Consumers have returned to McDonald’s, Chipotle and Panda Express post-pandemic, but many are dining outside of what are considered typical breakfast, lunch and dinner times, per a new study of the three chains by foot traffic analyst firm Placer.ai.

McDonald’s previous drop in morning and lunch visits between 2019 and 2021 began a turnaround in 2023, growing from 15.9% to 16.9% YoY, which was perhaps due to some customers returning to the office and hitting the QSR giant on their way into the office or for lunch.

“QSR chains generally remain in a good position relative to the dining industry. They are a more affordable option than other food channels, they've invested more in mobile ordering and drive-thru technologies, they're opening more stores in high growth markets, and many chains have embraced new celebrity partnerships to help drive sales and menu innovation -- like McDonald's Famous Orders,” R.J. Hottovy, head of analytical research at Placer.ai, told QSR Insider.  

Panda Express visits between 11 p.m. to 2 p.m. have essentially returned to pre-pandemic levels. But perhaps more interestingly, midday visits have increased -- while dinner (7-10 P.M.) actually decreased, which may be due in part  to the chain’s recent focus on its family-friendly to-go options, which allow customers to pick up dinner on their way home instead of dining in-store.

“We saw consumers increasingly seek out value the past year, and for many families, Panda Express represents a more affordable option than others in the QSR or fast casual categories,” said Hottovy.

Chipotle lunchtime traffic has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, with the share of visits between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. just 36.2% in 2023 compared to 40.0% in 2019. Yet Chipotle also saw pick up mid-afternoon (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.) and an increase in evening visits, “perhaps driven by the wider QSR trend towards more late-night visits and by some consumers choosing to visit Chipotle for their main meal of the day instead of splurging on an on-the-go lunch” according to the study. 

“Some of the changes we observed with QSR because of nontraditional schedules (late morning coffee visits, afternoon snacking) have held up and also helped to drive visits during other dayparts,” said Hottovy. “Inflation and other macroeconomic pressures have helped to keep QSR visits ahead of other restaurant categories, but we've also seen some QSR customers--particularly lower-income consumers--trade down to dollar stores and value grocers. Afternoon snack visits decreased as a percentage of overall visits compared to 2022, but still remain ahead of pre-pandemic levels, and are representative of changes in consumer behavior.”

There's an ironic paradox in new research released today that speaks volumes about the future of technological adoption, and especially how we research it.

The Pew Research Center finds that smartphone penetration has exceeded household broadband penetration. That's not the paradox, but it's one part of it.

The paradox is that Pew also announced it is changing the methodology it uses to research consumer adoption of technology for reasons related to it.

Instead of using telephone-based surveys, it has begun using a web and snail mail-based surveying method managed by consumer research giant Ipsos. The reason: few people answer their phones anymore.

And while that is an insight worthy of a 3.0 column in itself, it speaks to a fundamental shift not just in consumer technology, but in how consumers use the technology they adopt. Or don't.

Ever since landline telephones reached a critical mass of U.S. households in the 1950s, consumer researchers utilized the so-called "random digital dial" method to survey Americans about all sorts of things, including their media usage.

In fact, that phone methodology was more or less Madison Avenue's gold standard until about 15 years ago, when it started weaning itself from it due to the erosion of its efficacy.

Between do-not-call list registries, the acceleration of mobile phone adoption, and underlying shifts in consumer media usage behaviors, random digit dialing was becoming less and less effective.

This may seem quaint by today's "Big Data-plus" approach to consumer media and technology research, but it's worth reading a MediaPost op-ed written by the esteemed Josh Chasin back in 2009 to remember that perspective.

Back then, Chasin was Chief Research Officer of Comscore, and until recently he was Chief Measurability Officer of VideoAmp, but he's always been a forward-thinking media researcher.

I'm not sure why Pew's methodological shift took so long -- or why it coincides, paradoxically with its finding that smartphones are now the dominant way Americans access digital media -- but I'm reprinting part of a Q&A that Pew provided along with today's release so you can understand the rationale in their own words.

