Newspapers And The Internet

Newspapers are dying and the internet is thriving. Most pundits think this is because the web delivers news faster and in a more interactive way.

Baloney.

People who are seriously interested in the news still read newspapers. Nobody with half a brain believes he's going to get better news coverage on a website than in a newspaper.

The problem is, most people are not seriously interested in the news, and never have been. The internet is not a better source of information, it's a better source of gossip and entertainment. And regardless of what they say, that's what people want. The internet is not killing newspapers because it delivers news better. It's just more fun.

As a blogger about advertising, I often read what other ad bloggers are writing. Most of it is inane gossip and infantile score-settling. And yet these are the blogs with the highest readerships.

As I've said on a number of occasions, this is not "the information age." It's the entertainment age.

Who Cares?

All the fuss and hand-wringing in the ad business over whether "content" will be delivered over traditional broadcast media channels or over the internet, and whether printed publications are doomed by digital media, leads me to ask one question: Who gives a shit?

Did the world end when the written word went from sheepskin to paper? When we went from film to tape, or from tape to 0's and 1's? Why the hysteria over the medium of delivery?

People are still going to want to be entertained. They're going to want it free. Advertising will still support it. And someone's still going to have to make the ads. What difference does it make which screen they watch it on?

For more on this see "End of the World".

Hate To Say I Told You So, But...

New research from Media Life magazine confirms what TAC has been saying for quite some time about ad skipping. TAC has estimated that about 1.6 to 1.9% of spots are missed because of TiVo-ing and the like.

Here's what Media Life (Jan 11, 2008) says:

"Nearly all ads are viewed in DVR homes.

"For the longest time the great fear among the broadcast networks and advertisers was that ad-skipping devices like TiVo would make the 30-second spot all but obsolete.

"Those fears are turning out to be unfounded as more data comes in on how viewers use those devices.

"As it turns out, almost all ads are still seen by TV viewers, either live or when shows are seen in playback. Ad-skipping is minimal...

"When ads seen during DVR playback over three days from the original airing are added in, the share of ads seen by viewers rises to 97 percent, according to a new report from media buying giant Magna Global."

And when you add viewing that occurs after 3 days, you probably get something around 1.9% skipped. Now, would everyone please calm down.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Sky Still Not Falling

From The Hollywood Reporter, Dec. 27, 2007: "A study by Palisades Media Group (owned by Nielsen) suggests that despite the growth of digital video recording devices, DVRs are not drastically affecting the viewing of commercials, even time-sensitive or seasonal messages."

Now there's some big news. We've only been reporting this for months. See "Nailed", "The Sky Is Not Falling" and "Sky Not Falling, Update."

The Hollywood Reporter is apparently too dumb to do the math, but in the above-mentioned posts TAC gives you the best calculations on how many commercials are actually being skipped, based on the latest data I can find.

That's why, for the finest in cranky opinions, discerning readers keep their computers tuned to The Ad Contrarian.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Conundrum For Some

Last year, in The Ad Contrarian book we wrote... "with increased fragmentation, any medium that can deliver a large audience—even if it is not as large as it once was—should be more valuable than ever."

The New York Post reported a few days ago that even though audiences for individual shows have declined, tv costs have increased significantly.

"...In the fourth quarter, advertisers on average paid 18 percent more for primetime ... spots purchased on the open market, compared with the year-earlier period..."

"...At the same time, the average rating sold in the fourth quarter... was down 14 percent from a year ago..."

"...It's a conundrum for advertisers: even as ratings fall, ad prices on network TV are soaring..."

It's not a conundrum. It's perfectly logical. Fragmentation makes it harder to find large groups of people. Any medium that can deliver large groups is going to be valuable. When there's another medium that can reach large numbers of people as effectively as tv, tv costs will go down. And not until.

While the advertising trade press may have gone all wobbly over the

internet, intelligent advertisers have not.

The laws of economics have not been repealed.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN

Not Dead Yet

From the usually sensible Bob Garfield speculating in Advertising Age, March 26, 2007, about the future of advertising: “It's a world ... in which ad agencies are marginalized ... in which marketing -- and even branding -- are conducted without much reliance on the 30-second spot ... Because nobody is much interested in seeing them, and because soon they will be largely unnecessary.” Yeah, right.

Meantime according to The Wall Street Journal this year there is more demand for Super Bowl spots than anytime since 1999, the height of dotcom insanity.

All this hyperventilating over digital media really needs to calm down. People still spend half their media time with good old television and the click through rate on banner ads is still under .002 -- in other words, zilch.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE AD CONTRARIAN