Question 1

When should we use dubbing versus subtitling when testing concepts globally?

Accepted Answer

It depends on the audience and the importance of the original audio. Use dubbing when you want participants in each country to experience the concept as if it were made for them, without the extra effort of reading text. Dubbing is often best if the visuals are complex or the emotional tone in voice is critical - it helps ensure comprehension because viewers can focus on the imagery and message in their own language. On the other hand, subtitling can be effective when you need to preserve the original audio (say the voice of the original actor or spokesperson is important to the concept) but still provide translation. Subtitles are usually quicker and cheaper than producing multiple dubbed versions, and in markets where people are used to subtitles, it won't be a big barrier. So, if native-language immersion and ease of understanding are top priority (and budget allows), lean towards dubbing. If authenticity of execution or speed is more important - and the audience can handle reading - subtitling is a solid choice.

Question 2

Can AI draft media synopses without losing tone or revealing spoilers?

Accepted Answer

AI can draft media synopses that preserve the creator's tone and avoid spoilers by following careful guidelines and training. Using large language models, teams first train or prompt the AI with examples of synopses that match the desired style and exclude key plot twists. For instance, an AI summarizing a mystery series would maintain an ominous, suspenseful voice but stop short of naming the culprit or revealing the final twist. To further prevent spoilers, companies often establish content rules or use automated checks (such as flagging any mention of late-story events or outcomes). In practice, the AI's draft may still need a human review for subtle tone consistency or hidden spoilers, but with a well-tuned model the synopsis can capture the essence of the media without giving away surprises.

Question 3

How do sponsorships affect retention, churn, and average revenue?

Accepted Answer

Sponsorships can indirectly boost customer retention and reduce churn by strengthening the emotional connection and loyalty customers feel toward a brand. When a company sponsors an event, cause, or team that resonates with its customers' values or interests, those customers often develop positive associations that make them more likely to stick around. For example, a telecom provider sponsoring a popular music festival might see its subscribers feel a stronger affinity and thus stay longer (lower churn) compared to a competitor. Over time, retained loyal customers tend to increase their engagement or spending, which can raise their average revenue per user. It's not usually a direct immediate bump in sales from a single sponsorship, but rather a long-term effect: sponsorships enhance brand image and goodwill, which translates into better customer lifetime value metrics like higher retention and ARPU (Average Revenue Per User).

Question 4

How should we test live-event formats versus taped replays?

Accepted Answer

To test a live-event format versus a taped replay, set up an experiment where you deliver the same content in both formats to comparable audiences, then compare engagement and outcomes. For instance, you could host a live webinar for one group and provide the same session as an on-demand video to another group, then measure key metrics for each. Look at things like how many people show up or view (attendance rate), how long they stay (drop-off rate), and any actions they take afterward (questions asked, downloads, sign-ups, etc.). You should also gather feedback from both sets of participants about their experience--maybe the live event gets higher marks for interactivity, while the replay scores well on convenience. By keeping the content and audience type constant and only changing the format, you can attribute differences in these metrics directly to live vs. recorded delivery. This A/B-style approach will show you which format drives better engagement and achieves your goals.

Question 5

When should MMM reconcile with platform conversion-lift studies?

Accepted Answer

You should reconcile your MMM with platform conversion-lift studies whenever you have credible lift data for a channel — especially if the MMM's findings differ from what those experiments show. Platform lift studies (like Facebook's or Google's conversion lift tests) provide hard evidence of incremental impact. So, for example, if your MMM says social media contributed X%, but a well-run Facebook lift test shows a different contribution, that's a flag to align the two. Typically, this reconciliation happens during MMM updates or recalibrations: you feed the lift results into the modeling process as calibration points or constraints. In practice, many firms do this annually or quarterly. After big campaigns, if a platform provided lift metrics (say, YouTube showed a 10% sales lift from ads), you'd use that to tweak your MMM so it doesn't over- or under-credit YouTube going forward. In short, whenever high-quality lift studies are available, use them to sanity-check and refine your mix model. It ensures your MMM stays anchored in experimental reality, improving its accuracy and the trust stakeholders place in its guidance.

Wiley Research Group

What is Wiley Research Group?

Services and Expertise