Canada Media Fund. Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework October 1st, 2014 Version modified IMPORTANT:

(1)

Canada Media Fund

Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework

2012-2013

October 1st, 2014 Version 1.5 - modified

IMPORTANT:

Any changes to the standards outlined in this document must be discussed with the Canada Media Fund and approved prior to being implemented.

Contact:

Catalina Briceño

Director Industry and Market Trends | Directrice, veille stratégique Canada Media Fund | Fonds des médias du Canada

4 – 50, rue Wellington, Toronto (Ontario) M5E 1C8 Tél. : 514 496-4315 Téléc. : 514 496-4309

(2)

Related Documentation

This is a list of all relevant documentation serving as reference material on the project, providing insight on the project’s background and evolution.

Name of document Document location

comScore Digital Analytix Tracking Codes Installation CMF website Digital Media Measurement Framework Summary CMF Website

Tracking Document Revisions

Any modification to this document will be recorded in the following chart, without exception. The Project Sponsor and the Project Manager must sign-off on any changes to the requirements document.

Version Date Author/Editor Comments

1.0 May 3, 2012 Antoine van Eetvelde Final report approved for release

1.5 October 1st, 2014 Catalina Briceño Edits based on decisions and comments adopted by Advisory committee held on October 2013.

(3)

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

For clarity and consistency, most terms and acronyms used in this document are outlined in this section. Terms include wording used by business and information technology communities.

These definitions apply in the context of the Canada Media Fund and of the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework.

Term / Abbreviation Definition

Application Software programs run on the web, computers, smartphones and other mobile or dedicated devices that allow users to perform specific tasks related to media content.

Consumption The total number of interactions and time spent with digital media content over a given period of time.

Content The various products currently funded by the CMF. These may

include images, video, games, and applications that end-users experience and interact with via different delivery methods. Delivery Method A means of transmitting content to audiences for consumption,

such as websites, mobile apps, gaming consoles, downloadable formats, and streaming technology.

Digital Media (DM) The various platforms (technical aspect of transmission) via which people view media electronically as well as content types designed for distribution using an electronic delivery method. Key performance indicator (KPI) Measures progress towards specific goals and indicate

actions that organizations can take to improve performance. Mesurement framework A conceptual model that organizes and explains the elements

required to contextualize performance data so that it can significantly report audience and consumption success across delivery methods and content types.

Metrics1 _{The term is used to count individual elements (visitors, page}

views, etc.). Baseline performance metrics are used to calculate key performance indicators.

Reach The total number of people exposed to digital media content over a given period of time.

Tagging methodology A special script/syntax used by a reporting system to collect and define data.

(4)

1. Introduction

Digital media growth appears to be hitting critical mass in Canada. Multichannel video content delivery is creating new ways of engaging traditional media consumers. This includes original digital media content, linear and interactive, aimed for prime distribution across communication channels other than TV. Broadcast, web, mobile, and gaming technologies are converging and creating a wide variety and diversity of digital media content. This phenomenon is causing a shift in the ways audiences consume programming, whether through direct-to-consumer distribution or pay-TV operators.

The Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework outlined in this document was developed in collaboration with CMF stakeholders over the course of two workshop sessions held in Toronto in 2011. The objective of the Advisory Committee was to lay the foundation for a disciplined approach towards digital media measurement for CMF-funded projects. The proposed measurement framework would need to take into account the multi-channel, multi-device, and multi-audience reality of the Canadian consumer market.

Additional work was done on typologies and the classification of content based on stakeholders’

comments. The net result is a conceptual model that strives to account for all of the major combinations and permutations of relevant digital media consumption across multiple channels and formats.

Specific metrics form the core of the proposed Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework. The insight of stakeholders has helped identify and evaluate the metrics, which are incorporated into the final project presented in this document. Once in place, these metrics will assist the CMF in determining audience success for digital media in both the convergent and experimental streams. Going forward, these metrics will be used as benchmarks for historical performance. Furthermore, specific performance metrics—as part of the general framework—will eventually serve as the basis for one or more

performance envelope allocation factors. While not imminent, such changes in the calculation

(6)

2. Background

2.1. The Issue

The issue was outlined by the CMF in pre-workshop materials. The measurement challenge is as follows: “To define a set of digital media performance metrics that are relevant to the various digital media formats [later changed to ‘delivery methods’], which addresses the business and operational realities of the industry, and is in compliance with requirements from the Department of Canadian Heritage.”

