Interview with media research legend, Artie Bulgrin, who was head of research at ESPN for over two decades. Includes great stories about how research contributed to the creation of ESPN original content in 2001, Artie’s role in driving the Disney Media & Advertising Lab (subsequently becoming MediaScience), Project Blue Print (a cross-platform measurement solution years ahead of its time) and great insights on research leadership. A GREAT start to the new podcast series…

Interview with media research legend, Artie Bulgrin, who was head of research at ESPN for over two decades. Includes great stories about how research contributed to the creation of ESPN original content in 2001, Artie’s role in driving the Disney Media & Advertising Lab (subsequently becoming MediaScience), Project Blue Print (a cross-platform measurement solution years ahead of its time) and great insights on research leadership. A GREAT start to the new podcast series…

Transcript:

Duane: [00:00:00] Legends of Media Research is a podcast series featuring interviews with the media industry’s leading researchers, where we go behind the scenes sharing stories from their greatest achievements and challenges. Brought to you by MediaScience, the leader in media and advertising innovation research.

Stay tuned at the end of the podcast for more information about MediaScience, but for now, I’m your host, MediaScience CEO, Duane Varan.

Hi. Welcome to our first episode of Legends of Media Research. This is a podcast that is sponsored by MediaScience because we wanted to bring the voice of a whole generation of media researchers to the market so they could learn from the great wisdoms of these wonderful, wonderful researchers.

I’m really excited for this first episode because we have one of my absolute favorite researchers, Artie Bulgrin, who headed up [00:01:00] research at ESPN. Artie is responsible for a lot of things, including more than anybody else. He’s really been the key for us behind the creation and the existence of MediaScience.

So we’re really excited to be able to share with you today some of Artie’s stories. The reason that we’ve chosen Artie for our first episode in particular, is Artie has four qualities that you’re going to discover across the podcast that make him particularly unique as a media research leader.

First, of course, is impact. the work that Artie has done had a huge impact on ESPN. In fact, you have to say that the very survival of ESPN at a critical stage probably had a lot to do with A rtie’s research. Artie is part of what I call the billion dollar club. These are researchers who actually had an impact on the organization that was well in excess of at least a billion dollars. And you’re going to see over the course of the interview today why I make that claim for Artie.

So that’s the first thing, highly impactful with the research he [00:02:00] spearheaded. The other thing about Artie, as you’ll see, is he’s all about integrity. Artie was very good at delivering both good news and bad news, and that actually made him more valuable as a researcher, and it made research more valuable as a function within ESPN. So we’ll talk a little bit about that.

The other thing about Artie is he was truly a very unique leader. In fact, he’s one of the most secure people I know and that personal security reflected in a style of leadership that really empowered his team and we’ll talk a lot about that. But also he was a very unique leader for our fourth reason, which is that more than anybody in the industry, I think he really personified the spirit of collaboration. And we’re going to explore that theme as well.

In addition to talking about all these wonderful qualities that Artie has, we’re gonna actually talk about three specific initiatives that he took. One in 2001 when ESPN was on the brink, so to speak, and the [00:03:00] work that he did, particularly around pioneering original content for ESPN and how that kind of like saved the day and repositioned ESPN. We’re gonna talk about the work that he did in creating, really, what was originally the Disney Media and Advertising Lab, which evolved into MediaScience, pioneering the whole lab-based approach, capitalizing on neuroscience and the new tools.

And finally, we’re gonna talk about his Crossmedia leadership around getting comScore and Arbitron together for Crossmedia measurement, which still remains a major challenge for our industry. So we’re really excited. Artie, I can’t tell you how excited it is to have you on our show. Welcome to Legends of Media Research.

Artie: Well, great to be here, Duane, and it’s an honor to be your first interviewee. And also thank you for the very, very kind words.

Duane: So we’re gonna start our story with you, Artie, in your ESPN years, the second half of your career, really. I mean, you had already had a brilliant [00:04:00] career as a researcher at Nielsen for over eight years, and then you had gone on to ABC for over six and a half years.
Of course, in 1996, Disney acquired ABC and ESPN, and you made this transition to ESPN. So we’re gonna pick up the story. What was it like when you first joined ESPN?

Artie: I could tell immediately this was a different place. This was like a Silicon Valley startup. The pace, the hours, the excitement and everything else.

It was the greatest decision of my life. In terms of starting, it was me and another person. In retrospect, and I tell this story a lot when I do talks, I really hated the first year because at ABC, Cap City’s ABC, I had a beautiful office, a tremendous staff, and the hours, you know, were good. We worked hard at times.

ESPN became a different story, and I didn’t have a staff, that would come much later on, and I hated the first year because of the pace, because of the [00:05:00] pressure, and because I had no team and I became basically an analyst all over again. I was brought along as a VP of Research, but I was really just doing the day-to-day work, and it all started with Distribution.

That was the name of the game. And then ultimately it grew into many, many other things. And 21 years later, we had 60 people on the team. We were an international global research team. And we’re gonna get into all of that.
[music]

Duane: Well, let’s talk a little bit about that. I mean, you were almost a one man show. The research department was just you and someone else. How did you go from being like this one man show to having a team of over 60 in the span of just two decades? I mean, it’s not just that you had a large team of 60, it’s the reputation that that team had.

I mean, you know, ESPN really at its peak was the dream team of media research. Everybody went to conferences [00:06:00] to hear what these researchers –I mean, you had an amazing team of researchers at ESPN. How did you do that?

Artie: Well, and you described it well, Duane. In short, the short story is that it’s being lucky to hire exactly the right people at the right time.
But the longer story is that the part that I hated most in the beginning of that job ended up being the most important part of my indoctrination and my ability to understand what was necessary to move forward in terms of growing that department. I didn’t just come in and start hiring people.

I was cutting my teeth, right? And I was learning about the business of ESPN, which was a very, very different business from Cap City’s ABC, and of course, very different from Nielsen. 1996, it was still kind of the heyday and the surge and growth period of multi-channel television. The research back then was about proving the value of ESPN to the [00:07:00] consumer.

What was the consumer’s perceived value of ESPN? Measuring that and then producing the right research so that the people in the field calling on these cable operators and satellite services proving the value of it. Once we were able to get Distribution up to a certain level, moving, let’s say, from 50 million to 70-80, and then ultimately the plateau was a little over a hundred million homes at ESPN, which was, you know, the key to success there at ESPN, we could grow ad sales at the same time, right?

Because ad sales was about reach. What I learned very, very quickly is that if we could demonstrate value to the research in terms of actually making money or contributing to the process of making money, they could allocate headcount to my group, of course, with a lot of permissioning.
And that’s the process that I started going down first from a distribution perspective, an ad sales perspective, a programming perspective, [00:08:00] focusing on the key departments that mattered, the marketing department, and being able to keep track of the contributions that we’ve made and telling the story of the impact of that contribution on revenue.

And I know for a fact that’s how we started to get into this rhythm of being able to build our headcount. And there were so many businesses being created within ESPN in terms of the channels, getting into the Hispanic television, sports television space, magazine, digital, whatever the case may be. There was always an opportunity right at headcount.

