Ofcom-Kantar (2013)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Ofcom-Kantar (2013)
Title: OCI Tracker Benchmark Study. 'Deep Dive' Analysis Report.
Author(s): Ofcom, Kantar
Year: 2013
Citation: Ofcom-Kantar (2013). OCI Tracker Benchmark Study. 'Deep Dive' Analysis Report.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Description of Data:
  • The total sample of the database was 10,594. The research universe for this study was all adults aged 12+ in the UK. The survey used a mixed methodology approach whereby data was collected using both an online and offline sample.
  • In terms of volumes all respondents were asked about their behaviour during the past three months. However, as the database is combined from two separate waves these two periods differ (May-July and August-October 2012). Therefore, all aggregated volumes are indicative of this six-month period.


Analysis methods

Decile analysis

  • The estimated volume of illegal content was derived for each respondent using the equation:
  • Respondents were grouped into 10% bands using their respective illegal volumes for each content type and at a total level.
  • The cumulative volume of illegal content for each decile band was then calculated and divided by the total number in order to create a percentage of total illegal content accountable for.

Segmentation of infringers

  • The total sample was split into its four natural groupings: non internet users, non-digital consumers (i.e. consumers who do not download, stream or share on line), 100% legal consumers and any illegal consumers.
  • The segments were derived from a factor-cluster analysis using responses to ‘reasons for infringing’17 as well as the volume of infringement.
  • An eight-factor solution was then chosen on the basis of Eigen values and factor comprehension.
  • A two-stage cluster analysis was used to create the cluster seeds While the final cluster solution was

created using a K-means cluster analysis.

  • A four-cluster solution was chosen on the basis of cluster membership homogeneity, cluster heterogeneity and cluster comprehension.

Segmentation of non-infringers

  • The 100% legal consumers were analysed separately from the non-internet users, non-digital consumers and infringing consumers.
  • The segments were created using a similar factor-cluster analysis process as the infringing segmentation. However, the inputs here were the reasons for downloading rather than buying a physical version, and the reasons for streaming or accessing content.
  • A four- and a three-factor solution were chosen, again, on the basis of Eigen values and factor comprehension.
  • A two-stage cluster analysis was used to create the cluster seeds while the final cluster solution was created using a K-means cluster analysis.
  • A four-cluster solution was chosen on the basis of cluster membership homogeneity, and cluster heterogeneity, as well as cluster comprehension.
  • A count variable was created on respondent level data for the number of content types for which the individual consumed infringed content, using the derived illegal file calculation outline in section 3.2:
  • This was repeated for 100% illegal consumption over the different content types.
  • The attitudes and behaviours of the different platform groups were then further analysed.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • The data cover the period May-October 2012, mainly by combining two waves of data: May-July and August-October 2012.
Funder(s):
  • Ofcom

Abstract

In early 2012 Ofcom commissioned research designed to track consumers’ behaviour and attitudes towards both lawful and unlawful access of copyright material using the internet, relating to six content types; music, films, TV programmes, computer software, books and video games. The primary objective of this research was to gather data and generate insight by establishing initial benchmarks and trends that could be used to assist policy making related to online copyright enforcement. This followed the adoption by Government of a recommendation made in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth that Ofcom should not wait until its progress-reporting duties under the Digital Economy Act came into force to begin gathering trends and benchmarks related to consumption of content online.

Main Results of the Study

Key findings

We conducted a series of in-depth analyses using the combined data sets from the first two waves of the Online Copyright Infringement tracking study. The purpose was to examine in more detail the complex relationship between general consumption, infringement, attitudes, and spend across six key content types. The work revealed the following:


Decile analysis: A more detailed look at the Top 20% Infringers

Infringers were segmented into 10% groups according to the overall volume of content they indicated they had accessed illegally. The main findings were as follows:

  • The Top 10% Infringers accounted for just 1.6% of the 12+ internet user population, but were responsible for 79% of infringed content. The Top 20% infringers, accounting for 3.2% of 12+ internet users, were responsible for 88% of infringements.
  • Infringers were more male, 16-34 and ABC1 than the general internet population. However, the Top 20% Infringers were even more likely to be male and 16-34 than the Bottom 80%. (We used the Top 20% Infringers rather than the Top 10% Infringers as the larger sample size makes comparisons more robust).
  • Despite their high levels of infringement, the Top 20% Infringers also accounted for 11% of the legal content consumed.
  • The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 vs. £105 vs. £54 over the six month period covered).