For additional clarity as to the scope and complexity of the challenge, the underlined terms above are described in greater detail:

 Digital media delivery methods:

DM is delivered and consumed through a wide range of technologies that use a variety of metrics as well as terminology to describe the metrics. Diverse technology creates both semantic and real technical challenges when attempting to standardize metrics across varying organizations and business models.

 Business and operational realities:

CMF stakeholders represent a wide range of organizations with varying resources and skill sets. This creates a situation where that which works well for one organization can prove quite challenging and cost prohibitive to another.

 Compliance with Department of Canadian Heritage:

The CMF is bound by its contribution agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage to provide audience, usage, and revenue data for CMF-supported digital content on platforms other than television.

2.2. Workshop Background

Two separate workshops were held in Toronto in the summer of 2011 to give CMF stakeholders the opportunity to share their respective positions and provide direct input into the development of an effective digital media performance measurement framework. The first workshop was held on June 28, 2011, and lasted a full day. A second half-day follow-up session was held on July 12, 2011.

The Advisory Committee was composed of 32 CMF stakeholders, including broadcasters and content producers, from a variety of organizations. Prior to the first workshop, all participants were asked to complete an anonymous online survey on their view of strategic digital media measurement issues, challenges, attitudes, and concerns. Survey results were collected and analyzed in relationship to the CMF’s digital media measurement mandate and subsequently helped set the agenda for the first full-day workshop. The first session was designed as an interactive and collaborative workshop, challenging stakeholders to address key DM measurement “problem areas.” Workshop participants were divided into three groups with representatives from each industry present. Groups brainstormed to find solutions to key measurement challenges suggested by workshop organizers. Three breakout sessions were held throughout the day, each building on the results of the previous session. After each breakout session, the three groups reconvened to share their findings. The pros, cons, and challenges of each presentation were

(7)

discussed.

The second workshop was primarily designed to give stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback on the first draft of the CMF measurement framework. The next steps in the process were also discussed. Individuals were asked to participate in smaller groups to address the specific measurement challenges ahead.

2.3. Purpose of the Measurement Framework

The measurement framework is applicable to all digital media projects funded through CMF programs, including both the digital media components funded through the Convergent stream and all projects funded through the Experimental stream. The measurement framework defined in this document does not apply to VOD or to CMF-funded television programs distributed through digital means (e.g. catch-up TV, simultaneous webcasts, etc.).

2.4. Methodology Validation

The document’s scope is defined by the collective discussions and output from the Advisory Committee. In keeping with all frameworks, this one represents a conceptual model for organizing and understanding the metrics and KPIs to be used in evaluating the performance of digital projects funded by the CMF.

The methodology proposed for the framework was tested and validated by an independent web analytics firm, Unilytics, through a program that leveraged real stakeholder audience and usage data submitted from past CMF programs (e.g. Canadian Television Fund). The result of this methodology validation led to further refinement of the classification framework and resulting statistical approaches that the CMF will adopt when processing the data.

(8)

3. Current Status

Close to 80% of CMF funding is disbursed through the Performance Envelope Program. This program is part of the CMF Convergent stream, allocating funds to Canadian broadcasters, as they are best suited to decide which projects have the greatest potential for market success. Although envelopes are allocated to broadcasters, CMF funding is disbursed directly to producers on an annual basis.

Launched in 2010-2011, the CMF Experimental stream funds Canadian interactive, innovative, and cutting-edge digital media content and software applications. Funding is not distributed through a performance envelope system in the Experimental stream.

In view of the federal government’s policy direction announced in March 2009 and subsequent technical briefings, the CMF consulted extensively with the industry throughout 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 prior to implementing a number of changes with respect to the calculation of Performance Envelopes for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Some of these changes are considered to be permanent, while others are transitional in nature, pending further consultation and the development of specific metrics.

