Challenging Ad*VIZR’s Approach

1.5. Challenging Ad*VIZR’s Approach

At first glance, these statistics appear to provide a useful gauge of the television industry’s efforts to integrate new media. Upon closer reading, however, the Ad*VIZR report presents a number of serious problems, both in its structure and in its entire conceptual approach to creating a measurable set of criteria for transmedia engagement. Six of these problems, in particular, are worth acknowledging

(1) The Ad*VIZR model uses inconsistent logic in its formulation of touchpoints. Most of the statistics calculated in the Ad*VIZR audit are based upon a simple quantitative measure: how many of the 33 listed touchpoints each show has utilized. For this to be a meaningful number, however, it must be possible — at least in theory — for any given show to implement all 33 digital extensions. Even a cursory review of the list shows that this is not the case; many of these options are either mutually exclusive (e.g. #3, HDTV vs. #4, HD Radio) or redundant (e.g. #5, IP-delivered video; #6, Streaming Media; #27, VOD-via- Broadband; and #33, iTunes Webisodes).

(2) The Ad*VIZR model uses inconsistent logic in its grouping of touchpoints. While the report attempts to sort the 33 touchpoints into seven distinct categories, it is not clear what this breakdown is intended to accomplish, nor how such a breakdown lends itself to the development of useful data. The first

31 Ibid., 4, 6, 7.

38 CHAPTER 1

three categories (“Linear Extensions,” “Broadband Enhancements” and “Wireless”) seem to imply the touchpoints are being grouped according to distribution platform, a possibility that is undermined by the

inclusion of distinct categories for “Other Portals” and “Apple (Ad-Supported),” both of which are accessed via broadband connections. It’s not impossible to imagine consistent schemes for organizing these

touchpoints: possible criteria could include “distribution platform” (broadcast, cable, satellite, internet, mobile, other), “business model” (broadcast, premium, paid VOD, ad-supported VOD), or “intended

function” (generating awareness, increasing viewership, creating revenue, etc). The existing division into seven categories has no clear or consistent governing logic.

(3) The Ad*VIZR model only acknowledges digital strategies. It’s understandable that the Consumer Experience Practice chose to limit the scope of their audit; as the report explains, “these categories only comprise digital extensions that are produced by the various programmers and do not include those

that are consumer-generated — a whole other world of evaluation.” 32 However, consumer-generated strategies aside, the Ad*VIZR list of touchpoints fails to account for all sorts of other valid modes of non-

digital engagement (e.g. purchasing branded apparel, discussing the show with friends and family, and so on). For that matter, it also leaves out at least a few significant types of available digital offerings, including asynchronous games and trivia, basic show-related information such as episode summaries, interactive

contests and competitions, and the sale of show-related merchandise. 33 (4) The Ad*VIZR model makes all 33 touchpoints equal, instead of weighted. Since the statistics

presented in the Ad*VIZR audit are based on the raw number of possible touchpoints a given show has utilized, the implicit claim is that each of these touchpoints is ‘equal’ in value. (If this is not true, then the statistics have no meaning.) In looking over the list of possible touchpoints, however, it should be obvious that different types of touchpoints — which we might also refer to as extensions or strategies — are not equal: different touchpoints engage the audience in different manners, for different purposes, and with different consequences.

32 Ibid., 3. 33 In fact, despite the inclusion of "e-commerce/show merchandise" in a list of the "Top 10 Touchpoints Expected In 6 Months" (7),

e-commerce is not included as an item on the list of 33 possible touchpoints.

THE ELUSIVE CONCEPT OF ENGAGEMENT 39

If the reader is informed that “the average television show” has almost five touchpoints, but fails to learn whether those touchpoints are “HDTV, satellite radio, voicemail reminders, e-mail reminders and

mobile coupons” or “live chat, blogs, mobisodes, message boards and games,” it is almost impossible to draw meaningful conclusions or directions from the data. By failing to acknowledge that different

touchpoints serve different purposes, address different needs, and are not equally applicable to all programs, the Ad*VIZR model implies – quite wrongly -- that all 33 touchpoints are interchangeable, and leaves the

reader with the distinct impression that ‘one touchpoint is just as good as another.’ (5) The Ad*VIZR model makes all implementations of a touchpoint equal. Furthermore, when

considering the range of existing implementations that can exist for many of the individual touchpoints on this list, it becomes clear that a single type of touchpoint can have a wide range of consequences, meanings and values. Weblogs, for example, encompass both those blogs written by fans (who lack access to “insider” information about the show), actors or writers working on the show (who have access to exclusive information), or even characters from within the show (an innovation which effectively transforms the blog into an extension of the television program). Podcasts can range from three-minute summaries of recent episodes read by anonymous announcers (the content of most FOX-based podcasts) to 30-minute talk shows where audience members are encouraged to submit questions that will be answered by show-runners (such as ABC’s podcast for Lost). To assume that such diverse touchpoints have equivalent – or even comparable -- consequences for the viewer’s experience, simply because they use the same format, is as grave

a mistake as assuming that all television programs are equal by merit of appearing on television. (6) The Ad*VIZR model makes all shows equal. It should go without saying that different types of shows are going to benefit to different degrees from different types of extensions: the evening news is unlikely to benefit from mobile ringtones and wallpapers, just as the newest episode of CSI has little use for product coupons distributed to wireless devices. Which extensions are effective, meaningful and relevant will depend on a range of factors, including the composition of the show’s target audience and the nature of the show’s specific pleasures. While Ad*VIZR does indicate that some types of television — daytime dramas and primetime genre shows, in particular — tend to offer a higher number of touchpoints than the average show, it neither explains why this might be the case nor accounts for the varying relevance of the individual touchpoints to different genres of programming.

40 CHAPTER 1

Yet what makes the Ad*VIZR audit so tantalizing in its conception – and frustrating in its execution – is the fact that it attempts to account not just for the experience of watching television, but for the vast range

of possible experiences that can also be understood as forms of viewer engagement. In this regard, the Ad*VIZR model might have helped television programmers and advertising executives alike rethink the

significance of the various touchpoints that proliferate around modern television programming, and in doing so, guided the ongoing discussion about viewer engagement in a more productive direction. Instead, the

Ad*VIZR audit produced a series of decontextualized statistics which encourage advertisers to embrace these new forms of content and possibilities for audience interaction, while failing to offer a framework that might

help advertisers understand how, where, and why such opportunities should be introduced.