As important as Pew's finding as well as its survey methodology shift are for the next-generation of media technology, I'd like to focus the rest of today's weigh-in on an attendant part of it: how technology changes consumer behavior, not just because of what it can do, but because of the unintended ways people end up using them.

Think about the landline phone, as an example. When American households first got access to them, people were thrilled to answer them anytime they rang. Over time, that novelty wore out, and Madison Avenue played its own significant role in that, because, you know -- telemarketing.

So what once was a ubiquitous lifeline connection to American households quickly eroded into both a personalized media connector/player as well as a means of screening unwanted inbound communications.

The truth is that the smartphone has evolved to become many, many other things -- and certainly anything that "has an app for that" -- but an equally significant game-changer is its increasing role as a media hub.

We have evolved from the landline phone to the cable/MVPD "triple play" to the broadband-only one, and soon, to a smartphone-only one.

That last part is my prediction, but it is informed by a conversation I had with my nephew Josh Lovison about 15 years ago when he was then leading the mobile practice in the IPG Media Lab.

We were having a conversation about smartphone penetration and I was gushing about the explosion of apps, the app economy, and how apps were altering the behaviors of how consumers used their phones.

"Those things are important," Josh said holding his own smartphone up in front of me, adding: "But the most important thing is how the microprocessing power is expanding inside this device."

Josh went on to explain that smartphones would soon become more powerful -- and have greater bandwidth -- than the gateways we were then using to connect to digital media inside our homes: cable broadband modems.

That was one of a handful of lightbulb moments that have gone off in my own head during my years covering media, several of which came from Josh, but ever since then I've been waiting for the day when I could swap my wired household connection for a mobile wireless one.

I'm still on the "contact me when it becomes available" waitlist for Verizon's wireless mobile household modem as soon as it comes into my rural Connecticut neighborhood, and I can't wait to write a column about that once it gets "installed."

In the meantime, my Verizon-powered handheld devices are getting pretty close, and I find myself increasingly streaming large video files that I otherwise would have watched on my WiFi-connected TV screen.

To explain the thinking behind the change in its consumer survey methodology, the Pew Research Center provided the following Q&A between Managing Director of Internet and Technology Research Monica Anderson and Research Associate Colleen McClain.

Monica Anderson: We see this research as foundational to understanding the broader impact that the internet, mobile technology and social media have on our society.

Americans have an array of digital tools that help them with everything from getting news to shopping to finding jobs. Studying how people are going online, which devices they own and which social media sites they use is crucial for understanding how they experience the world around them.

This research also anchors our ongoing work on the digital divide: the gap between those who have access to certain technologies and those who don’t. It shows us where demographic differences exist, if they’ve changed over time, and how factors like age, race and income may contribute.

Our surveys are an important reminder that some technologies, like high-speed internet, remain out of reach for some Americans, particularly those who are less affluent. In fact, our latest survey shows that about four-in-ten Americans living in lower-income households do not subscribe to home broadband.

Why is your team making the switch from phone surveys to the National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS)?

Colleen McClain: The internet hasn’t just transformed Americans’ everyday lives – it has also transformed the way researchers study its impact. The changes we’ve made this year set us up to continue studying tech adoption long into the future.

We began tracking Americans’ tech use back in 2000. At that point, about half of Americans were online, and just 1% had broadband at home. Like much of the survey research world, we relied on telephone polling for these studies, and this approach served us well for decades.

But in more recent years, the share of people who respond to phone polls has plummeted, and these types of polls have become more costly. At the same time, online surveys have become more popular and pollsters’ methods have become more diverse. This transformation in polling is reflected in our online American Trends Panel, which works well for the vast majority of the Center’s U.S. survey work.

But there’s a caveat: Online-only surveys aren’t always the best approach when it comes to measuring certain types of data points. That includes measuring how many people don’t use technology in the first place.

Enter the National Public Opinion Reference Survey, which the Center launched in 2020 to meet these kinds of challenges.

By giving people the choice to take our survey on paper or online, it is especially well-suited for hearing from Americans who don’t use the internet, aren’t comfortable with technology or just don’t want to respond online. That makes it a good fit for studying the digital divide. And NPORS achieves a higher response rate than phone polls.