The factor weights used in the calculation of the 2012-2013 Performance Envelopes are as follows:

Factor Notes Weighting

English French

Audience Success Calculated on total hours tuned. 40% 35%

Original First Run The broadcaster must have contributed toward the original financing of the project, the first airing on a conventional broadcaster, or the first 3 airings on a specialty or pay broadcaster.

15% 15%

Historic performance Calculated on use of CMF funds over the previous

3 years. 15% 25%

Regional licensing Calculated on $ of regional licences issued in the

previous year. 20% 10%

Above-threshold licences Calculated on $ of licences above threshold

issued in the previous year. 0% 5%

DM investment The sum of broadcaster investments and CMF

commitments to the DM portion of Convergent Performance Envelope projects in the previous year.

10% 10%

The digital media investment factor was a provisional solution proposed for the 2011-2012 and the 2012-2013 Performance Envelope allocation process, pending the development of appropriate metrics to determine digital media success.

In addition to determining the appropriate metrics to measure DM audiences, the CMF must select web analytics software and solutions and a service provider to assist in capturing and evaluating the vast amount of collected data. The data must then be streamlined and analyzed. There are several DM data analytics software applications available on the market; however, industry opinions vary widely in regards to the current and future capabilities of these software solutions. The CMF will also require the services of an experienced analytics service provider to assist in developing a technical guide and to establish a standard tagging procedure for CMF-funded projects. The provider must also offer technical support to DM producers with less experience.

(9)

4. Issues, Assumptions, Constraints and Risks

4.1. Issues

The Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework takes into account the major issues that were discussed during the workshop sessions.

 Different organizations measure digital media with varying degrees of complexity, using a range of tools and implementation methods. Data collected from various organizations may not be consistent. By relying solely on self-reporting from producers, the CMF will continue to face this methodology variance from one analytics tool to another.

 When measuring the level of content consumption, we must differentiate digital media that encourages repeat views, plays, or interactions (e.g. online games) from digital media that may not (e.g. a single linear episode of a TV series).

 When measuring audience reach, the measurement framework must consider the overall potential for target audiences. Expectations in terms of reach will vary based on the potential audience for different digital media projects.

 The proliferation of connected platforms has created multiple access points to digital media content. Designing a classification model based on platforms or devices could represent challenges in terms of data segmentation. Among the measurement challenges, users can split their consumption of a given content across different devices. For instance, a user might start a game on his/her personal computer and reconnect later through a smartphone as he/she commutes. Moreover, market penetration varies from one device to another, creating variances in potential audience sizes for each platform.

4.2. Assumptions

In endeavouring to establish a unified approach and common framework for digital media measurement, certain assumptions were made by the Advisory Committee. The major assumptions are as follows:

 The differences between stakeholder measurement systems and the data collection methodologies they deploy can be compensated for by policy and technical rules. Eventually, by implementing an automated analytics tool in-house (instead of collecting data coming from various sources) and by adopting a standard tagging and data collection methodology for all stakeholders, the CMF will overcome these technical disparities.

 Geographic and demographic variations across markets in Canada, which could have an impact on audience reach and digital media consumption levels, can be corrected for comparison purposes through proper categorization and segmentation of performance data.

 The CMF measurement model does not need to take into consideration specific promotional and marketing strategies used by organizations to drive digital media content consumption. Regardless of the types of promotion, evidence of successful digital media deployment will always be measurable by direct consumption (e.g. increased number of downloads, video plays, etc.). Nonetheless, the promotional budget allocated to a DM project remains an indicator that should be monitored by the CMF in order to determine if there is a correlation with DM performance.

(10)

4.3. Constraints

To standardize practices and achieve the goal of a common performance measurement framework, the framework must take into account the following limitations:

 Standardization requires simplicity, both from a technology perspective and from human resources. Measurement requirements must be kept as simple as possible so that all stakeholders can cost- effectively comply with performance measurement requirements.

