Why Television Still Matters
============================

* Geoffrey Precourt

![Figure1](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/https://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/content/jadvertres/57/1/1/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure1](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/content/57/1/1/F1)

Walk into any digital-marketing assembly and you can hear the messages all but echoing off the walls: “The time for interactive is upon us.” “The moment for mobile finally has arrived.” “Marketing and research never will be the same.”

What the digital zealots all seem to ignore is that this is still, very much, The Age of Television. The most powerful medium in terms of reach and even frequency is still a behemoth among all means of consumer engagement. And, in this number of the *Journal of Advertising Research*, we provide a package of evidence in support of that strength. In fact, argue comScore's Gian M. Fulgoni (cofounder/ceo) and Andrew Lipsman (vp/marketing and insights), the spate of media likely will make the challenge of measuring the performance of television advertising richer and more rewarding. “**Measuring Television in the Programmatic Age: Why Television Measurement Methods Are Shifting toward Digital”** (please see page [10](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/lookup/volpage/57/10?iss=1)) begins with a simple question: “How can viewing of television commercials be measured effectively when tens of millions of people are watching myriad program options on different platforms?”

The answer, the authors offer, is “precision measurement of advanced audiences on an unduplicated basis across platforms. Cumulative metrics of reach, frequency, and gross rating points will need to be calculated on a more granular basis, so that campaigns can be planned and evaluated with an understanding of how quickly their target audiences can be reached.”

For digital tracking, “measurement increasingly must standardize around daily and weekly reporting.” And the legacy medium of television also needs to stand up to the potential of new platformagnostic metrics with “standardization around more narrowly defined audience segments.”

One of the downsides of technology is consumer control of television advertising. Don't want to see a message? Simply use your remote to skip over it. In “**Predictors of Commercial Zapping During Live Prime-Time Television: An Observation-Based Study Identifies Factors That Drive TV Channel Switching”** (please see page [15](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/lookup/volpage/57/15?iss=1)), Stephen Richard Dix and Ian Phau, an Australian research team from Perth's Curtin University, report their findings from what happens in a viewing room when a message comes on the screen.

No, the authors can't eliminate the potential of message hopping. But they do offer counsel on how marketers can help ensure viewership: “There is no evidence to suggest that commercial zapping is cognitively driven…. Advertisers can restrict commercial zapping by limiting levels of irritation and repetition in their creative strategy and by restraining exposure in their scheduling strategy. Planners, agencies, and other stakeholders should strive to minimize the stimuli that may trigger commercial zapping.”

Of course, the more researchers use science to fine-tune the art of advertising, the more powerful consumer engagement becomes. And, a pair of neuroscience-driven studies in the papers that follow explore that potential. In a “Viewpoint” **“How Reliable Are ‘State-of-the-Art’ Facial EMG Processing Methods? Guidelines for Improving the Assessment of Emotional Valence in Advertising Research”** presentation (please see page [28](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/lookup/volpage/57/28?iss=1)), a global group of authors—Mathieu M. P. Lajante (Laval University, Québec City), Olivier Droulers (University of Rennes 1), and David Amarantini (Paul Sabatier University of Toulouse)—contend that measurement reliability and validity greatly depend on procedures used during facial electromyography (EMG) recording, signal processing, and phases responses.

In **“What Makes a Television Commercial Sell? Using Biometrics to Identify Successful Ads: A Demonstration of Neuromeasures' Potential on 100 Mars Brand Ads with Single-Source Data”** (please see page [53](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/lookup/volpage/57/53?iss=1)), four authors from the University of South Australia's Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science (Steven Bellman, Magda Nenycz-Thiel, Rachel Kennedy, and Bruce McColl) as well as Laurent Larguinat (Mars, Inc.), and Duane Varan (MediaScience) contend, “Advertisers should strive to know in advance how the advertisement is supposed to work and match validated neuromeasures with that outcome…. No single neuromeasure seems capable of identifying in-market success…. Marketers must select measures that match the intended response from the audience of that advertisement (*e.g.*, laughter or being emotionally moved).”