Infringing segments

As well as segmenting by volume of content infringed, we also segmented infringers by their reasons for doing it. This resulted in four distinct infringing groups:

1. Justifying Infringers (9% of infringers, 24% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers):

This group had the highest levels of infringement. They felt they had spent enough on content already, and this sentiment was confirmed by their high total spend offline. Most of their digital consumption was streamed and primarily related to music, though they also consumed the highest proportion of illegal books across the segments. Generally, they like to try before they buy (related to their willingness to spend) and appear to be the most receptive to good/well-priced legal alternatives.

2. Digital Transgressors (9% of infringers, 22% of infringed volume, 2% of total digital consumers):

This was the youngest infringing group, with the majority in education. They had the highest levels of downloading behaviour and had higher consumption of films and TV programmes than the other high infringing group (Justifying Infringers). This group showed the least remorse about infringing material, but also had the highest fear of getting caught. In fact, they appeared to be the most receptive to receiving letters from ISPs alleging infringement.

3. Free Infringers (42% of infringers, 35% of infringed volume, 10% of total digital consumers):

This was the largest group and was chiefly defined by the fact they infringed because it was free. They paid for a low proportion of the content they consumed and had the lowest total content spend among the infringing segments. They were responsible for the high majority of illegal consumption of video games and computer software.

4. Ambiguous Infringers (39% of infringers, 20% of infringed volume, 9% of total digital consumers):

This group had the lowest levels of digital consumption and the highest proportion of paid and legal content. They generally offered fewer justifications for infringing and for stopping infringing. This appeared to be linked to their lower levels of infringing activity and a lack of confidence in knowing what is legal.

  • Infringers generally consumed more paid and legal content than the non-infringing segments, although this formed a lower proportion of their total consumption than it did for non-infringers.
  • Most infringing segments found it easy to find content on the internet for free which would normally be paid, ranging from 45% for the Ambiguous Infringers to 76% for the Top 20% infringers. Among non-infringers the figures were notably lower, ranging from 28% to 45%.


Non-infringing segments

As well as segmenting the infringers, we also segmented consumers who downloaded or streamed legal content only. The four groups are summarised as follows:

1. Simple Streamers (34% of legal consumers, 27% of total digital consumers):

This group was primarily defined by the fact that they only streamed content and didn’t download any. This content largely comprised TV programmes and music and was generally accessed for entertainment and convenience purposes.

2. Simple Downloaders (17% of legal consumers , 13% of total digital consumers):

They were defined by the fact that they only downloaded and didn’t stream. They consumed less content than the other non-infringing segments, and largely downloaded books and music. Despite this, relatively they had the largest proportion of paid-for content.

3. Paying Consumers (34% of legal consumers, 27% of total digital consumers):

This group paid for the majority of the content that they consumed, while also spending a lot on offline (such as physical) content.

4. Free Opportunists (14% of legal consumers, 11% of total digital consumers):

100% of this group claimed to download because it is free. They consumed a higher volume of free content than any of the other non-infringing segments.


Infringement of multiple content types

We also analysed behaviour according to the number of types of content that were infringed.

  • Most people (62%) contained their infringement to only one content type of the six measured in the study, and this was predominantly music (42%) or films (28%).
  • Where there was infringement in more than one content type it generally included combinations of music, films and TV programmes. Infringement of computer software and video games was more prevalent among those that had infringed across four or more content types.
  • Those that infringed across multiple content types also infringed a higher volume of content on average.
  • Category spend was highest for those that infringed in three content types.


Spend analysis among infringers

Further analysis was undertaken to assess the complex relationship between infringement and spend on content, and to assess the revenue potential if infringement could be converted to legal consumption:

  • Generally, the data from the survey showed that as people consumed more infringed files they also consumed more legal files, and spent more on legal content.
  • Further assessment on price-sensitivity for music showed that the optimum price infringers were willing to pay (either for single downloadable tracks, or for particular premium subscriptions) generally increased as the volume of infringed content increased. (Although the optimum subscription price was below that currently charged for the first premium tier of a number of UK music streaming services, many also offer free versions, albeit with some service restrictions or limitations).
  • This optimum music price was mapped alongside banded illegal consumption in order to estimate potential additional monthly spend (lost revenue) if all infringed content was paid for at this price.
  • The data suggest that improvements to legal alternatives could potentially convert some music infringers to pay for their content (either by track or monthly) if the price was right. However, the relationship between infringement and spend is complex and the claims people make when asked questions about their likely future behaviour given changes to their options do not always closely reflect their real-life behaviour.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • Top 10% of infringers are responsible for almost 80% of the infringed content.
  • The main types of infringers are the following: justifying infringers, digital transgressors, free infringers and ambiguous infringers.
  • Those who do not infringe can be characterised as: simple streamers, simple downloaders, paying consumers and free opportunists.
  • Most of the infringement occurs in the following two industries: music and films.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 10,594
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2012