 DM content is delivered using several types of technology (offered by myriad vendors) that provide different levels of audience data. Therefore, some media content formats are more quantifiable than others. The Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework identifies baseline metrics that are already considered to be analytics “best practices” and that are part of most technologies.

 The Convergent stream supports four specific genres, which enables straightforward project classification and segmentation. However, the Experimental stream relates to a wider range of project types. This may create an extra challenge in regards to the typologies of the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework.

4.4. Risks

The following potential risks should be considered when rolling out the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework:

 There may be resistance from stakeholders if the CMF implements a measurement program in order to introduce a Performance Envelope audience success factor without sufficient time for thorough and rigorous testing and transparent, industry-wide acceptance of the process.

 The high volume of digital media projects funded through the CMF every year, and the large number of production companies receiving contributions from the CMF will create multiple-source reporting, which, in return, will create a data validation challenge and audit burden for the CMF. To mitigate these risks, the CMF has undertaken the following actions:

 The framework was developed through consultation with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. The framework and statistical methodology have been tested and adjustments made to the measurement framework.

 It is important to maintain an ongoing consultation process, online or otherwise, and allow a full year to test and adjust the program prior to adding a DM audience success factor to Performance Envelope calculations in 2013-2014.

The CMF intends to conduct a parallel method to collect data:

1. Rely on self-reporting by producers, while collecting as many comments and other inputs as possible to refine the measurement framework;

2. Implement a CMF analytics solution based on standardized tagging specifications. This will allow the CMF to:

(11)

b. Flatten the variances resulting from the use of different analytics tools.

It is CMF’s intention to eventually transition towards exclusively using the in-house data collection system, in order to relieve producers of the administrative reporting burden and considerably diminish data validation and audit challenges.

Another possibility would be the emergence on the market of an independent third party capable of providing the CMF with standardized reports for the entire digital content industry, much like the audience data that the BBM offers for television. This type of provider would have to apply performance indicators that have been established as standards and accepted as such by industry stakeholders. In the absence of this service, the CMF will continue to apply the existing measurement framework and will deploy the tools needed to gather data.

(12)

5. Solution

5.1. Measurement Framework Objective

The objective of the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework is to construct a fair and transparent measurement system built on a standard set of baseline metrics. These metrics need to be commonly available across reporting tools and technologies. Additionally, the framework should be simple enough to avoid costly system configurations.

The pyramid diagram below illustrates a conceptual view of the relationships between four key components of the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework. Each classification under CMF typologies, delivery Methods, and content types is required to help the CMF organize, classify, and segment stakeholder data. In some cases, the framework may also help to resolve semantic differences between metrics that quantify the same or similar activities using terminology specific to a particular content type. Each classification under CMF typologies, delivery methods, and content types is detailed in section 6 (Solution Details).

Figure 1: CMF Typologies, Delivery Methods, and Content Classifications for Framing Metrics 1. CMF Typologies • Stream • Genre • Language 4. Mesurements and KPIS

• Specific reach metrics • Specific consumption metrics 2. Delivery Methods • Website • Application • Physical support • Downloadable • Streaming

3.

Content Types • Video • Rich interactive media

• Game • eBook • Social Media

(13)

5.2. How the Framework Addresses Key Measurement Challenges

Section 4 (Issues, Assumptions, Constraints and Risks) lists the major issues facing the development of a performance measurement framework, based on the Committee’s feedback. The following list provides a brief explanation of how each issue is addressed by the various layers/components of the Performance Measurement Framework outlined in Section 6.

1. The Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework is based on standard metric sets found in most commercial analytics solutions that easily meet CMF measurement requirements. This does not mean that all basic metrics will be calculated in exactly the same way from one analytics solution to the next. However, by leveraging simple metrics, data consistency will be maximized from the outset.

2. The Performance Measurement Framework takes into account sufficient data categorization— by typologies, delivery methods, and content types—to maintain fair comparisons across the various permutations of digital media projects funded through CMF’s programs.