But the hard part was proving that value and as the leader of the department, that was really my focus.
[music]

Well, and you described it well, Duane. In short, the short story is that it’s being lucky to hire exactly the right people at the right time.
But the longer story is that the part that I hated most in the beginning of that job ended up being the most important part of my indoctrination and my ability to understand what was necessary to move forward in terms of growing that department. I didn’t just come in and start hiring people.

I was cutting my teeth, right? And I was learning about the business of ESPN, which was a very, very different business from Cap City’s ABC, and of course, very different from Nielsen. 1996, it was still kind of the heyday and the surge and growth period of multi-channel television. The research back then was about proving the value of ESPN to the [00:07:00] consumer.

What was the consumer’s perceived value of ESPN? Measuring that and then producing the right research so that the people in the field calling on these cable operators and satellite services proving the value of it. Once we were able to get Distribution up to a certain level, moving, let’s say, from 50 million to 70-80, and then ultimately the plateau was a little over a hundred million homes at ESPN, which was, you know, the key to success there at ESPN, we could grow ad sales at the same time, right?

Because ad sales was about reach. What I learned very, very quickly is that if we could demonstrate value to the research in terms of actually making money or contributing to the process of making money, they could allocate headcount to my group, of course, with a lot of permissioning.
And that’s the process that I started going down first from a distribution perspective, an ad sales perspective, a programming perspective, [00:08:00] focusing on the key departments that mattered, the marketing department, and being able to keep track of the contributions that we’ve made and telling the story of the impact of that contribution on revenue.

And I know for a fact that’s how we started to get into this rhythm of being able to build our headcount. And there were so many businesses being created within ESPN in terms of the channels, getting into the Hispanic television, sports television space, magazine, digital, whatever the case may be. There was always an opportunity right at headcount.

But the hard part was proving that value and as the leader of the department, that was really my focus.
[music]

Duane: Well, let’s talk a little bit about that. I mean, you were almost a one man show. The research department was just you and someone else. How did you go from being like this one man show to having a team of over 60 in the span of just two decades? I mean, it’s not just that you had a large team of 60, it’s the reputation that that team had.

I mean, you know, ESPN really at its peak was the dream team of media research. Everybody went to conferences [00:06:00] to hear what these researchers –I mean, you had an amazing team of researchers at ESPN. How did you do that?

Artie: Well, and you described it well, Duane. In short, the short story is that it’s being lucky to hire exactly the right people at the right time.
But the longer story is that the part that I hated most in the beginning of that job ended up being the most important part of my indoctrination and my ability to understand what was necessary to move forward in terms of growing that department. I didn’t just come in and start hiring people.

I was cutting my teeth, right? And I was learning about the business of ESPN, which was a very, very different business from Cap City’s ABC, and of course, very different from Nielsen. 1996, it was still kind of the heyday and the surge and growth period of multi-channel television. The research back then was about proving the value of ESPN to the [00:07:00] consumer.

What was the consumer’s perceived value of ESPN? Measuring that and then producing the right research so that the people in the field calling on these cable operators and satellite services proving the value of it. Once we were able to get Distribution up to a certain level, moving, let’s say, from 50 million to 70-80, and then ultimately the plateau was a little over a hundred million homes at ESPN, which was, you know, the key to success there at ESPN, we could grow ad sales at the same time, right?

Because ad sales was about reach. What I learned very, very quickly is that if we could demonstrate value to the research in terms of actually making money or contributing to the process of making money, they could allocate headcount to my group, of course, with a lot of permissioning.
And that’s the process that I started going down first from a distribution perspective, an ad sales perspective, a programming perspective, [00:08:00] focusing on the key departments that mattered, the marketing department, and being able to keep track of the contributions that we’ve made and telling the story of the impact of that contribution on revenue.

And I know for a fact that’s how we started to get into this rhythm of being able to build our headcount. And there were so many businesses being created within ESPN in terms of the channels, getting into the Hispanic television, sports television space, magazine, digital, whatever the case may be. There was always an opportunity right at headcount.

But the hard part was proving that value and as the leader of the department, that was really my focus.
[music]

Duane: So I think, Artie, we want to glean insights, out of your comments as well. And I think this is one of the big insights that grows out of your life experience, which is, you know, as much as a media research leader [00:09:00] needs to do good research, they also need to do a good job in communicating that research.

Particularly to the C-suite. You have kind of a dual mission, on the one hand kind of like overseeing this research and doing great work, but if people don’t know you did great work, it’s almost like it didn’t even happen. So there is this challenge of building the relationships to demonstrate that value within the C-Suite.

And again, I think that’s something that you just did a phenomenal job of, I mean, in large part because you did add value, but you were able to add the value and communicate that to the leadership. One point with that, though, that I’d like to explore, ‘cause it’s something I always really admired about you, is that there are people who are in your kind of position who would not be bold in going forward with bad news.

I mean, it’s easy to be the hero when you have good news to share with the C-Suite, but I think one of the things that [00:10:00] was remarkable about your style of communicating at that level was your ability to be the bearer of bad news with the same smile, with the same kind of like persona and still have that be welcomed and still have people understand the value of being able to kind of capitalize on those insights.

So maybe you could tell us a little about your secrets, about how did you develop the skill? How were you able to deliver, you know, bad news to the C-suite?

Artie: Yeah. But I’ll first start with the –with just how the communication started, particularly within ESPN. And there’s one story that I tell over and over again.

When I first started, George, who was Head of Sales and Marketing, and eventually became President of ESPN and Co-Chairman of Disney Media Networks. George was hungry for information, right? So, and that was to my benefit. In fact, everybody on the senior team there was very, very hungry for information.

So they [00:11:00] were eager to meet with me. I would have my meetings with George, and in the early days, first few weeks or months, you know, I would bring in a stack of paper and spreadsheets and everything else, and I’d make copies for him and I’d hand it to him. And, true story, George would take it and just shove it back to my side of the table that we were working at.

He says, “Artie, just tell me what I need to know”. Right? And I never forgot those words, the rest of my career there. And it’s an interesting phrase and what it meant was that I trust you. I hired you because I believe you had the right talent for this, but more importantly, I trust you. So tell me what I need to know.

In other words, distill it down into the salient points. The other thing is that because of George’s and The Hundred chronology of ESPN, I was invited to all the company conferences, including the annual sales meetings and everything else to give essentially kind of the keynote [00:12:00] address, right? That started almost from the beginning, and that was probably the greatest opportunity ever.

And knowing that I could have that podium while I was here, as long as I delivered, as you said, good news and bad, right? And when you deliver the bad news, ‘cause you were given the responsibility and oversight over the information and the insight for the company, right? You should have some idea of what the solution is to that bad news or to that problem or to that challenge.

And over time we were able to, you know, develop that reputation for: “it’s not just all good news, he’s telling us, right? He’s giving us constructive criticism or he is giving us good insight to help us overcome, you know, our challenges going forward.”
[music]

Yeah. But I’ll first start with the –with just how the communication started, particularly within ESPN. And there’s one story that I tell over and over again.

