Our recent work focuses on more of these factors influencing promotional effectiveness.  As has been previously discussed, we find a strong lead-in effect. We also confirm that promos placed in the first commercial break (pod), as well as those in the last pod tend to be most effective.

The Serial Position Effect first documented by a German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus may help explain why, all other factors being equal, promo position within a carrier program has an important effect on subsequent response rates.

Ebbinghaus found that people are better at recalling items from the beginning (“primacy effect”) and end (“recency effect”) of a list rather than the middle. Primacy effect is attributed to the fact that the short-term memory is less crowded by additional items and more attention may be dedicated to processing the first item and storing it in the long term memory.  Recency effect is explained by the easy retrieval of the last item still from a short-term memory.

In our study we compared tune in rates in response to promotions placed at different points within the same carrier program. In the chart below we present tune in rates to the September 23, 2009 premiere of ABC’s Modern Family as a function of promotional exposure in different spots within The King of Queens on TBS earlier the same day.

As we can see, the spots at 4:07pm and 4:55pm outperformed other spots within The King of Queens. The King of Queens at 4:07pm spot is placed in the first pod of the program. The higher response rate for the viewers exposed to the promo within this spot may be explained by the primacy effect. The 4:55pm spot is placed in the last pod of the program and leads in to Friends episode at 5pm. Thirty-six percent of the 4:55pm spot viewers tuned in to Friends at 5pm. Interestingly, only one-third of the audience exposed to the promotion at 4:07pm overlaps with the audience that saw the promo at 4:55pm. Most of the audience at 4:55pm is a fresh pool of viewers who are exposed to the Modern Family promo for the first time within their The King of Queens viewing session. Therefore, the primacy effect again may be used to explain the higher subsequent tune in to the promoted program.

In another example below, we compared tune in rates to the first episode of Glee on FOX after promo exposure on TLC’s Cake Boss two days prior. Once again the promo positioning within the first pod proves to be advantageous.

Not surprisingly, the response rates to promotions directly leading in to the program on the same network are the highest. However, this might be in equal measure attributed to the recency effect of promotions and to the fact that the viewers are available on the network at the right time and would tune in to the program anyway.

The data reported here is based on a nationally projectable dataset of DirecTV subscribers from TNS Infosys.

The obvious effect of this fascination is a ratings boost to the news programming that followed the balloon boy saga.  As we see in the chart and graph below, the CNN ratings skyrocketed with the balloon’s flight last Thursday as the story first “aired.”

The set top box tune in to CNN Newsroom between 1 and 4 pm EST on October 15^th was more than 1.6 times higher than on the three previous Thursdays at the same time.  The tune in to The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer more than doubled in comparison to each of the three previous Thursdays. At 6:14pm EST, CNN reported that young Falcon Heene had been found.  The story’s arc culminated for the night, and the prime time CNN ratings returned to normal levels.

The less obvious effects of spectacular viewership spikes on breaking news may prove more interesting.

First of all, it is clear that the news shocks should be incorporated in the models of TV viewership. Granted, most of us could not have predicted the ballon boy event in advance. However, the high impact events such as basketball playoffs and weather fluctuations are for the most part much more predictable and must be taken into account by models of television ratings.

Additionally, even the unexpected events should not throw us completely off guard, as far as the television viewership is concerned. The sweeping numbers of viewers flocking to CNN were exposed to promotions on October 15^th.  Ideally, program marketers should be able to modify promotion schedules in real time to take advantage of the lift.

The data reported here is based on a nationally projectable dataset of Direct TV subscribers.

Targeting low loyalty high attentiveness viewers is an ideal way to drive ratings for established programs. We define low loyalty viewers as ones that watch only one episode of a program in a season. As we previously determined, most shows have large numbers of such low loyalty viewers and their attention is for sale. Imposing the additional requirement of “high attentiveness,” we ensure that our target is more receptive to a particular program.

Our recent study examined whether exposure to promotion makes the highly attentive low loyalty segments more likely to tune in to subsequent episodes of a program.

We isolated high attentiveness low loyalty February 2009 audiences for ABC’s Lost and FOX’s 24.  Any viewer who saw at least thirty non-consecutive minutes of Lost on exactly one out of four possible occasions in February was included in the high attentiveness low loyalty audience for Lost. The same criteria were used to create a high attentiveness low loyalty audience for FOX’s 24.

Subsequently, we split the February high attentiveness low loyalty audience into two segments based on their exposure to promotion in the first week of March, prior to the first March episode. We then examined first March episode tune in of the promo-exposed and promo-unexposed highly attentive low-loyalty viewers and compared their rates. The results for both programs have confirmed our hypothesis that promotional exposure moves highly attentive-low loyalty viewers to tune in at higher rates.

Additionally, the graphs below illustrate that the high attentiveness low loyalty audience is a more effective target of promotion than the general set-top box audience. In fact, the high attentiveness low loyalty audience exposed to promotion is more than three times as likely to tune in to the program as the exposed general audience.

In our future analysis we plan to investigate whether exposure to promotion made the low loyalty viewers more loyal, and determine the persistence of the effect.

In our analysis of audiences’ responses to promotions, we find that one promotion exposure on the day program airs, or three to four exposures within the three days of air appear optimal.

“Three times is a charm” magic recipe of promotional exposure that dominates the industry was first coined by a GE psychologist Herbert Krugman in the late 60’s. Interestingly, it really had to do more with psychology than media terms. Krugman’s three levels of exposure psychologically correspond to “Curiosity, recognition and decision” about a product. The first exposure elicits “What is it?” response; the second “What of it?” lets the person determine if a product has any personal relevance; and the third exposure is a reminder at which point a decision is made. The subsequent exposures according to this theory are only the repetitions of the first three.

Erwin Ephron’s “recency theory” postulates that one exposure at a time when a consumer is ready to buy is sufficient. Since the work of Krugman and Ephron, researchers have been investigating the problems of frequency and recency and coming up with conflicting results.

The preliminary study that we conducted was designed to help confirm or dispel the historically held beliefs about frequency and recency. In the first part of the study examining the effect of recency, we isolated an audience of viewers who were exposed to the promotion exactly once prior to show’s premiere. We then segmented these viewers based on the day when they saw the promotion and examined the tune-in of these segments to the series premiere.

In the graph below, viewers exposed to promotion on the day of the premiere tuned in to the program at a much higher rate than those exposed on earlier occasions. There appears to be no other interpretable pattern for viewers who saw the promotion prior to the day of the premiere.

The second part of the study examined the effect of frequency of exposure to program promotion on tune-in. We assumed the recency was constant if all exposures occurred one to three days prior to the premiere and on no other dates before or after. The results showed that the rate of tune-in increased steadily from one to four exposures and decreased after the fifth exposure. We conclude that seeing promotion four times within the three days of program air date yields the best results on tune-in.

In summary, we find that one exposure is sufficient if it occurs on the day of the program. Otherwise, three to four exposures during the three days prior to the program tend to be optimal. Our preliminary results appear to confirm the conventional beliefs about recency and frequency.