Shifting our tech adoption studies to NPORS ensures we’re keeping up with the latest advances in the Center’s methods toolkit, with quality at the forefront of this important work.

Anderson: Are the old and new approaches comparable?

McClain: We took several steps to make our NPORS findings as comparable as possible with our earlier phone surveys. We knew that it can be tricky, and sometimes impossible, to directly compare the results of surveys that use different modes – that is, methods of interviewing.

How a survey is conducted can affect how people answer questions and who responds in the first place. These are known as “mode effects.”

To try to minimize the impact of this change, we started by doing what we do best: Gathering data.

Around the same time that we fielded our phone polls about tech adoption in 2019 and 2021, we also fielded some surveys using alternate approaches. We didn’t want to change the mode right away, but rather understand how any changes in our approach might affect the data we were collecting about how Americans use technology.

These test runs helped narrow our options and tweak the NPORS design. Using the 2019 and 2021 phone data we collected as a comparison point, we worked over the next few years to make the respondent experience as similar as possible across modes.

Anderson: What does your new approach mean for your ability to talk about changes over time?

McClain: We carefully considered the potential for mode effects as we decided how to talk about the changes we saw in our findings this year. Even with all the work we did to make the approaches as comparable as possible, we wanted to be cautious.

For instance, we paid close attention to the size of any changes we observed. In some cases, the figures were fairly similar between 2021 and 2023, and even without the mode shift, we wouldn’t make too much of them.

We gave a thorough look at more striking differences. For example, 21% of Americans said they used TikTok in our 2021 phone survey, and that’s risen to 33% now in our paper/online survey.

Going back to our test runs from earlier years helped us conclude it’s unlikely this change was all due to mode. We believe it also reflects real change over time.

While the mode shift makes it tricker than usual to talk about trends, we believe the change in approach is a net positive for the quality of our work. NPORS sets us up well for the future.

Given advancements in analytics and automation and the availability of customer data and AI tools, marketers should be doing a lot better at driving customer acquisitions, but nearly two-thirds of lead-generation and engagement strategies are underperforming, according to the latest CMO Council report.

The CMO Council found that marketers are falling behind in lead scoring, account-based marketing, accelerated pipeline, and intention-based marketing.

Key findings from the Q4 survey of 150 of B2B marketing, sales, revenue, growth, demand-generation and campaign execution leaders include show that 63% of marketers say they must own and optimize their company’s revenue-generation engine, and 64% say their lead-generation and engagement strategy underperform.

A year-end scorecard ranks proficiencies in critical areas of B2B marketing execution and demand-generation operations.

And after “exhaustive research,” the CMO Council gave marketers a C- grade for moving deals from contact to closure, a C for scoring actionable leads, a C for finding buyers already seeking a specific product, and a C- for account-based marketing when it comes to finding, winning, and growing big customers, and moving deals more efficiently from contract to making a sale.

The report is based on a survey of 150 B2B marketing and sales leads driving revenue, growth, demand-generation and campaign execution in Q4 2023.

It also included content from in-depth interviews with executives from Netline, Autodesk, T-Mobile, NTT, ABM Consortium, TechTarget, IBM, B2B Marketing, Reachdesk, Momentum ITSMA, and Xometry.

The CMO Council segmented the study in three sets of factors that make up a model for better identification, engagement and conversion.

There are metrics for tracking and measuring performance, ways to compare one company to another, strategic demand-generation initiatives, and more.

The top skill sets contributing to improved ABM-driven business outcomes include:

1. Better segmentation and precision targeting of buyers and influencers
2. On-demand customer business intelligence and personal buyer insights
3. Tighter integration of demand generation, channel, direct sales, and support teams
4. Greater utilization of tools and data sources for richer prospect profiling
5. Proactive and timely pre-sales follow up and cultivation strategies

Google is urging a state court judge in Ohio to reject the state government's effort to prohibit the company from prioritizing its services or products in the search results.