3. When measuring audience consumption levels, digital media performance data within this framework can be segmented by a wide range of different content types. For example, digital media that encourage repeat views, plays, or interactions, such as online gaming, can be distinguished from digital media that may not, such as a single linear episode of a web series. 4. Based on Committee consensus, only “actions” initiated by a direct user input (e.g. click to play or

to download video) will be measured within the measurement framework. Therefore, a video that is automatically loaded and begins playing when a user lands on a web page (i.e. a video play unaided by user interaction) will not count as digital media consumption.

(14)

6. Solution Details

6.1. Measurement Framework Components

Before discussing the specific metrics at the core of the performance program, CMF typologies, delivery methods, and content types must be reviewed. When applied to performance measurement data, these categorizations will allow accurate performance comparisons across various digital media delivery methods, content types, and audience scenarios encountered by the CMF.

1. CMF typologies: The highest level at which the CMF can segment and classify data, such as funding streams, genres, or language. Typology classifications will also be used to establish performance benchmarks over time for all major CMF media categories.

2. Delivery methods: Content is made available to audiences using a variety of different delivery methods, such as websites, mobile apps, gaming consoles, downloadable formats, and streaming technology. There may be variations in performance metrics across delivery methods based on consumer adoption and changing industry trends.

3. Content types: Content is consumed by audiences in different formats, creating different user experiences. These formats/types have been identified as video, rich interactive media, games, eBooks, and social media. Content reaches audiences using the delivery methods outlined above.

Le cadre de classification se compose de ces trois dimensions superposées. La combinaison de ces dimensions, plus particulièrement les modes de transmission et les types de contenu, forme les catégories qu’utilisera le FMC pour regrouper, évaluer et comparer les projets qui sont financés.

The classification framework is made up of layered dimensions. The combination of these dimensions—

1. CMF Typologies

Stream Genre Language Website Application Physical Support Downloadable Streaming

2. Delivery Methods

3. Content Type

Rich interactive content

Video Game eBook Social

(15)

CMF St rea m G en re La ng ua g e

particularly the pairing of delivery methods and content type—will be used by CMF to group, measure, and compare funded projects.

6.2. Typologies

In this context, typologies are the highest level of the CMF classification framework. They are made up of layered media and content-related dimensions: Language, stream, genre (applicable only to the

Convergent stream), delivery method, and principal content type. The combinations of these dimensions, particularly delivery methods and content type, become the typologies the CMF will use to group, measure, and compare funded projects. Because the typologies are made up of distinct and complementary layers, a high level of flexibility is built into the framework. Additional layers may be added (e.g. geographical region), and existing layers can be expanded.

6.2.1. Streams

The proposed Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework applies only to the CMF Convergent (for the digital media component only) and Experimental streams. This level of segmentation

differentiates between DM projects that relate to a television project versus standalone DM projects.

6.2.2. Genre

The CMF Convergent stream supports the creation of television shows and related digital media content in the following genres: drama, documentary, children and youth, and variety and performing arts. To ensure accurate audience comparisons, performance metrics will need to be classified by relevant genre. In the case where there is no specific genre, such as in the Experimental stream, this typology would not be used.

6.2.3. Language

In Canada, DM content is created and delivered in a variety of audience languages representing the unique demographic composition of the country, such as French, English, and Aboriginal.

Additionally, the CMF introduced funding in the 2010-2011 fiscal year for “Diverse Languages” (essentially languages that are not French, English, or Aboriginal). Similar to genre, these language markets are segmented to ensure relevant comparisons.

(16)

W eb s ite A pp lic a ti o n P hy s ic al S up po rt Down loa da b le S tr ea mi n g 6.3. Delivery Methods

Delivery methods are various transmission mechanisms used to reach intended audiences. Delivery method definitions do not rely on a particular consumer device; a delivery method may apply to one or more types of devices (e.g. the website delivery method can be accessed through a PC, smartphone, or tablet). Delivery method definitions do not rely on a particular content type; an individual content type (e.g. video) can be made available through a number of different delivery methods.

The workshop and subsequent work on historical data helped identified five distinct delivery methods that the DM framework will need to address.

