 Deep dives with select advertisers to determine insights
and implications
 Sharpened media buys for core prospects
 Explore ad effectiveness results within target rich
environment
 Assess interplay between TV and online viewership
and behavior
 As appropriate, test alternative mix shifts and impact

52. Program Selection Process
 Concentration

53. Program Selection Process
 Concentration + Coverage

54. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits
Top 25 Primetime Programs by Demand Profit Pool
Program Passionates Surfers & Streamers TV Moderators
GREY'S ANATOMY 10.5 - 173 GLEE 5.3 - 97 DANCING WITH THE STARS 6.2 - 91
MODERN FAMILY 9.6 - 154 MODERN FAMILY 5.3 - 84 NCIS 6.1 - 80
BIG BANG THEORY, THE 9.6 - 157 GREY'S ANATOMY 4.9 - 81 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS 5.7 - 93
DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES 9.4 - 169 HOUSE 4.3 - 82 NCIS: LOS ANGELES 5.1 - 79
HAWAII FIVE-0 8.7 - 150 FAMILY GUY 4.1 - 120 MENTALIST, THE 5.0 - 79
GLEE 8.5 - 156 OFFICE 3.8 - 95 MODERN FAMILY 4.9 - 79
GOOD WIFE, THE 8.1 - 162 HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 3.7 - 90 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES 4.4 - 80
HOUSE 8.1 - 155 SIMPSONS 3.6 - 115 GLEE 4.3 - 79
CASTLE 8.0 - 161 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 3.4 - 87 HOUSE 4.3 - 82
SURVIVOR: NICARAGUA 7.6 - 149 COUGAR TOWN 3.3 - 87 CASTLE 4.2 - 84
PRIVATE PRACTICE 7.3 - 170 CLEVELAND 3.1 - 123 AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-WED 4.1 - 85
BLUE BLOODS 6.9 - 152 AMERICAN DAD 3.0 - 128 UNDERCOVER BOSS 4.0 - 84
BROTHERS & SISTERS 6.8 - 169 HELL'S KITCHEN 3.0 - 89 AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-TUE 3.9 - 83
AMAZING RACE 17 6.8 - 155 RAISING HOPE 2.9 - 101 60 MINUTES 3.7 - 87
BONES 6.6 - 151 BIG BROTHER 12-WED 2.8 - 87 BLUE BLOODS 3.6 - 79
CSI: MIAMI 6.6 - 153 WIPEOUT-TUES 2.7 - 94 PRIVATE PRACTICE 3.4 - 80
DEFENDERS, THE 6.5 - 149 HELL'S KITCHEN-WED 8P 2.7 - 89 BROTHERS & SISTERS 3.4 - 84
HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 6.4 - 156 OUTSOURCED 2.6 - 89 EXT. MAKEOVER:HOME ED. 2.9 - 93
LAW AND ORDER:SVU 6.2 - 165 BIG BROTHER 12-THU 2.5 - 84 DETROIT 1-8-7 2.8 - 82
COUGAR TOWN 6.1 - 162 BETTER WITH YOU 2.5 - 84 MIDDLE, THE 2.8 - 79
CSI: NY 6.1 - 151 EXT. MAKEOVER:HOME ED. 2.5 - 81 LAW & ORDER:LA 2.7 - 80
OFFICE 6.0 - 150 30 ROCK 2.4 - 89 PARENTHOOD 2.5 - 82
EVENT 5.7 - 157 MASTERCHEF 2.4 - 103 BIGGEST LOSER 10 2.5 - 83
RIZZOLI & ISLES 5.6 - 166 BIG BROTHER 12-SUN 2.3 - 82 LIE TO ME 2.5 - 87
PARENTHOOD 5.2 - 169 COMMUNITY 1.8 - 82 BACHELOR PAD 2.4 - 95
Note: Excludes Sports, Specials, programs with less than a 1.0 Rating and programs outside of the top 40% of the highest
Indexing shows.
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis, 8/30/10‐11/28/10