In papers filed Friday with Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge James Schuck, Google argues that its search engine isn't a “common carrier” service under Ohio law -- meaning subject to the same sorts of regulations as railroads or other transportation companies.

“The undisputed facts establish that Google Search is not a common carrier,” the company writes in a motion seeking summary judgment.

“It does not carry or transport anything for hire, and it does not hold itself out as acting 'indifferently,'” the company continues, adding that a ruling against it on this issue would also violate the company's First Amendment right to wield control over its search results.

The company's motion comes in a lawsuit brought in June 2021 by Ohio Attorney General David Yost, who claims Google should be regulated as a “common carrier” because it dominates the online search market.

Yost alleged in his original complaint that Google touts its own products in the search results, and pointed to a study that says around 65% of searches on Google desktop and mobile ended without clicks to a different company.

“Google often presents Google products in enhanced ways in the search results that are designed to capture more clicks, including by integrating other Google business lines -- such as specialized searches -- into the results page,” he alleged. “It does not allow competitors to have similar access, thereby violating its duties as a common carrier.”

Google previously argued the study Yost cited used faulty methodology -- partly because it didn't take into account that search users sometimes seek factual information, such as currency conversions or weather forecasts, as opposed to links to other companies.

Last year Schuck ruled that Yost could attempt to prove that Google Search is a common carrier, but also said it's not clear what impact such a classification would have on the company.

Google and Yost each filed papers on Friday seeking summary judgment. Yost's papers, but not Google's are currently sealed.

Google argues in its motion that it doesn't meet Ohio's definition of common carrier because it doesn't “transport” or “carry” people or their property, and because its search results are individually tailored.

“Google Search's business is to create its own product: in response to each individual user's query, it curates information and fashions a bespoke search results page,” the company writes.

“Google engages in judgment, discretion, and differentiation at every stage of its processes. And by design it treats users differently, including by showing them different results, depending on various factors,” the company argues.

Google adds that a ruling against it would mark an expansion of “common carriage” in ways that could threaten a wide range of companies -- including other web companies like Bing and Yelp, newspapers like The Columbus Dispatch and brick-and-mortar businesses like supermarkets.

“Each is open to the public and provides consumers with information or goods, some of which may be sourced from third parties, just as Google Search does.”

The company also says it has a First Amendment right to exercise editorial judgment over the search results page.

“Just as a newspaper editor must choose what information to include in the paper, what to put on the front page, and in what order, a search engine must decide what information to include in its search results, what to put on the first page of the results, and in what order,” Google contends.

Yost's written argument is expected to be available within two weeks.

Services across the internet, websites, and apps have become conveniences that consumers just don't want to give up, although they are willing to exchange data or pay for content and services.

The IAB surveyed more than 1,500 consumers to gain insights into how personal data has become the key to access free ad-supported content across the internet and apps, and to what extent consumers understand what it means.

The study also examined the role of advertising, consumers' willingness to pay for free online services, and their preferences and concerns when sharing data.

Some 80% of consumers believe a free ad-supported internet is important to democracy and free speech, and nearly 80% say it would be unfair to people with less financial resources if website and apps were not free to use.

Nearly three-in-four consumers understand that sharing their data enables websites and apps to know more about them to serve personalized ads, and about 70% are willing to share their personal data to support advertising overall.

Consumers value using the internet, websites, and apps. Findings from the IAB study, released Tuesday, show the value of compensation they would want for not having free access.

In aggregate, that value totaled nearly $38,000 per year.

The IAB examined how much the advertising industry would need to compensate consumers per year to not use internet, websites, and apps. Gen Z cited the highest amount at $54,169; followed by Millennials at $40,343; Gen X at $36,932; and Boomers at $29,407.

The compensation price for giving up the convenience averaged $37,619.

The gap widens when compared with the amount that consumers would pay per month to continue using services. Ninety-one percent of consumers participating in the study said they would react negatively and would become frustrated, disappointed, angry, confused, or sad if they had to start paying for the content they now use for free

The data shows consumers would only pay on average $164 per month to continue using currently free websites and apps. Gen Z once again cited the highest amount at $229.14; followed by Millennials at $176.89; Gen X at $139.16; and Boomers at $105.77.