6.3.1. Website

Whether accessed through a PC or a mobile device, we refer to websites whenever the content is delivered through a web browser using an Internet connection. Websites remain a primary delivery method for DM content by CMF stakeholders. All content types addressed in this performance

measurement framework—video, rich interactive media, games, eBooks, and social media—can be delivered over the web for audience consumption.

6.3.2. Application

Like websites, applications may be accessed on a variety of devices (PC, mobile, game console, or dedicated devices). The CMF generally recognizes two main categories of apps:

 Mobile apps in which the content is embedded into an application that has previously been installed on a mobile device before becoming accessible. This also includes real- time mobile applications that connect to the Internet to refresh the app’s content.

 Software applications which are purely technological products dedicated to perform a variety of tasks or provide users with specific functionalities. The Experimental Stream does finance projects that could be software applications, game engines, or technological platforms without any embedded content.

6.3.3. Physical Support

For the purposes of the DM Measurement Framework, physical support is viewed as any tangible storage method—whether proprietary (to a device) or generic—used to deliver content to the end user. Physical support involves a manufacturing process and usually requires a reading device. Discs, cartridges, USB drives or memory cards, among others, belong to this category.

6.3.4. Downloadable

Unlike content that is delivered as the user navigates through it on a connected device, downloadable content is transferred from a server to a connected personal computer or other connected device for

(17)

V id e o Ri c h I n terac ti v e Cont e nt G am e eB o ok S oc ia l Me d ia

consumption as a fixed package once downloaded. In other words, content can be accessed whether or not the device on which it has been downloaded is connected at the moment of consumption. Although dowloadables do require the installation of an application that runs scripts (e.g. Adobe Air or Quicktime player), this application component may not have been financed by the CMF. This is what makes it different from the previous “mobile application” category.

6.3.5. Streaming

Steaming digital media is downloaded to the user in a constant data stream for consumption in real time. It is important to distinguish streaming from the other delivery methods, since user interaction with streaming media is limited in comparison to other delivery methods. And while it may be considered a subset of downloading, it is also set apart, since it can provide greater breadth of measurement than fixed downloading.

6.4. Content Types

Content types describe media products available in different digital formats. The same content type can be delivered across multiple delivery methods. Major content types identified include video, rich

interactive media, games, eBooks and social media. To determine the category in which a project should be classified, producers will be asked to identify the principal content type of their project, i.e. the content type driving the user experience. When a project encompasses more than one principal content type, different reporting forms can be used.

6.4.1. Video

Video refers to digital content featuring moving images and may include synchronized audio. Video can refer to “clips”, “webisodes” or “mobisodes”. Once a video begins playing, no other interaction from the user is required, and it will continue to run until it reaches the final frame. This is not to say that video does not allow for interaction, i.e. an interactive webseries could be mainly built on video yet be highly interactive. Other typical user interaction with video content includes starting (playing), stopping or pausing the program and may include interacting with clickable zones overlaying the video content.

6.4.2. Rich Interactive Media

Rich interactive media refers to content that requires interaction with the end user at a certain point in time. In addition, there may be multiple paths a user can take when advancing the program, which differentiates interactive media from linear content. Rich interactive media is expected to have higher levels of user engagement, primarily measured by the number of actions per session.

(18)

Games function only if there is continuous interaction with the user. They require constant feedback for the end user to advance in the game. Consequently, games are expected to have very high levels of user engagement. The structure is what distinguishes a game from a non- game, such as rich interactive media. Games usually integrate elements such as rules, progressive structures (competitive or based on skills or luck), reward systems, and other “playing” features.

6.4.4. eBook

eBooks can be digital versions of printed books or released in original digital book format but, in either case, are primarily literary works. eBooks are traditionally intended for consumption on a purpose-built device (e.g. Kindle, Kobo, etc.) or on a device containing an installed eBook reader application, such as an e-tablet, mobile device, or PC. eBooks are also available in a variety of formats, including PDF, ePub, or mobi files. While the content type definition does not rely on a specific delivery method, the delivery method for eBooks is usually downloadable. Currently, the CMF does not consider an eBook without any additional audiovisual and interactive elements as eligible for inclusion in the Convergent or Experimental streams.