To round our package exploring marketing's most powerful medium, **“Hedonic Contamination of Entertainment: How Exposure to Advertising in Movies and Television Taints Subsequent Entertainment Experiences”** (please see page [38](http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/lookup/volpage/57/38?iss=1)), Cristel Antonia Russell (American University, Washington, DC), Dale Russell (Uniformed Services University), Andrea Morales (Arizona State University), and Jean-Marc Lehu (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) caution against relying too much on a good thing. The bad news: “Consumers commonly voice irritation with marketing efforts that interfere with their hedonic pursuits” such as watching a sporting event or relaxing with a movie. The upside: “Surprisingly little is known about the impact that exposure to marketing messages in these contexts may have on consumer experiences.”

The authors do believe, however, that advertisers who bundle product-placement efforts with traditional advertising “might further prompt consumers' skepticism and alertness with regard to the embedded messages. Producers, distributors, and marketers of entertainment content, therefore, must be cautious of the commercial environment in which their content is consumed.”

\* * *|

The *Journal of Advertising Research* relies on the wisdom of a very select crowd. As John B. Ford (eminent scholar/professor of marketing and international business at Old Dominion University's Strome College of Business), one of our two executive editors, explains, “There is always a need for qualified reviewers, and we periodically ask researchers who are publishing their work in the field and practitioners that we know are working in promising areas of advertising to act as ‘Ad Hoc’ reviewers to give them a chance to review articles.”

Adds our other executive editor, Jenni Romaniuk (associate director [international] at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science), “Our many Ad Hoc reviewers contribute by filling the knowledge and availability gaps in our Editorial Review Board. These reviewers often become future Editorial Review Board members, in recognition of their continued service.”

In truth, it's most often a thankless and anonymous task. But, the Ad Hoc team, according to Dr. Romaniuk, “provides an excellent way for new advertising researchers/practitioners to build experience in providing constructive, critical reviews and to get early exposure to some of the latest advances in academic research.”

To take some of the anonymity out of the process and honor the current Ad Hoc reviewers, we all thank: Shann Biglione, Publicis Media; Jennifer Lee Burton, High Point University; Danielle Chmielewski-Raimondo, University of Melbourne; Polymeros Chrysochou, Aarhus University; Angeline Close Scheinbaum, University of Texas/Austin; Justin Cohen, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science; Frank Cotignola, News America Marketing; Esmeralda Crespo-Almendros, University of Granada (Spain); Robert East, Kingston Business School, London and Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, UNISA; Troy Elias, University of Oregon; Luke Greenacre, Monash University; Nicole Hartnett, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science; Hongwei He, University of Strathclyde; Jean-Luc Herrmann, University of Lorraine; Jonathan A. Jensen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Kiran Karande, Old Dominion University; Yeuseung Kim, DePaul University; Karen King, University of Georgia; Colleen P. Kirk, New York Institute of Technology; Kathryn A. LaTour, Cornell University; Yuping Liu-Thompkins, Old Dominion University; Chris Maier, Publicis Media; Adam J. Mills, Simon Fraser University; Paulo Mora Avila, University of Worcester; Nico Neumann, University of South Australia; Cathy Nguyen, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science; Glen Nowak, University of Georgia; Steve Oakes, University of Liverpool; Ernst Osinga, Singapore Management University; Kathrynn Pounders, University of Texas/Austin; Melvin Prince, Southern Connecticut State University; Karen Robson, Central Michigan University; Sara Rosengren, Stockholm School of Economics; Jaywant Singh, Kingston Business School; Anne Smink, University of Amsterdam; Harlan E. Spotts, Western New England University; Lara Stocchi, Flinders University; Leona Tam, University of Wollongong; Chuanyi Tang, Old Dominion University; Shawn Thelen, Hofstra University; Andrea Vocino, Deakin University; Malcolm Wright, Massey University.

*   © Copyright 2017 The ARF. All rights reserved.