One Millennial female participating in the study said “if I had to pay for websites/apps instead of accessing them for free, I wouldn't visit as many and would have access to a lot less information.”

The study found that four-fifths of consumers understand that websites and apps are free because of advertising, but Gen Z, for whom the Internet has existed all their lives, is less likely to agree than the other generations at 62%.

Interestingly, Gen Z is twice as likely to believe -- at 26% vs. 12% -- that websites and apps are free due to “altruistic reasons,” such as being considered free speech or a basic right, which makes sense when considering today's political beliefs and actions taken by this generation.

Nearly all consumers would rather receive ads than pay to use online services, according to the study findings.

Some 95% would prefer to receive ads than pay a high fee for websites and apps with no ads. Nearly 78% would prefer to get additional ads in turn for having to pay nothing, and 69% agree that it’s a fair trade-off to receive ads in exchange for free services.

Overall, the data show it's time for the digital ad industry to better inform consumers about their data use and protections, the benefits it provides, and data’s role that keep the Internet free and open.

It has been a difficult transition away from Google Chrome browser cookies for some. 

An analysis of two weeks of aggregated data from tens of millions of impressions since Google launched its trial of 1% deprecation on Jan. 4 reveals the challenges.

Paul Bannister, chief strategy officer at Raptive, which supports creators and publishers, posted a note on LinkedIn that “uncookied Chrome users appear to be monetizing about 30% worse than those with cookies.”

Since this is just the beginning of the trials, Bannister believes these results are “really positive,” comparing them with the 60% decline in performance related to Safari when Apple removed identifiers.

Much of Google's 30% gap, he believes, can be made up this year with continued investment as well as Privacy Sandbox, ID solutions and more.

Bannister’s early analysis shows that pre-bid demand -- such as demand that was not from Google -- performed better than Google demand in the deprecated group of data.

Marketers at Raptive believe this is because Google is “all-in on Privacy Sandbox,” whereas many other supply-side platforms (SSPs) are supporting Sandbox.

Google continues to trek on. "We continue to move forward with our plans to phase out third-party cookies in H2 2024, subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns from the UK CMA," a Google spokesperson wrote in an email to Search & Performance Marketing Daily. "We are confident the industry can make the transition in 2024 based on all the tremendous progress we've seen from leading companies."

Cookies were important, but outdated based on the changing requirements of digital advertising and consumer privacy. The tool is only one of the primary ways that information is collected and shared on the web. 

Demand-side platforms (DSPs) are enabling marketers to improve ad performance as cookies disappear.

It has become one way to mitigate the challenges, as marketers lose data signals to support ad targeting, from Apple's Identifier for Advertisers, a unique random device identifier generated and assigned to every device to Google sunsetting cookies in Chrome.  

Research from Fortune Business Insights predicts that DSP revenue will increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.9% through 2030.

This is a steep growth rate for technology in use by marketers for more than a decade, but some data suggests that privacy-driven changes in digital advertising continues to accelerate the use of DSPs.

The increased in use has enabled adding thousands of paid users in weeks at a profitable Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC).

As third-party cookies crumble, brands are turning to their own first-party data and getting help from DSPs to equip marketers with tools and strategies, according to David Itkzkowitz, director of performance at Zoomd.

“Data clean rooms are providing secure environments allowing marketers to combine first-party data with the DSP's data assets for audience segmentation and targeting without revealing sensitive information,” Itzkowitz said in an email to Media Daily News.

DSPs offer identity solutions that match first-party data with unique identifiers, enabling consistent targeting across different platforms and devices.

They are targeting ads based on the context of the app or webpage, such as keywords, topics, and surrounding content.

Mobile-measurement partners like AppsFlyer or Adjust have also stepped up, as well as adding advertiser-specific data and internal media-buying insights. These ad targeting tactics are used to build lookalike audience-based targeting segments that improve campaign performance. 

California's attorney general on Friday warned streaming apps as well as sellers of streaming devices that they must allow residents to easily opt out of the use of their data for advertising purposes.