6.4.5. Social Media

Social media, as a content type definition, refers to what is produced by the real-time creation and

exchange of user-generated content on a social media platform. Interactions include status updates, blog posts, shared URLs, photos, and videos (either selected for sharing by an individual or created by an individual), comments addressed to an individual made in a public or semi-private forum, e.g. tweets and wall posts, and responses to those updates, blog posts, shared items, and comments. Social media is distinguished from other content types by the “many-to-many” social interactions as opposed to the “one-to-many” communications of the other content types.

6.5. Metrics and KPIs

Metrics used within the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework will primarily be quantitative In addition, to simplify its use, the measurement program will not attempt to create a single "compound" metric that captures performance across delivery methods, content types, or typologies in a single number. Rather, metrics will be segmented out as per previously mentioned framework categorizations. This will simplify the measurement program and help streamline initial operational efforts around plain and standard metrics.

6.5.1. Four Standard Metrics

Although some content types also have their own specific measurements (the detailed tables of metrics and KPIs per content type can be found in Appendix A), the Measurement Advisory Committee has identified a set of five standard metrics that are applicable to all content types and that will form the baseline for calculating KPIs for audience success.

Unique individuals

The number of unique individuals who have consumed content during the reporting period. An individual, identified by a visitor ID, username, subscriber ID, etc. counts as a unique individual only once in the reporting period, no matter how many times he accessed the content within that timeframe. The term “Unique individual” should be used across the different content types and delivery methods and may therefore be considered the equivalent of: “unique visitor”; “Viewer”; “active user”.

(19)

The number of times a unique individual accessed content during the reporting period. A single session generally lasts until the user stops accessing the content by closing an application, closing the browser or navigating to another page, turning off the game console, etc.

Downloads, Streams, Video Starts, User Actions, Page Views

The number of times a individual viewed, downloaded, streamed, played, or took another action to

advance content. Downloads apply to both the downloadable and application delivery methods, as well as to the video, games and eBook content types.

Time Spent

The total time spent consuming content by a unique individual across all sessions and all content segments within the reporting period.

6.5.2. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

All proposed KPIs in this measurement framework will be calculated from the standard metrics above and from the specific metrics of each content type (see tables in Appendix A). All of the KPIs fall into one of two major categories for determining audience success: Reach and Consumption.

KPIs related to reach

Percentage of total audience

The number of unique individuals who consumed content, as a percentage of the total number of unique individuals measured for the typology. A project can increase reach by taking steps to attract more unique individuals.

KPIs related to consumption (usage)

Consumption is the total number of combined interactions with content over a given period of time. In the context of the Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework, consumption strives to measure the audience’s engagement with each content type.

More specifically, we define consumption as the frequency or depth of interactions with content over a given period of time. Unlike reach metrics, consumption calculates the total volume of interactions by users who consume the same content more than once. For more clarity, it also means that two projects could have the same level of reach (e.g. 10,000 page views) but different levels of consumption. Average content consumption per session

The average amount of content an individual consumes within a single session. This may be measured by page views per visit (website), video starts per visit, streams per visit, downloads per unique individual, etc. A project may increase consumption by encouraging users to consume one more content segment per session.

Average time spent per session

The average amount of time (usually minutes) an individual spends consuming content within a single session. A project may increase consumption by encouraging users to spend more time per session consuming (and engaging with) content.

(20)

7. Conclusion

The proposed Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework was developed in large part based on the direct involvement of Advisory Committee members.

The framework was achieved by addressing the major issues and challenges highlighted by workshop participants while at the same time staying on task in regards to the objectives and timelines set forth by the CMF.

Given the complexity of this unprecedented task, it would be presumptuous to attempt a perfect solution to the performance measurement challenge at this stage. However, workshop participants agreed that there was common ground from which to begin. This document represents the first significant step in what has been largely expressed by stakeholders as a critical need for the industry: adopting a standardized approach to digital media performance measurement.

As requirements grow and technologies change, new metrics will be introduced to keep the program current and relevant.

Canada Media Fund. Digital Media Performance Measurement Framework October 1st, 2014 Version modified IMPORTANT: