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

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

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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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…

8. Study 1
Who is watching Chilean PEBs?

9. 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)

10. 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 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”

11. 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
8.82
11.17**
10.24
12.60**
11.48
13.21**
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

12. 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
10.47
9.34
8.73
6.74
11.60
11.21
9.15
8.98
12.81
11.91
10.70
10.51
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
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
10.29
13.15
11.83
9.39
10.44
15.27
12.83
11.87
11.23
14.87
13.47
13.28
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)

13. Relation Reach / Frequency

14. 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

15. Study 2
What determine the audience level of PEBs?

16. 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 (%)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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 period

20. Findings
Rat%
Rch%
ATV
ATS
Intersection
205.14**
273.56** ** **
Campaign Day (Number)
.05
3.84
1.89
Internet penetration
40.43*
73.32* * **
Pay TV penetration
10.13
34.65* * **
Daypart ** ** **
Weekday
117.46**
173.71** ** *
Campagn week
13.17
23.80
Daypart* Weekday
38.05*
106.61** * *
Daypart* Campaign week
54.56*
87.54* *
Weekday * Campagn week
19.41
15.69
Daypart * Weekday * Campagn week
45.58*
59.02* * R2
0.873
0.892
0.887
0.749
R2 Adjusted
0.848
0.871
0.865
0.701
*p≤ .05 **p≤ .001

21. 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

22. 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)

23. Thanks!
@ruribe_chile
@cbuzeta