“Consumers that are using a SmartTV should be able to navigate to the settings menu in a streaming service’s mobile app and enable the service’s 'Do Not Sell My Personal Information' setting,” Attorney General Rob Bonta's office stated Friday. “Consumers should also be able to have this choice honored across different devices if they are logged into their account when they send their opt-out request.”

Bonta said his office sent letters to streaming companies that allegedly violated California's sweeping privacy law by failing to offer easy opt-out mechanisms.

California's privacy law, which took effect in 2020, gives consumers the right to learn what personal information has been collected about them by companies, have that information deleted, and prevent the sale or transfer of that data to third parties. The law's definition of "personal information" is broad enough to cover the type of pseudonymous data that businesses rely on for ad targeting, and the definition of “sale” includes some data disclosures that faciliate targeted ads.

In 2022, cosmetics retailer Sephora agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations that it violated the state privacy law by failing to disclose it “sold” website users' personal information, and failing to honor opt-out requests that consumers sent through universal opt-out mechanisms, such as the Global Privacy Control.

For the first time, mobile sales surpassed desktop sales in the 2023 holiday season. Google is now prioritizing mobile-supported webpages over desktop-first sites.

Yet we’re still seeing brands build websites for the desktop experience and retrofit them for mobile.

Let’s explore the differences between mobile and desktop SEO, the costs of falling behind in mobile SEO, and the areas to prioritize as the Web 3.0 era dawns.

Mobile SEO vs. traditional SEO: the costs of misalignment

SEO is the discipline of building a website’s visibility in search engines to increase organic visits. Search engine algorithms are hidden, but user experience is a major ranking factor. Mobile-oriented SEO is a driver of good user experience for those visiting sites using a mobile device. 

The concept of site “visits” is misleading. When a user goes to a site via a browser (Chrome, Safari, etc.), that site sends its assets, including scripts and resources, to the user’s device. Even though the device storage is temporary, it requires memory, space, and processing capacity -- all in shorter supply on mobile devices.

From a user perspective, this means that sites that aren’t optimized for mobile consume more data (which can lead to bigger phone and internet bills) and juice from a phone’s battery. For a brand, the lack of responsiveness that makes for small, hard-to-read text, misaligned layouts, and poor mobile user experience will tank SERP ranking.

For brands, other costs incurred include the excessive bandwidth tool from using larger files; storage costs for servers housing those same files; and missed revenue from users who find the site and bounce out of frustration. Page speed on mobile for unoptimized sites is also considerably slower, and that carries real costs -- as shown in an Amazon study from 2006, before the first iPhone was launched. 

Prioritizing mobile-friendly SEO initiatives

So how do you get started? I’ll lay out the most critical initiatives, in the recommended order:

Images. Most images are uploaded at a size that is way too big for desktop, let alone mobile, and many are using old technologies. Since mobile devices were built for Web 2.0, any images using formats from a previous era will be extremely inefficient to process.

Webpage Resource files (e.g., CSS and JavaScript). A common web developer practice is to layer updates and customizations on top of existing site code. If your existing code isn’t optimized for mobile, it’s just heavy baggage for mobile browsers, so plan an overhaul that prioritizes mobile.

Prioritization of HTML elements. Desktop browsers don’t need to prioritize which elements load first, since their capacity and processing power is greater. But for mobile browsers, which have more limitations, the order matters. Make sure your above-the-fold elements load first. Otherwise, you risk giving your users a glitchy first view.

Content design. What looks good on desktop might not work for mobile. Consider text size and readability, the way font renders on smaller screens, and whether color schemes become problematic in smaller formats.

Start with a diagnosis

If you’re not sure how mobile-friendly your site is, start by getting an assessment. Google’s free PageSpeed Insights analyzes a URL and drills into four segments of optimization.

If you’re feeling a little pressure after reading this, good. A mobile-first site experience might have been a nice option in 2014, but it’s a necessity in 2024 -- and will only get more important as mobile usage continues to gobble a greater proportion of online activity.