Are citizens watching political advertising Are citizens watching political advertising? Exploring the trends and the role of structural factors (Project PLU 160023) Rodrigo Uribe Associate Professor Cristian Buzeta Researcher Enrique Manzur Business School Universidad de Chile

Candidates’ Messages/ Political advertising Election information Press Coverage Candidates’ Messages/ Political advertising Very relevant,

The forms of Political advertising Traditional Advertising Chilean System Chilean System PEBs This is the main form of candidates communication

Arguments in favour the use of PEBs The debate about PEB Arguments in favour the use of PEBs PEBs partially avoid Agenda bias Frame bias Financial bias May increase in participation (exposure to messages) Exposure to candidate’s messages (Freedman et al., 2004)

Arguments against the use of PEBs PEB Model Arguments against the use of PEBs TV stations are subsidising parties Unpaid broadcasting forced by law -20 minutes X 28 days in row (Cossio & Díaz, 2010; Bellolio, 2005) Lower level of ratings There is a decrease in exposure to PEBs derived not only from the lower interest in politics, but also by changes in the structure of media –such as increase in audience choices. changes in available audiences, etc.) (Scammel & Langer, 2006; Uribe et al., 2007) Lower level of audience post PEB exhibition (Uribe et al., 2007) - Partial data suggests a lower level of audience post PEB This last item is very relevant: are this PEB model achieving Exposure as intended and what determines this exposure.

Available data (2002-2004) suggests a slightly lower level of audience post PEB exhibition (Uribe et al., 2007) - Partial data suggests a lower level of audience post PEB This last item is very relevant: are this PEB model achieving Exposure as intended and what determines this exposure.

Objectives of this project To determine whether audience size have actually changes over time -using a 14 year time frame (Study 1) To examine what elements could influence the actual audience exposure to PEBs (Study 2) To model new alternatives that potentially increase PEBs’ exposure (2nd semester 2017) If these effect exists in the long run What determine…

Study 1 Who is watching Chilean PEBs?

Study 1 Descriptive analysis of the key indicators of the audience over time in the last 4 presidential elections Rating (%) Reach (%) and Frequency (OTS) Gross Rating Points (GRP)

General Aspects Study 1: Methodology Examination of audience data from Kantar IBOPE Media PEB from Presidential elections in Chile broadcasted: In 1999 (15 minutes) and 2005, 2009 & 2013 (20 minutes) Simultaneously for all free-view TV stations For 28 consecutive day Alternately one day in the morning (12 pm on weekday and 11.30 on weekends) and the following day in the afternoon (20.40) “Next. (free) television channels will jointly transmit the electoral propaganda corresponding to the next presidential election”

Study 1: Findings   Audience (Rat%) PEB Year “Typical” Year Sex Male 9.21 11.20** Female 14.18 16.50** SES Upper 8.54 9.39** Mid-upper 10.41 11.95** Mid-lower 10.82 14.21** Lower 14.27 16.29** Age 18 - 24 8.82 11.17** 25 - 34 10.24 12.60** 35 - 49 11.48 13.21** 50 - 64 13.19 15.59** 65 + 16.76 19.53** Pay TV Yes 8.00 11.36** No 15.38 18.27** Total Universe 11.83 14.00** * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Compared to a “normal year”, PEBs produce a significant decrease in the audience as total and in all the measured segments

Audience (Rat%) – PEB Year Audience (Rat%) – Typical Years   Audience (Rat%) – PEB Year 1999 2005 2009 2013 Sex Male 9.64 9.39 8.99 8.81 Female 15.42 14.88 12.74 13.66 SES Upper 10.36 10.05 6.79 6.94 Mid-upper 10.58 11.50 9.13 10.43 Mid-lower 10.78 10.88 11.22 10.39 Lower 15.94 14.44 13.01 13.68 Age 18 - 24 10.47 9.34 8.73 6.74 25 - 34 11.60 11.21 9.15 8.98 35 - 49 12.81 11.91 10.70 10.51 50 - 64 13.76 12.00 13.31 65 + 15.18 17.07 15.82 18.98 Pay TV Yes N/A 8.35 7.28 8.38 No 14.27 14.33 17.55 Total 12.71 12.29 10.96 11.34   Audience (Rat%) – Typical Years 1996-1998 2002-2004 2006-2008 2010-2012 Sex Male 9.06 12.54 11.77 11.40 Female 13.53 18.63 16.25 17.61 SES Upper 7.46 11.18 10.48 8.42 Mid-upper 10.39 13.25 12.20 11.95 Mid-lower 11.65 15.67 14.79 14.74 Lower 13.02 18.64 15.63 17.86 Age 18 - 24 10.29 13.15 11.83 9.39 25 - 34 10.44 15.27 12.83 11.87 35 - 49 11.23 14.87 13.47 13.28 50 - 64 12.55 17.48 15.69 16.64 65 + 13.67 20.30 18.62 25.54 Pay TV Yes N/A 12.47 10.55 11.04 No 18.68 16.07 20.04 Total 11.44 15.77 14.12 14.66 Just for 1999, PEB achieves a better audience compared to Typical year period For the other 3 years, PEBs gets lower audiences. Also, there is a change in Audience Profile. PEBs have had a significant decrease in their audience over time (as total and in all the measured segments)

