Connected TV advertising customer interviews: a six-step checklist and scoring rubric

Recruit for decision access

Recruit people who had a direct role in approving, shaping or stopping a connected TV plan. Include brand-side and agency-side buyers, including those who tested streaming and stopped; leave out suppliers and colleagues. That boundary keeps the interviews centred on customer decisions rather than opinions from outside the buying role.

For UK inventory, include participants working on campaigns in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, wherever they are based. Behaviour, consent wording and platform reporting differ by market, so US accounts do not transfer cleanly. Fix these boundaries before invitations; the audience research guide distinguishes desk research from interviews.

Rebuild the buying moment

Anchor each call in one completed choice from the past twelve months, rather than asking for broad views of connected TV. A streaming plan can involve several decision-makers. Use attribution methods to frame the evidence question, then ask who approved, objected to or influenced the choice.

Keep the discussion on what happened, who had to approve it and what nearly stopped it. Someone who can name an approver and explain an objection is describing a decision process, not merely stating a preference. In a 30-minute call, avoid hypotheticals and long rating scales because vague answers are difficult to score consistently.

Ask whether the buyer can refer to a media plan template or a post-campaign note. Those records can ground the account in events rather than imagined future choices. Keep prompts to the participant's own decision and evidence they can describe, so reviewers can distinguish recollection from an opinion about what might happen.

Lock the scoring model in advance

Write the scoring rubric before the first interview. Define its terms so different interviewers judge answers on the same basis, and settle dimensions and weights in advance. This stops a confident account from changing what counts as compelling evidence during the study.

Ask two people from the buying team to approve the weights before recruitment starts. If the rubric changes once conversations are under way, record what changed and why. Keeping the decision visible prevents early and later accounts from being judged against different standards, while preserving the reason for any adjustment.

Set the scale and anchors

Score each criterion from 1 to 5, using written anchors so two reviewers reach the same number. A 5 needs a named, checkable detail. A 3 means the buyer described it but gave no detail. A 1 means the buyer denied it or could not say.

Scores of 4 and 2 sit between those anchors on every criterion. Give a 4 when the buyer named most of the detail a 5 needs but one element is missing, and a 2 when the buyer hinted at the point but gave less than the 3 anchor describes.

Combine the scores by multiplying each by its weight and adding the results. An account scoring 4, 3, 5, 2 and 3 on the five criteria in table order totals 3.45 out of 5, or 69 per cent. Treat 4.0 or above as a strong account, 3.0 to 3.9 as moderate, and below 3.0 as weak.

Review every account consistently

Score each conversation within a day, while notes are fresh, and have two reviewers work independently. Discuss any difference greater than one point. Applying the same routine to every account helps reviewers compare evidence, rather than letting interview style or a persuasive speaker determine the result.

For each segment, eight to twelve scored interviews can shape a hypothesis, but the result is not market data. Keep scores beside the notes so both reviewers can return to the same account when resolving a disagreement. Make revisions visible instead of quietly changing the comparison standard midway through the work.

Set participant safeguards early

Set handling rules before inviting participants, rather than waiting until notes have accumulated. The UK GDPR is relevant to consent (Article 7), retention (Article 5(1)(e)) and subject access (Article 15). Record each participant's agreement to recording, and decide how audio, notes, access and deletion will be managed.

Document the lawful basis, retention period, access arrangements and security controls for interview records, including whether notes may be shared. Apply data protection by design and default as a planning principle, and keep accountability documented. The Information Commissioner's Office guidance on consent can inform how agreement is considered.

Keep a short record alongside the agreed rules for recordings, notes, access and deletion. It should cover accountability, any data protection impact assessment, security, individual rights, data sharing and the privacy notice. If your organisation has a research ethics policy, follow it as well. If findings may inform advertising, retain claim support and check the advertising rules.

Separate explanations from estimates

Treat interviews as evidence about why a particular buyer acted, not as an estimate of how many buyers will do the same. A small set of accounts can reveal decision logic, constraints and objections, but should not be described as market data or proof of wider demand.

Pair interviews with survey evidence when the question concerns how many buyers might act. Sampling and questionnaire design address a different issue from a small group discussion, so state which method supports each conclusion. Keep any resulting estimates separate from interview scores, which reflect the pre-agreed criteria for individual accounts.

Use interview findings to explain buyer behaviour and identify questions for further research, not to claim that a pattern is common across the market. The score says whether an account fits the agreed rubric; it does not establish how widespread that account is. Keeping those conclusions distinct makes the limits of the evidence clear to the team using it.