55. Demand Profit Pools Have Distinct Viewing Habits (cont.)
Top 25 Primetime Programs by Demand Profit Pool
TV Companions Media Trendsetters Sports Enthusiasts
NCIS 9.9 - 130 MODERN FAMILY 7.3 - 117 NCIS 7.4 - 97
DANCING WITH THE STARS 9.5 - 138 BIG BANG THEORY, THE 6.9 - 113 60 MINUTES 5.5 - 130
NCIS: LOS ANGELES 8.7 - 135 GLEE 6.2 - 115 AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-WED 4.8 - 98
MENTALIST, THE 8.6 - 136 OFFICE 4.7 - 117 UNDERCOVER BOSS 4.7 - 97
CRIMINAL MINDS 8.3 - 133 HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER 4.6 - 113 AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-TUE 4.5 - 97
DANCING W/STARS RESULTS 8.3 - 136 FAMILY GUY 4.5 - 131 AMAZING RACE 17 4.3 - 99
CSI 8.1 - 139 EVENT 4.3 - 119 OFFICE 3.9 - 99
HAWAII FIVE-0 7.4 - 128 COUGAR TOWN 4.3 - 113 SIMPSONS 3.6 - 114
MIKE & MOLLY 7.3 - 138 NO ORDINARY FAMILY 4.1 - 121 FAMILY GUY 3.6 - 104
GOOD WIFE, THE 7.0 - 139 HELL'S KITCHEN 4.0 - 120 EVENT 3.5 - 98
AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-WED 6.5 - 134 SIMPSONS 3.9 - 124 WIPEOUT-TUES 3.2 - 110
BLUE BLOODS 6.5 - 142 LAW & ORDER:LA 3.9 - 114 CLEVELAND 2.7 - 109
CASTLE 6.3 - 127 RIZZOLI & ISLES 3.9 - 115 CHUCK 2.7 - 103
CSI: MIAMI 6.2 - 145 FRINGE 3.7 - 128 UNDERCOVERS 2.5 - 99
AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-TUE 6.2 - 134 HELL'S KITCHEN-WED 8P 3.7 - 124 AMERICAN DAD 2.4 - 103
CSI: NY 6.2 - 154 COVERT AFFAIRS 3.6 - 125 MINUTE TO WIN IT-WED 2.4 - 113
$#*! MY DAD SAYS 6.0 - 132 BIG BROTHER 12-THU 3.4 - 116 OUTLAW 2.4 - 109
DEFENDERS, THE 6.0 - 138 BIG BROTHER 12-SUN 3.4 - 121 MINUTE TO WIN IT-TUE 2.3 - 108
BROTHERS & SISTERS 5.2 - 127 OUTSOURCED 3.3 - 116 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS 2.3 - 100
DETROIT 1-8-7 4.8 - 140 LIE TO ME-MON 9P 3.3 - 116 SONS OF ANARCHY 2.2 - 116
EXTREME MAKEOVER:HM ED. 4.5 - 145 RAISING HOPE 3.3 - 113 COMMUNITY 2.1 - 97
RIZZOLI & ISLES 4.3 - 128 30 ROCK 3.1 - 113 DATELINE FRI 2.1 - 103
BIG BROTHER 12-WED 4.2 - 129 AMERICAN DAD 3.0 - 128 COPS 2.0 - 126
MEDIUM 4.2 - 150 CLEVELAND 2.9 - 118 WWE ENTERTAINMENT 2.0 - 126
FLASHPOINT 3.9 - 150 MASTERCHEF 2.7 - 116 AMW: AMERICA FIGHTS BACK 1.9 - 113
Note: Excludes Sports, Specials, programs with less than a 1.0 Rating and programs outside of the top 40% of the highest
Indexing shows.
Source: Viewing Demand Landscape (2011); Nielsen Fusion and TCG Analysis, 8/30/10‐11/28/10

56. The Future is Now…
 Open Source Offer
 Advertiser Experiments
 Cross‐Media Extension
 Local Adaptation for Major Markets

57. The Future is Now…
 Open Source Offer
 Advertiser Experiments
 Cross‐Media Extension
 Local Adaptation for Major Markets

58. ADVERTISING
10 0 RESEARCH
Years
1936 • 2036 F O U N D A T I O N

59. Thank You