Nobody is smarter than the facts.
Contrary to all the baloney you read and all the nonsense promulgated by media and marketing "experts," and digital maniacs, TV viewing continues to grow and continues to swamp online activity.
Here are some facts from Nielsen's Cross-Platform Report for the 1st quarter of 2013:
- The average American spent about six times more time watching live TV than on the web.
- 97% of all video was viewed on a television. Less than 3% was viewed online.
- About 1/2 of 1% of video viewing was done on a mobile phone.
- Average live TV viewing increased by more than 1.5 hours a month compared to last year.
- 92% of TV viewing was done live. 8% was time-shifted (DVR.)
- TV viewing remains at record high levels.
Does jingoistic jargon that obfuscates the truth count? Are you sure we shouldn't leverage more fluid and actionable platforms, Bob? Worship the CTR and CPM instead of the immeasurable impact of TV?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't think so, either.
This IS contrarian...and really interesting. I can't help but wonder if Neilsen is imperial here. I was a media sales rep for 15+ years, and they have an awful lot to lose if TV ratings are on the decline. I've always been really skeptical of the validity of their info.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if it's the best data we have, does it break down cable v. broadcast?? Incomes??
I' like to leverage 'a more fluid and actionable platform', but my wife would kill me if she found out.
ReplyDeleteTV might probably never mind. Just think about it- watching an episode of Game of Thrones or Justified is much better than watching them on a laptop. The same goes for any sports event.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens in Vegas...
ReplyDeleteNielsen's new numbers bear this out: TV doesn't have a viewership problem - TV has a reach problem. It's TV's reach problem that has opened the door for the digital/mobile/social dalliances. Brands use TV for two reasons: 1) Reach enough of the people they need to when they need to and 2) Deliver their marketing communications message effectively. 40% of people view 73% of all the TV watched. Reaching the last 60% of consumers (who only watch 27% of the TV watched) is impossible at any budget given the hundreds of viewing choices that 27% is spread over. You can't find enough of those lighter viewers in any concentrated place on TV, and without unmercifully pounding more the people you've already reached. As a brand, how are you going to achieve 100% of your business goal by only reaching 40% of those who you need to buy your product? In 20 years, the average Primetime network rating has gone from 16 to less than 3. The cost for incremental reach through TV has skyrocketed because of the decline of high-rated programs, along with the polarization of viewing across the quintiles. So agencies and brands talk themselves into media other than TV (digital/mobile/social are big beneficiaries) as a way to "complete the reach" that TV can't provide on a 4-wk or 8-wk basis. But none of those are TV or work like TV. Which is why the $70B is still spent on broadcast and cable TV advertising has been fairly stable. Even though TV has become profoundly less potent in its ability to provide reach year after year, it's still the best vehicle to deliver reach and impact at the scale national brands need. If agencies and brands believed there were a better reach and communications media vehicle than TV today, those dollars would shift.
ReplyDeleteAccording to eMarketer, spending on TV is expected to grow from $66.4 billion in 2013 to $75.3 billion in 2017. So, who are the media directors that aren't telling there clients the truth? Seems like some serious money is still going into TV.
ReplyDeleteMoney is still going to TV because it's still the most efficient and effective way to get the first 40% of consumers. But it used to be the most efficient way to get the first 80+% of consumers.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteIt has been my observation that there is not 1 in five media directors that even knows these numbers.
I gave a talk recently at an ad club. I had dinner the night before with 8 "professional" ad people who worked at agencies in this market. I asked them how much video is viewed online vs television. The consensus was 60% online, 40% TV.
TAC,
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, I think you're missing the point. The reason that most people don't watch web video has less to do with the content than with the screen. However, with new technologies like Chromecast (which costs $35), the difference between the small and big screen is narrowing fast.
So what's really changing is not TV viewership (which, as you said, is at record levels and has been for some time), but video production. A whole new ecosystem is developing to produce video content that's really amazing. Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft and Intel are all creating original content. There are a whole bunch of companies devoted solely to developing YouTube channels and they're making money.
On the other side of the ledger, marketers can create content directly for their consumers (e.g. L'Oreal's Destination Beauty, Quicksilver's surfing channel, etc.). While I'm not into beauty tips and surfing videos, lots of people are).
Then you have the revolution in cinema quality cameras, which you can now buy for $20,000 rather than $200,000, which makes video production much more feasible and platforms like Poptent that can access talent.
So while TV isn't dying by a long shot, it's changing fast.
- Greg
The problem is that you're basing this on Nielsen.
ReplyDeleteWho are these people? What planet do they inhabit?
ReplyDeleteIt's bollocks. Pure and total bollocks. TV is dying, online is rising. "Online video consumption is up 16% from last year – with approximately 44% of online video consumed at the workplace" says Nielsen. Vested interested PR won't win this game. It's over.
ReplyDeleteBy all measures, your logic is somewhat twisted. Fragmentation? The web is so much more fragmented than TV, given the exception of a few portals and megasites. I will wager dollars to doughnuts that a TV only schedule can deliver a broad and, more importantly, effective message than the web can. This is not to suggest I would avoid the web, but rather make an apples comparison, one on one. The reach/frequency logic cannot hold water to TV (no one has yet to suggest a reliable additive EFFECTIVE measurement ). It's all smoke and mirrors and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOK...You obviously have been drinking the Koolaid. Add 16% to the 3 percent viewed online and what do you get? Not quite 3.5%. Wow. Impressive growth.
ReplyDeletePaul, thanks for the reply, and please let me know where you think my logic is twisted. Reading your post, it seems more like we're in violent agreement on these points: 1) While TV viewership is high, TV's ability to provide reach has been diminishing because of highly polarized viewing habits and increased choices 2) Even so, TV is still the best media vehicle for providing reach 3) TV is still the most effective communications medium, in spite of the promise and hype of digital/mobile/social. 4) Some marketers have talked themselves into web and other non-TV options as a way to complete the reach TV can't provide, but even while those media may provide reach and frequency "numbers," they aren't as effective as TV in communicating the brand's message.
ReplyDeletePaul, you're using subjective, vested interests numbers to defend the illogical. Nielsen is THE TV company and you can be selective. But it's the trend that matters. People are watching less TV. They're replacing it with Digital broadcasting. Anything else is like standing on the beach and trying to push out the tide. Ad Agencies are the slowest adopters of anything new. I know. I've been in them and owned some all my life.
ReplyDeleteHehe, I can only assume you're just trolling here Stuart, as you sound like a deluded digidull evangelist who just stepped out of a time machine from 2009.
ReplyDeleteNah, just an Adman who knows when it's over. And who gets annoyed by those who don't. Like you.
ReplyDeleteWhy let the facts get in the way of a grand delusion?
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts on this subject from Andy Nairn: http://campaignblog.campaignlive.co.uk/2013/09/02/tv-is-dead-ly/
Good old Campaign. 'Bible' of the Ad industry. Protector of traditional. In the words of Many Rice-Davies, "well they would, wouldn't they".
ReplyDeleteStuart, Sell! Sell! is an agency that is interested in whatever is the best way to help our clients be successful. We work across all platforms and mediums and have no vested interest or bias towards any particular medium.
ReplyDeleteIs that the same for you?
No, I get that. I know who you are. Look I'm second generation advertising (Dad Saatchis, Mum CDP) and was the CEO at McConnells/Lowe so I'm Agency by birth. BUT there is a new frontier which gives us/you unlimited creative freedom. Like 2 minutes of online video instead of TV's 30". And we've handed that business to Digital Agencies because our Clients don't trust us anymore. Why? Because we've been rubbishing it because we thought, it was the sensible thing to do. And it's not. Yet nobody thinks like we do and nobody can bring ideas online like we can. Let's embrace it, before it goes from us completely. Look at W+K for Nike online. Agencies used to be the antipathy of traditional - do things differently was the starting point - and here's a thing, a space, that's exactly that. The greatest creative opportunity and not, the greatest threat. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteSorry you've lost me there Stuart with the history lesson.
ReplyDeleteTo return to my question, where you currently work, do you have a vested interest in any particular medium or channel?
No.
ReplyDeleteWell that's good, because if your business specialised in, say, online video, it would make the comments about vested interests earlier seem a bit rich, wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteDon't be ridiculous. It's part of a full service 30 year old Ad Agency offering. We also have SEO, Design, Media, Creative.....stop.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see, full service. Do you work much with TV for your clients these days?
ReplyDeleteA lot but you know, it's changing because more and more they see TV in terminal decline. Now, I'm leaving it at that. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteTerminal decline eh? Well perhaps you might point them in the direction of the statistics on this post, make sure they're not gravely mistaken. Because that would really be silly.
ReplyDeleteNight.
Terminal decline eh? Well perhaps you might point them in the direction of the statistics on this post. As impartial agency types, we'd definitely want to make sure they weren't missing out on the most powerful advertising medium of our times just because they were misinformed.
ReplyDeleteBecause that really would be ridiculous.
(I like the strap line of your company by the way "The power of online video" - has a ring to it, and best of all, sounds perfectly impartial)
Vic - Thanks for exposing that phony.
ReplyDeleteStuart, is that correct? "44% of online video is consumed at the workplace" ... that is frightening! A really smart use of employers time. Perhaps the debate shouldn't be about TV dying, because productivity certainly is.
ReplyDelete(Personally, I'm with Bob and Sell Sell etc here - TV is not dying)
On a slightly related subject, what do 'Facebook' and 'You Tube' employees do to waste time at work?
Wow, I don't know many people who have cable, I had no idea it was still used. Everyone I know uses Netflix and stuf like that.
ReplyDelete