Relation Reach / Frequency

Study 1: Summary of the findings An examination of PEB consumption in terms of rating, reach and frequency (GRPs), between 1999 – 2013 (14 years / 4 PEBs) depicts: Lower level of audience compared to an average year (avoiding content) Significant differences among segments: decreased is mainly explained by some increases (1999) and some decreases (the rest of the analysed years) in the consumption of PEB

Study 2 What determine the audience level of PEBs?

Study 2 Examination of the role of structural factors (Webster et al., 2000) Audience (audience availability) Moment of the campaign (Day of the campaign and Week of the campaign) Daypart (prime vs no-prime) Day of the week (week day vs weekend) Media (number of options) Availability of pay TV (%) Availability of PC with Internet access (%)

Structural factors of Audience Exposure? Structural perspectives have gained space as means to explain why people attend media (Webster et al, 2013). Basically it is proposed that a relevant part of media consumption can be explained by the influence of: Factors of the audience (audience availability) Moment of the campaign (Day of the campaign and Week of the campaign) Daypart (prime vs no-prime time) Day of the week (week day vs weekend) Factors of the media (number of options) Availability of pay TV Availability of Internet access

EXPOSURE Gross Measures Cumulative AUDIENCE FACTORS Structural Potential Audiences Available Audiences Individual Preferences Group Configurations vs. Solitary Use Awareness of Options EXPOSURE Gross Measures Audience Ratings Market Shares Circulation … Cumulative Cume Ratings Reach & Frequency Audience Duplication MEDIA FACTORS Structural Coverage Content Options Individual Technologies Owned Subscriptions Repertoires In order of advance in the explanation of the Study 1, we use the Structural concept presented by Webster, Phalen and Lichty (2006). These aggregated data allow us to explore how these factors impact audience exposure Adapted from Webster. J.G.; Phalen. P.F. & Lichty. L.W. (2006) Rating Analysis Third Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

As dependent variables, classic audience variables were analysed Study 2: Methodology Based on the Chilean TV Households Panel data (Kantar IBOPE Media, Chile), we used Linear Generalized Model in order to address the influence of structural factors As dependent variables, classic audience variables were analysed Rating (Rat%) Reach (Rch%) Average Time Viewing (ATV) Average Time Spent (ATS) These, for the 4 PEBs exhibited over 1999-2013 period

Findings Rat% Rch% ATV ATS Intersection 205.14** 273.56** 24176.03** 1060499.18** Campaign Day (Number) .05 3.84 1.89 8273.43 Internet penetration 40.43* 73.32* 4285.67* 702779.30** Pay TV penetration 10.13 34.65* 1996.98* 295852.89** Daypart 2027.47** 3693.24** 240681.60** 1013.40 Weekday 117.46** 173.71** 14283.17** 26467.04* Campagn week 13.17 23.80 1736.49 11434.32 Daypart* Weekday 38.05* 106.61** 4490.11* 16837.07* Daypart* Campaign week 54.56* 87.54* 6470.15* 3912.25 Weekday * Campagn week 19.41 15.69 2433.88 19224.16 Daypart * Weekday * Campagn week 45.58* 59.02* 5211.03* 7219.76 R2 0.873 0.892 0.887 0.749 R2 Adjusted 0.848 0.871 0.865 0.701 *p≤ .05 **p≤ .001

Study2: Summary of the findings The audience exposure is highly explained by Structural elements R2 over 80% for Rat%, Rch% and ATV R2 over 70% for ATS Regulator has the opportunity to modify some of these factors, and then increase the Audience Exposure to PEBs. Modifying the Scheduling of PEB Exhibition

Limitations of these studies These are mainly aggregated data, using the TV Households Panel It’s a behavioural study, omitting the Individual choice in the election o TV contents. Also omits internal motivation of audience (as U&G Theory suggest)

Thanks! @ruribe_chile @cbuzeta