When I first started, George, who was Head of Sales and Marketing, and eventually became President of ESPN and Co-Chairman of Disney Media Networks. George was hungry for information, right? So, and that was to my benefit. In fact, everybody on the senior team there was very, very hungry for information.

So they [00:11:00] were eager to meet with me. I would have my meetings with George, and in the early days, first few weeks or months, you know, I would bring in a stack of paper and spreadsheets and everything else, and I’d make copies for him and I’d hand it to him. And, true story, George would take it and just shove it back to my side of the table that we were working at.

He says, “Artie, just tell me what I need to know”. Right? And I never forgot those words, the rest of my career there. And it’s an interesting phrase and what it meant was that I trust you. I hired you because I believe you had the right talent for this, but more importantly, I trust you. So tell me what I need to know.

In other words, distill it down into the salient points. The other thing is that because of George’s and The Hundred chronology of ESPN, I was invited to all the company conferences, including the annual sales meetings and everything else to give essentially kind of the keynote [00:12:00] address, right? That started almost from the beginning, and that was probably the greatest opportunity ever.

And knowing that I could have that podium while I was here, as long as I delivered, as you said, good news and bad, right? And when you deliver the bad news, ‘cause you were given the responsibility and oversight over the information and the insight for the company, right? You should have some idea of what the solution is to that bad news or to that problem or to that challenge.

And over time we were able to, you know, develop that reputation for: “it’s not just all good news, he’s telling us, right? He’s giving us constructive criticism or he is giving us good insight to help us overcome, you know, our challenges going forward.”
[music]

Duane: Let me go just a little bit further in terms of the relationship that you built with the C-Suite. One of the things that always [00:13:00] amazed me, Artie, was the rapport you had with absolutely everybody at the organization at ESPN. You know, what was unique, I think, about the way that you approached your research was you weren’t supply driven.

It was not like, “we can do this research, you should do the research”. It was, you had a dialogue with every business unit around, what their pain points were, what their needs were, and you would come back to them with research initiatives which actually responded to their needs. I mean, one of the things as a supplier of research to you that I remember being really surprised with was, you know, one study that you did, for example, where the engineers wanted to know about a particular compression algorithm and what impact that would have on the audience.

Could the audience even perceive the difference in the signal? Again, you don’t think of media research business units spearheading engineering research, but it’s just characteristic of the type of work that you were doing. So maybe you could talk a little bit about that rapport that you built within the organization

Artie: In [00:14:00] retrospect, I could say that it was just organic, but again, I come back to the collaborative spirit of ESPN, the collegiality of it. We were all in this together and I was fascinated by, you know, when you visit Bristol, it blows you away because you don’t think of ESPN having one of the largest digital campuses in the world.

Which it, you know, which it does. And I was fascinated by that. And so I spent a lot of time with the engineering folks. I spent a tremendous amount of time with corporate communications and listening to their questions and their needs and everything else. As I said, the finance department, the list goes on and on.

They were all interested or all hungry for information. And once I– once they knew that I could help them, they would bounce things off of us. And, you know, and I had people on my team that were the same way. [00:15:00] Glenn Enoch, you know, who has to be mentioned in all of this was, you know, clearly my partner here, and brilliant researcher.

If it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t be able to overcome many of the challenges that we did. Glenn was one of those guys just like me, who was just intellectually stimulated by all of this stuff and curious about all this stuff, and if we could help people, we did. And as our research toolbox got bigger and bigger, particularly, you know, Duane with your lab, we wanted to branch out and answer questions that couldn’t be answered, you know, historically, like aspect ratio, questions like 3D, will it be successful, etc, etc.

We developed the right solution for the question. And over time you build a track record of being collaborative, being successful at it, providing solutions or some direction, and it builds your business as a researcher. It just does. And [00:16:00] that’s how you expand the department. You expand the capabilities and you invite people in. And you basically don’t say no.
[music]

Duane: Fantastic. So just to summarize the C-suite discussion. So you developed a path to the podium so that you had a voice. You were the bearer of good news, but also bad. But when you had to give bad news, you would also have solutions so that it wasn’t just a pointless, kind of like, self-critical exercise, but there was actually some potential direction.

You built relationships and rapport across business units, lots of great lessons, I think, that really translated into seeing that impact on the organization. Artie, we’re gonna come now to some of the juicy, juicy, juicy experiences that you had, adventures that you had, really, at ESPN.

And we’re gonna start with, I think, what is in terms of impact, probably the [00:17:00] most important contribution you made in your years at ESPN. And that was the events leading up to 2001, where, you know, the very survival of ESPN was really at risk. Maybe you can walk us through what was going on and what role research played in all of that.

Artie: It was the period around 1999, 2000, 2001, where there was, it was really a period of fragmentation. Nothing compares to what we’re going through today, but then it was a really big deal in terms of, there was cable growth and then some very, very rapid growth in terms of satellite and really the 300-500 channel universe that satellite, you know, brought to bear.

We really weren’t paying attention to our programming. We were a series of sports networks. ESPN, ESPN-2 later, ESPN-News and you know, ESPN had Sports Center. But most of the daytime programming was, you know, essentially paid content or taped [00:18:00] content, content that would be provided by, you know, content companies.

And, you know, there was cheerleading, there was, you know, European sports, re-airs of certain programs. They were just like filling in half hours and hours, you know, here and there without a real strategy. And by 2001, we had started to see a precipitous drop in our ratings.
So, you know, a meeting was called, you know, George asked me to prepare some material to help explain what the issues are. The high level thing at the time was essentially that we are seeing our reach growing, but we are seeing our minutes declining. So the questions came, okay. So, you know, why do you think that is?

And I said, ‘well, typically, the reach is increasing because we’re growing distribution and more people are tuning in. They’re just not spending as much time with us as they did when our footprint was a bit smaller [00:19:00] and they’re not spending as much time with us because the television footprint, the number of channels, is getting wider.’

So there are alternatives all of a sudden. There are alternatives in the morning when Sports Center is not on. There are alternatives around five or six o’clock when, you know, when you get into the early evening and there’s news and prime access. And then in prime time, certainly, there’s many more alternatives and that’s affecting our audience.

Knowing that a rating is about reach, time is time spent, essentially. Let’s take a look at some of the programming that we believe is at risk here and evaluate it, so the team came up with this analysis called the Program X-ray. And the Program X-ray not only summarized the trend data in terms of the amount of tune-in versus the amount of time spent with each program, but also looked at things from a minute by minute perspective in terms of the tune-in the tune out, as well as the time spent.

And you could see [00:20:00] very clearly with these Program X-ray, as they were called, which programs were sick or ill, and which programs actually were healthy and able to maintain audience. And, you know, separating the sticky content from the Teflon content, as I used to say. It was audience repellent, right?

People remember that much later on. So there were clearly programs who were audience repellent and we were able to prove that with this analysis. Dozens, if not, probably well over a hundred of these analyses were done. We went back and presented the results.

They got it. The programming team got it. The marketing team got it. George got it. Sean got it. And so it immediately called for a focus on a new programming strategy focused on content that was audience focused, that didn’t take for granted that we have audience flow to worry about. We have a specific audience to worry about. [00:21:00]

That ratings were about reach and time, tune in and stickiness, and either or both could increase ratings. If you increase tune in, you increase ratings, if you increase time, and if you increase both, it’s a real winner. So the team, the programming team in bristle, understood that, it was very crystal clear, they could do the math.

And so there was a real focus on time spent viewing, replacing paid and taped programming with original content. And it actually gave birth to ESPN Original Entertainment, EOE. We started creating new series like Pardon The Interruption. Pardon The Interruption was created because of this initiative, still one of the highest rated shows on ESPN.

We started doing movies and mini-series, but most importantly, more programming that was within our wheelhouse news and information programming that was specific to certain sports that was live. To this day, ESPN produces more live programming each day than [00:22:00] any other network, anywhere, any other television company, which is why the campus is so big.

So the result was we started turning things around very, very quickly. You could see it in the data. For nine years after that, I was able to report good news. It gave our department a tremendous foundation of confidence, and so we became that much more popular, that much more requested. That much more respected, you know, going forward, which is a really, really big deal. And by 2010, we had hit our highest rated year ever.
[music]

It was the period around 1999, 2000, 2001, where there was, it was really a period of fragmentation. Nothing compares to what we’re going through today, but then it was a really big deal in terms of, there was cable growth and then some very, very rapid growth in terms of satellite and really the 300-500 channel universe that satellite, you know, brought to bear.

We really weren’t paying attention to our programming. We were a series of sports networks. ESPN, ESPN-2 later, ESPN-News and you know, ESPN had Sports Center. But most of the daytime programming was, you know, essentially paid content or taped [00:18:00] content, content that would be provided by, you know, content companies.

And, you know, there was cheerleading, there was, you know, European sports, re-airs of certain programs. They were just like filling in half hours and hours, you know, here and there without a real strategy. And by 2001, we had started to see a precipitous drop in our ratings.

So, you know, a meeting was called, you know, George asked me to prepare some material to help explain what the issues are. The high level thing at the time was essentially that we are seeing our reach growing, but we are seeing our minutes declining. So the questions came, okay. So, you know, why do you think that is?

And I said, ‘well, typically, the reach is increasing because we’re growing distribution and more people are tuning in. They’re just not spending as much time with us as they did when our footprint was a bit smaller [00:19:00] and they’re not spending as much time with us because the television footprint, the number of channels, is getting wider.’

So there are alternatives all of a sudden. There are alternatives in the morning when Sports Center is not on. There are alternatives around five or six o’clock when, you know, when you get into the early evening and there’s news and prime access. And then in prime time, certainly, there’s many more alternatives and that’s affecting our audience.

Knowing that a rating is about reach, time is time spent, essentially. Let’s take a look at some of the programming that we believe is at risk here and evaluate it, so the team came up with this analysis called the Program X-ray. And the Program X-ray not only summarized the trend data in terms of the amount of tune-in versus the amount of time spent with each program, but also looked at things from a minute by minute perspective in terms of the tune-in the tune out, as well as the time spent.

And you could see [00:20:00] very clearly with these Program X-ray, as they were called, which programs were sick or ill, and which programs actually were healthy and able to maintain audience. And, you know, separating the sticky content from the Teflon content, as I used to say. It was audience repellent, right?

People remember that much later on. So there were clearly programs who were audience repellent and we were able to prove that with this analysis. Dozens, if not, probably well over a hundred of these analyses were done. We went back and presented the results.

They got it. The programming team got it. The marketing team got it. George got it. Sean got it. And so it immediately called for a focus on a new programming strategy focused on content that was audience focused, that didn’t take for granted that we have audience flow to worry about. We have a specific audience to worry about. [00:21:00]

That ratings were about reach and time, tune in and stickiness, and either or both could increase ratings. If you increase tune in, you increase ratings, if you increase time, and if you increase both, it’s a real winner. So the team, the programming team in bristle, understood that, it was very crystal clear, they could do the math.

And so there was a real focus on time spent viewing, replacing paid and taped programming with original content. And it actually gave birth to ESPN Original Entertainment, EOE. We started creating new series like Pardon The Interruption. Pardon The Interruption was created because of this initiative, still one of the highest rated shows on ESPN.

We started doing movies and mini-series, but most importantly, more programming that was within our wheelhouse news and information programming that was specific to certain sports that was live. To this day, ESPN produces more live programming each day than [00:22:00] any other network, anywhere, any other television company, which is why the campus is so big.

So the result was we started turning things around very, very quickly. You could see it in the data. For nine years after that, I was able to report good news. It gave our department a tremendous foundation of confidence, and so we became that much more popular, that much more requested. That much more respected, you know, going forward, which is a really, really big deal. And by 2010, we had hit our highest rated year ever.

[music]

Duane: Wow. So in this period, not only did research play a critical role in helping navigate ESPN through its most critical chapter, but also there was this opportunity for formative research, which helped create kind of like almost entirely new genres, you know, within the sports content community. [00:23:00]

Artie: Yeah. So, after that period in 2001, we had a whole series of, besides just managing all of the audience data for the company, and then later the digital data, you know, the ratings coming in and out, reporting that every day and week and month and everything else. Establishing brand health trackers now because we were serious about understanding the audience, the value of the brand to consumers, etc, etc, that was being done.

We got into observational studies, time use studies based on the Middletown Media studies and things like that, which really revealed a lot of insights. We did seminal work on understanding the impact of TiVo and DVRs at the time. You know, without the research, the word on the street and in all the articles on the subject of DVRs is that it’s going to hurt television, it’s gonna hurt sports the most, because everybody’s gonna record their favorite sporting events and they’re gonna fast forward [00:24:00] through it and watch their ball games in 15 minutes and create their own highlight reels with the DVR. Never happened. Right?

We did that study in collaboration with our colleagues at ABC, hich was another great thing about being part of the Disney family. You could harness that power, the intellectual power across the street and on the West Coast to collaborate on things like this that had mutual benefits.
We focused on out of home TV audience measurement. Nielsen did it for a while. They stopped around 2002, 2003. I worked with, you know, one of my former mentors, Dick Monasand at the time, former head of primary research at ESPN and Barbara Lefline, Lefline Associates. We created our own diary base out of home measurement ratings company, basically, and we called it the Total TV Audience Monitor.

That was thrilling. All of that was out of the fact that we had established this trust with the company. We were able to get the budget and we were able to make, take that research and use that [00:25:00] and monetize it, help the company monetize its brand, its audiences, and everything else with this insight.

A couple years later, 2000… and you might help me, Duane, I think 2005, 2006, we got introduced to you through ABC, and the work that you had been doing with classic experimental design and lab work. And it was also about that time, coincidentally, that the heads of sales at the Walt Disney Company had been concerned that the audience is changing, the medium is changing, and we’re not sure what we’re supposed to do, right?

Where is the audience going? And it was that period where everybody was saying, ‘well, the audience is in charge now, right? We’re not in charge. The audience is in control’. The DVR had a lot to do with it. Video on demand was growing, you know, exponentially. And so we, a major meeting of all the heads of [00:26:00] sales across the Walt Disney company had come together.

By then, I had some experience with you in your biometric research, eye tracking research going to all your beyond 30 meetings. And of course it was eye-opening because of the fact that those tools were able to answer questions that otherwise couldn’t be answered with the existing research that we had.

And it explained, and you and I talked this a lot, explained the why to the why, right? Which was, to me, the greatest value. And I had bounced this idea, you know, resurrected this idea that I had with my colleague at Disney and said to Sean Bratches at the time: “we ought to get into this lab. We already ought to create a lab that is similar to the one that’s in Perth, Australia.”

And explained it to him, the idea, and we, okay, let’s see what happens. [00:27:00] So there was a big discussion again about this concept of not knowing where the audience is going by the heads of sales and blah, blah, blah.

I went to Sean, captain on the shoulder. I said, ‘do you mind if I raise this idea now, you know, in front of this…?’, you know, it was probably a hundred people in that room. He said, ‘sure’. And so I did; I presented the idea, complete support from my colleagues at ABC as well. The network research side, many of them who you know as well.

And it was given serious consideration. And long story short, what is it? By 2008, you had a lab facility built for us. We got approval to do this. You know, the rest is history in the sense that for the next nearly 10 years, I think, we finally had the insight to answer the questions that were raised at that senior sales management conference, and by the heads of the Disney Media Networks group, based on science, right? [00:28:00]
Not just conventional research or survey research, but based on science. How people are reacting, and of course, we brought them all down to Austin where we opened up the original facility. Originally we thought it could be at one of the parks and you could put out that idea and everything else wouldn’t be business. [Duane laughs]

So people came in, got wired up and they were sold on it. George came down a little bit later on and I’ll never forget the New York Times article that was written about it, front page of the business section. So that was a seminal moment and a game changer, I think, for all of us.
It represented a new channel of research for both the Disney folks, the ABC folks and us. It raised our perception in the industry significantly. It was trailblazing what you did, what MediaScience did. We were able to brand it the ‘Disney Media & Ad Lab’, [00:29:00] and I’ll never forget what was originally called the Disney Advertising Lab.

And then George, once he was there and he came out of some testing himself said, “you know, don’t leave the word ‘media’ out of this thing, right?

Because this is gonna help us a lot with our programming and content and all that other stuff”. So he could see the vision as well. The lab was, I think, a turning point for everybody; changed the way that we looked at things, changed the way that we knew we could understand things.

Gave us physiological evidence of how advertising works. We were able to apply guidelines to advertising models. When we think about, for example, the creation of the toolbox, the investigation into six second ads and short formats and understanding how they work, just improving content, sponsorships, integrations, the list goes on and on and on.

3D television, you and I presented to Sony. In Las Vegas, if you remember that. And we had, you know, [00:30:00] you had created the biggest body of work on 3D at the time, and it all came out of Austin, so that was fantastic.

[music]

Duane: Wow. So Artie has given us a little bit of a prelude to our next discussion. And the last discussion we really talked about the period coming out of the survival of ESPN and all the innovation that the team brought to program research and really repositioning it. Now we come to the lab era. On my side, Artie, I remember a call I got from you and the good folks at Disney in 2008, and the call went something like this:

“Hi, Duane. We’re gonna open a lab. We’re gonna announce it in four days at the upfront. So we have four days to negotiate a deal with you.“

[Duane laughs]

Artie: Yeah, yeah. That’s– you have a good memory. That’s how it worked. Yep.

Duane: But it was such a pioneering initiative. It was [00:31:00] just so far ahead of its time in a way. And it was across all platforms at the time.

You know, mobile was at infancy. Digital was still very young. And I remember the first study we did with you, Artie, and looking at digital and seeing all these insights [laughs] that we were just using all over the place. Things that none of us knew about, you know, how digital ad models worked and stuff. I mean, it was just an amazing enterprise.

First, let me give some background on what the lab was for the benefit of the audience. So, one of the problems that we have with research in general, media research in general, is that we’re often interested in human emotion. And the problem that we have is people lack access to their own emotional journeys.

So anytime you ask a person a question about how they feel about something, what they’re telling you is the rational interpretation of what they think they must be feeling, which is actually not really the same. So what was great about the approach of the [00:32:00] lab, really was twofold: one, that we were measuring this emotion directly rather than just relying on stated response, but also, the power of experimental design, getting rid of the noise that exists, kind of like in the real world to properly isolate a variable and study its effects.

And this is why, you know, as Artie was saying earlier, this is why we could get to the why, to the what. This is why we could answer not only what the question was, but more importantly why the results look the way they did with a lot of that data. So, Artie, just to start the ball rolling. One of my favorite studies, even though it wasn’t long-term impactful, but certainly at the time, one of the big studies that we did was with the 2010 World Cup.
And the question at that time was really around 3D. Not only in terms of what impact it had, but also whether there were some potential health risks. And so I remember we did this massive study, and it was a very complex study to get off [00:33:00] the ground because of course, 3D was so new that there weren’t even TVs in advance that we could deploy in the lab.

So we literally had to deploy this all on the eve, and we had a direct feed out of Bristol using the fiber feed that we had in the lab. And we had all this gear that we didn’t know anything about that was to make this 3D thing work in our labs. And the first test broadcast we did, we had this hum in the audio and we were going nuts.

And we were working with the Bristol engineers trying to trace back the hum. ‘What’s this hum that we’re seeing in this telecast outta South Africa?’ And it turned out it was the vuvuzela but it took us half a day to understand that, right? [laughs] But as you say, we did this enormous body of research. In fact, in the one month period, we did more research in the lab than all of the rest of the work on 3D that existed in the world at the time.
And as we went to– you and I, I remember, presenting to one of the main suppliers at the NAB conference. We go into this session. [00:34:00] Yeah. And we went into the session and we’re like, ‘look, we’re gonna share with you the results’. And they just sit dumbfound and like, [laughs] ‘you guys know more in a month than we’ve ever been able to learn about 3D and how it works’.

I mean, it was just a remarkable experience. And there were so many of those. You know, you were also mentioning the picture and picture work that we did. What was great about that story, and maybe we can dive into that story a little, maybe you can tell us about what drove that picture and picture research and what impact it had, ultimately in the organization.

Artie: Yeah. The ‘picture & picture’ or the ‘toolbox’ as we later called it. There was an opportunity when an event or whatever we had on at 10 o’clock ran into the 11 o’clock Sports Center. It was a seamless transition to maintain the audience, right? And that was something that was recommended by research, you know, years earlier.

Let’s get that audience into Sports Center and hook them and keep them. And a number of advertisers, [00:35:00] agency folks were asking, you know, ‘this is valuable real estate. We’d love to get a spot in there if we could’. And so the question now that the lab was there, the question had come from our head of sales, ‘is there anything, is there any treatment that we could create that leverages, you know, that 11 o’clock-ish, transition from a live event into Sports Center?’

And so, as usual, we went back to you and collaborated with you and Amy and the team, and we understood that, A: we would have to have live content on the screen while showing an ad, but then what’s the win there for the advertiser, right? And it was really about creating, in retrospect, understanding what the proper balance is.

What happened most of the time is that the game was over and they were doing on field interviews, on court interviews, whatever the case may be, and you’ll be seeing an ad, right? So people would stay [00:36:00] tuned and make sure they weren’t missing anything that might happen on that live sports side of the screen, right?

Not knowing if there was more to come, whatever. And there was an– and the audio would go to the ad in the right hand box. So left side, to keep a simple left side, would be content. Right side would be the ad. So the challenge was creating the right balance of the two so that you could hold the audience but also prevent tune away, right?

And we found that balance, and we understood that it was about the size of the two different boxes. It was about the audio, which was very, very important. It was also about not having too much other stuff on the screen behind, besides the two video boxes. We were able to validate in the lab that we maintained attention and also that we were able to create a level of memory recall, ad recall, at the [00:37:00] same level or near the same level as an ad only situation, was remarkable.

So we were able to go back to the advertisers with all of the data that we needed to demonstrate that not only was this low risk, it was almost no risk. And perhaps better than just having a regular ad in that, you know, that last position in the pod, that kind of a thing because of the fact you were not only getting the same type of memory effect, you were also maintaining that audience in that transition. And there was very, very little tune away. So it was a win-win.

Duane: It was, in fact, my favorite memory with that, Artie, was that we had predicted on the research that Sports Center would actually see a slight bump in its tune in as a result. And that’s actually what happened when the model was eventually deployed. So that was really exciting.

Artie: Exactly. Because you had a tune-in audience from people coming in off air to watch Sports Center and you didn’t have any of that tune away or turn off [00:38:00] because they were able to, we were able to trans-serve them into– move them into Sports Center, see the headlines and that hook them, right. So that they would, ‘oh, I’m gonna stick around and watch Sports Center now’. So you’re absolutely right.

Duane: Fantastic.

[music]

So great lab era, a million stories. Well, one of the things that I love the most about the lab story was the lab was not just a facility. And it wasn’t just a showcase also because, I mean, it was a great showcase facility for clients also who had come regularly. But the other thing that you did again, and this is part of that collaborative spirit of yours already was, you made the lab a tent, a forum, bringing together ABC and ESPN cultures, you know, on a regular basis.

I mean, we had the monthly lab rats meetings where everybody came together and shared what the insights were that were gleaned that [00:39:00] month. But then also you had the annual conference, which was a great event, which brought everybody together again. But again, that ability to get out of the lab, more than just a research facility, but a forum bringing the different research units together across the Disney empire, so to speak.

Artie: Yeah. And that certainly helped enhance the value of the Disney Lab brand within the organization. And then also externally as well, and again, as I mentioned, it was important to be collaborative. And so if ESPN didn’t do as much work in one segment, ABC certainly did.
And we would be able to learn, you know, learn from them, whether it be product placement or integrations. And I think, you know, ABC did so much work on integrations. We were able to learn from that. You know, later on, I’ll never forget being in Austin and being in [00:40:00] the control room, watching one of the ABC studies and it was watching Extreme Makeover, and it was a young man, you know, watching the show and a tear came to his eye, right?

So you can literally, and that was the power of the lab. It was not just the biometric data that we had, the eye tracking data that we had, the survey data that we had. You were able to actually see the human element and it gave you such confidence in the results. The fact that we had all of these pieces, we had the data and we had the ability to observe as well.

And so much of it. Not so much ABC, but of course ESPN had to be done live. And that was a challenge you guys lived up to. That was really, really, really important. And I think, Duane, the other thing that the lab did, is it helped us from a thought leadership perspective in a very, very big way.
And so, whether it [00:41:00] be my team in collaboration with the ABC team, drawing up papers to present at the next ARF event or any other event, people were always eager to hear what we said. You and I presenting at– on the main stage at the ARF talking about different ad models, talking about the effect of television advertising plus digital advertising.

And the effect of that, seeing two spots across two different platforms creates a greater effect than seeing two spots on one single platform. So the list goes on and on in terms of the insights that we had that we could not only share with the industry, but of course, you know, apply ourselves.

And it did, the lab changed the way that we, you know, we implemented advertising. Of course, the pressures of the business sort of cause bad habits to come back now and again, it was up to the research department to sort of wave the flag and say, ‘look, wait a second, we remember what we [00:42:00] learned in the lab’.

And you may feel that it will never be found out, but it will. So, let’s do it the right way. And here’s the truth. The other thing is that we were able to, numerous times, compare the lab research with the field research to validate it. That happened over a number of times.
Getting back to my point, thought leadership from a research department perspective was a big deal at ESPN and of course the lab, you know, I had lots of material to work with up until that point, but the lab gave me so much to work with in terms of painting a much broader picture in terms of why things are what they are and how things are changing.

So I’ll always value that. We created an initiative around 2010, Lab was in full swing by then, and we were very, very focused [00:43:00] on cross platform research. And once we were able to prove through a number of field studies, ESPN all day, every day was one of those, and there were a number of others later on, it became Project Blue Print.

We were able to answer a big question for the company, and that was that media use was not a zero sum game. And that multi-platform created new markets of time, as we refer to it, to consume ESPN content. So it wasn’t about digital cannibalizing TV at all. It was about digital augmenting television, allowing audiences to consume ESPN, or virtually the same– the concept worked for basically any other media company.

Sports was a bit different though because how sports had to be consumed live and in the moment. And this became a really big deal. So the lab also became a big part [00:44:00] of the ESPN XP initiative or cross-platform initiative in terms of demonstrating the power of those new markets of time, specifically not just, you know, watching or following the game on your laptop, but of course your mobile devices.

And though you guys also did a fair amount of innovation in terms of figuring out how to test mobile in the lab setting. And to me, that was an enormous step forward for us in terms of understanding what the power of mobile was for ESPN because ESPN of course got into the mobile business. We not only created mobile content, we created the first mobile app essentially for sports, and we went into the phone business in 2005. Wasn’t successful, but ESPN learned all about the mobile, the digital business from a mobile perspective, which really accelerated our position [00:45:00] in sports on mobile devices forever. And the lab played a very, very big role there.

[music]

Duane: So, just to bring this segment to a close, we’ve talked about a lot of benefits with the lab, certainly the research itself in terms of giving us the wider, the what, answering questions that couldn’t be answered otherwise. But also other contributions, thought leadership as you were just talking about, propelling ESPN even further, I think in terms of the esteem that it commanded in the industry and the respect and credibility that it brought when ESPN sales reps went to talk about new products, the tent that it created within Disney as a whole in terms of bringing researchers together on a regular basis, you know, so all these great advantages.

In this next segment we’re gonna talk about the cross platform initiatives, Project Blue Print. You know, certainly Artie, the lab research as well [00:46:00] really highlighted the potential benefits of cross platform. As you had alluded to earlier, it’s not a zero sum equation.There’s an additive value that’s greater.

But there was a problem. I mean, there still is a problem in the industry in that all this activity was happening across these platforms, but it was very poorly measured. I think that for everybody in the industry, even still, the challenge associated with that just seems so enormous, you know, and it continues to be so enormous.

But way back in 2010, you guys actually conquered this arena. [laughs] Maybe you could talk to us a little bit about Project Blue Print.

Artie: We believed at the time we had done some survey research on a regular basis called the ESPN All Day Every Day. With Gail Metzger’s Company, SRI. It gave us really good information on understanding how cumulative our audience was on a daily, weekly, monthly basis.

But it was survey research, so we really couldn’t take it to the marketplace. But we [00:47:00] were confident that it was telling us that ESPN was truly a multi-platform media company and that we were accruing audiences across all these platforms. We weren’t shifting audiences, right? Very, very different concept.

And we had to prove it in a big way. So this ESPN XP launch, in this pilot study where we brought together a number of different research companies to sort of simulate a single source cross platform measurement methodology, was announced in 2010. And it took several months to get this thing off the ground.

But we did it and it was a combination of different sources. I don’t wanna go into all the details cause it’s too much. We’re able to prove to the company that, you know what? ESPN, as I called it at the time, was in fact the quintessential cross-platform media company. We need to invest in research that can tell us what these numbers are on a regular basis. [00:48:00]

 

 

 

And so we decided to go to the largest, you know, measurement companies. Long story short, it came down to ComScore and Arbitron at the time. But I had asked the presidents of both companies to come in and speak with us.

We had a plan for cross platform measurement, and we’d like to ask you two guys to collaborate and take this on. I remember Gian Gulgoni was representing ComScore at the time. I was always– Gian was always a great mentor of mine, had a tremendous matter of respect. We had the president of Arbitron there as well.

And you know, ‘Gian, you’ve got all the digital data. You understand what cross platform is about’. And the Arbitron folks had the PPM, the Personal Portable Meter, which we had been using to look at the crossover. For some months we had been using the PPM to look at the [00:49:00] the crossover in audiences between radio and television, because we simulcasted some of our morning shows on ESPN radio.

That’s how we used the PPM. We figured, ‘okay, we can use that for television, radio measurement and digital would come from ComScore’. We presented our plan. Glenn was really the mastermind behind that. They went back to work in short order. They came back with a plan and I think probably less than six months time and numerous meetings reviewing different stages, we had a pilot.

What was so important about this is that this was not survey research anymore, and this was not just a one-off. We were creating a system that could potentially become syndicated and offered up to the industry. We had no problem, and I was lucky. I worked for a company that had no problem with that.

They said, [00:50:00] ‘you wanna do this and then give it away?’ I said, ‘the reason for that is that that’s how you build trust in a measurement system. If you’re gonna keep it within your own roof, you’re not gonna have as much trust or believability, right? The acceptance will be really, really challenged. If we share, it’ll be different. And the reason we can share it is because we can be confident in our results, right? If we can help formulate ongoing cross-media measurement, this is a rising tide that will float many boats, but certainly float the ESPN boat, right? And allow us to do business on that level rather than just on individual media silos.’

That was really the name of the game there. So they both came back with the original pilot results. You know, we had some hiccups along the way, but ultimately we were able to come up with over several different months results that were fairly consistent and [00:51:00] proved what we had seen before. That, again, at least for ESPN media use, is not a zero sum game.

And that digital augmented the TV audience by significant margins, it was able, they were able to give us data that the Q audience for ESPN across all these platforms was X, significantly higher than the TV only audience. It answered all our questions, and once again, it was data that helped give comfort to senior management that in fact, media use was not a zero sum game.

ESPN is adding on to ESPN, the television network. We can invest heavily in whatever we were doing in television because that audience will grow while we’re growing the digital audience. And in combination, we were serving the audience in different ways. Again, this new markets of time concept, which was also good for the brand.

I’ll never forget, one of the many consultants that we brought to speak to us, Rashad Tabbakh said, ‘the one thing you guys have to [00:52:00] understand is that brand is the ultimate navigator’. And we had that power. We had that navigational brand. All we had to do was be there, right? As long as we were there.

It’s much like advertising. You know, advertising is about building brand through, by creating memory structures in the mind, being part of the repertoire of choice. And as long as you’re there and available, people will buy you, they’ll watch you, they’ll listen to you, they’ll tune in, you know, they’ll log into you.

And that’s what this was about, proving that to be true. And I think, you know, to this day, of course there’s cord cutting and everything else. ESPN is a significant media brand and the most significant sports brand there is right now because of that concept, its brand is the ultimate navigator. And it helped us with our branding, it helped us understand how this is all connected tissue.

It helped the marketing folks understand that so they could continue to [00:53:00] strengthen the brand. So all of that work, I’m very, very proud of. So now of course, the question of cross media measurement still has to be solved and today I’m consulting for the A&A and helping to move that forward, but it’s not an easy thing to do.

[music]

Duane: Wow. So far ahead of its time. [laughs] So in this final segment we’re gonna talk about Artie’s truly remarkable leadership style as I mentioned in the intro. Artie is one of the most secure people I know, emotionally secure. And that really has translated into his leadership style, and not only in terms of his capacity to collaborate, but also in terms of his leadership of the team, which, you know, he had one of the most eclectic teams I’ve ever seen.

You know, you don’t get any more different than Glenn and Barry. I mean, [laughs] these are very, very different [00:54:00] kinds of people and everybody very different from Artie. But Artie just had this capacity to hire really good people, very different from himself, and trust them and support them. And that just led to some phenomenal results, I think, at ESPN.

So, we’re going to explore your leadership style, Artie, in this last segment. I remember a few years ago, Artie, you were receiving a lifetime achievement award. I was very proud to be one of the people roasting you at that event. But I remember, somebody else also was roasting you. And when they stood up there, they asked a question, you know, they said, ‘look, Artie is a collaborator’.

And this was a conference, it was the Media Engagement Conference. So it’s, the room is full of media researchers. It’s a room full of media researchers. And the question was, ‘how many of you in this room have directly collaborated with Artie?’ And they said, ‘I don’t mean in the [00:55:00] abstract. I mean, sitting at a table working with Artie on some initiative’. I remember being shocked because 80% of the hands in the room went up and I think really that is a lifetime achievement, Artie, I mean, that level of collaboration, not just within your company but industry wide. What is it about you? How did you do that? How did you collaborate to this level?

Artie: Well, first of all, I think you could say that about a lot of people in this business, many of my mentors, whether it be David Poltrack, Alan Wurtzel, Gail Metzger and everything else. The research community, particularly the media advertising research community, is a fairly small and tight community, right?

 

You know that we do our job certainly to help our companies, but we’re also focused a bit on the greater good because that is a rising tide that floats all boats. But we’re also kind of like doctors in the medical profession, you know, that we gotta do [00:56:00] things better and we can only do that together.

We can’t do it separately, right? If we all disengage and go back four corners and our offices and focus on just what’s important to our individual companies, nothing’s gonna get better for the industry and therefore nothing’s gonna get better for our individual companies. I think there’s a lot to be said for that.

The other thing is I was encouraged by my management to get out there and be active in the industry because having that knowledge of knowing what everybody’s doing is valuable to us, it makes us better. And we have value in that, so I think, my management, for encouraging me to do that.
The other thing is how you grow as an individual by learning from others. And I’ve learned from so many smart people, yourself included, Duane, through collaboration. I mean, our collaboration goes back now almost 20 years. And I am not, you know, the sharpest knife in the [00:57:00] draw, which is why I’ve actively sought out people to collaborate with, learn from, learn with, and join forces with, to get things done.

I also like sharing, you know, I loved getting up on the stage and share what we learned at ESPN. Again, in part to help the greater good. And I was very proud of my team. I knew I was always able to go back to, I think, one of the best teams in the industry. And I was going to ensure that it stayed that way.

And I think over time, as you get experienced in a single role, you know, being in the scene and others have done it longer than I have, but I did it for 21 years. And over those years you accumulate wisdom and you learn from your mistakes, right? And you also learn by observing others, which is why collaboration is so important.

You know, we talked about the first year at ESPN, I was very, very hands-on. The most uncomfortable I had [00:58:00] ever been is moving from being hands-on to hands off, right? You have to get comfortable with that. And over time, I saw my role as being a leader, being supportive, promoting the team in terms of what their accomplishments were, giving them accolades for that.

My job as a leader was to provide resources, tools, and training. Being active in the industry as a thought leader and a collaborator was part of that. Knowing what’s going on, what’s out there, knowing that there’s this guy in Perth, Australia doing lab work that we ought to be interested in. You have to give your team, give them the opportunity to succeed and advance.

It was also my job to provide protection. We went through periods of, you know, budget cutbacks and there was always the worry about losing headcount. And I stayed very, very close to the HR people. My, you know, [00:59:00] my HR partner was truly an HR partner so that I could make some strategic calls.

‘Okay, how many open headcounts do we have? Okay, let’s think about freezing that for now to make sure that we have open heads and we don’t have to give up’. That foresight, I think, was important in terms of protecting the jobs of certain people. And I think the team knew that. The team knew that was going on and they felt good about working in an environment like that.

And then finally, it’s about providing inspiration and motivation. And again, getting back to the collaborative thing, it is about myself being inspired and myself being motivated by collaborating with others, learning from others, knowing what’s going on in the market, knowing in the industry– And the one thing that I could do is I always told my team over the next– over the last, you know, eight to 10 years, ‘you need to have a present vision’.

‘You gotta know what’s going on today in the industry’. And I was the one that could leave the office, [01:00:00] get out there, go to conferences, hell, I traveled the world. Talking about what we did, whether it be the lab, cross platform, etc. We were an international company and I was invited to present in Brazil, in Rome, in all kinds of places, which was– Berlin.

And share our knowledge, you know, from what we did in the United States in terms of leading, getting back to leading the team outta this, you know, this discussion about collaboration. Because ultimately the most important role that I have is to collaborate with my team, the people doing the work for our company, right?

I was always thinking about– we would have quarterly briefings and it ended up being the most important thing that I did, you know, throughout the year, those 12 quarterly briefings, because this is where I created the roadmap. I gave them the vision and the direction, and when people have a clear vision and a clear direction, they get really excited [01:01:00] because they know what to do.

There’s something tangible. The next thing was to provide the tools and the manpower and the time and everything else to get that done. And I always said there are three things again that we want you to do. And that is to inform, inspire and innovate. Right? We did a lot of innovation, right?

And it wasn’t necessarily us doing it, was about finding and collaborating with the right people who can give us innovation. People like you, people like, you know, Arbitron and ComScore that work with us, and so many others. Sequin partners and other companies we worked with on a lot of– there’s a number of different vendors that we used to work with in terms of collaboration.

You know, I just happened– this is the last sheet of priorities and strategy that I produced from my team before I retired and one of the things that I say here at the end, [01:02:00] I had laid out four major priorities, and this is after, again, collaborating with colleagues in the company, programming, ad sales, affiliate distribution, the head of the company, etc, etc.

After presenting what these priorities were, I said, ‘look, our strategy for achieving success in these priorities will include the following: focus on what matters most because you can’t do everything well, collaborate because we can do much more together, expand your knowledge because knowledge is power’, right?

We did that for 20 years. We knew that knowledge was incredibly powerful. Again, that’s where collaboration comes from, learning from others. ‘Know the audience, because if you do that, you’ll find the answers. If you know the audience better than anybody else, and as a researcher, you have the power to do that’.

And then the most important thing, I think, and it kind of sums up, I think, my career and the career of the colleagues that [01:03:00] I admired coming through this industry and people like you, ‘cause you’re in this. The most important thing, I think, that separates just any researcher from a researcher that’s going to run a department someday, really make a big impact, is to communicate with impact.

The ability to communicate with impact and not just inform, but inspire whatever audience there is, but hopefully the leadership of your company, right? To me, that’s the key to success. And I think what makes me most proud of my tenure was that so many of my team are out there leading teams and they’re having a tremendous impact on this industry and they’re making a difference. So I think that’s what I’m most proud of.

[music]

Duane: Well, thank you Artie. I think everybody in the audience can see why you were such a perfect guest for [01:04:00] our inaugural episode here of Legends of Media Research. And on behalf of the industry, Artie, I really want to thank you for the leadership that you provided. Not only to ESPN, but to the industry as a whole.

I think your contributions and your spirit of collaboration really are something we all look up to and we all have so much that we can learn from in terms of your experiences. You know, as I said at the intro, I think you were the perfect guest for this first episode because you had impact, not only impact within the organization, but impact industry wide.

You know, again, part of a club that I’m calling the Billion Dollar Club, people who generated over a billion dollars in value to the company. You had integrity, you brought integrity to everything you did, including the delivery of the bad news with the good. You had this spirit of collaboration and this style of leadership, which [01:05:00] really were just hugely beneficial, again, both to the organization and to the industry.
So thank you, Artie, for sharing your adventures with us today, and thank you, the audience, for tuning in. We’ve got a lot of great episodes coming up, so I hope you’ll subscribe to this series and tell your friends and colleagues about it. And please share your reviews and comments. I’m MediaScience CEO Dr. Duane Varan, thanking you for your company today.

And if you’d like, stick around for a brief message about MediaScience. I look forward to joining you again on our next exciting episode of Legends of Media Research.

[music]

Female Voice: Almost every major innovation in the TV advertising industry over the course of the past decade was first tested by MediaScience researchers.

Whether you’re talking about video ads on mobile phones or limited interruption ad pods, or program context effects or brand integrations or pause ads or picture and picture ads or six second ads or interactive ad formats [laughs]. I mean, the list goes on and on, all were first tested by MediaScience.

MediaScience is the leader in media innovation research. So when you are looking for media or advertising innovation research, collaborate with MediaScience.

Learn more at mediascience.com.

[music]