You do get tired of a constant barrage of PR and in essence propaganda, from vested interest groups in the TV market, telling us that TV viewing is growing. In fact, it's getting better they say. TV viewing?
They've not learnt the lessons of the music industry, nor the book publishing industry, that instead of knocking digital, they can embrace it and make from it. Digital can be the saviour of TV as CBS are finding out.
Tired and weary.
Sure, I have a vested interest in online video but I don't hide behind it, and I have a daily vested interest in Advertising. Traditional TV broadcasters do hide, producing Press Releases and Research under acronyms as "facts". And the reason I'm interested in online, as a former dyed in the wool Adman, is that I know it's where the eyeballs are heading. I still do traditional Advertising but I tell clients the truth.
TV stations are of course, afraid of online and video online viewership, so they have to keep telling a yarn that the online explosion isn't really happening, when it is. Understandable perhaps, but it's helping, as intended, to dampen advertising support online. Which is slowing online growth - but not for long.
However, advertisers are cleverer than that because they know the switch in audience away from traditional TV - simply from their own experience. Anyone with a child under 18, sees it everyday.
It might surprise some, but Clients are people too.
It's a simple fact that as Social Networks have grown, people are spending more time (notably in the traditional peak time evening viewing) on those networks. And if they're doing that, they're consuming less TV OR, watching it differently by second screens. Second screens clearly reduce the impact of advertising. It's just commonsense.
Online video is soaring.
- 58% of the US stream (EMarketer) up from 20% in three years.
- 75% of internet users are watching digital video (EMarketer).
- 87% of people complete a video ad (that's from Nielsen)
- "internet video ads have a higher impact than TV Ads" (that's Nielsen too).
- "TV viewing is flat, steamers are watching more online video for longer" (IAB)
- And digital is growing in that light 18-34 hard to reach TV audience (Nielsen).
- Light TV viewers are shifting online quicker (Nielsen).
- 145 million people in the US watch video online compared to 290 million who watch TV. And that was in 2012 (Mashable)
- YouTube has over 1 billion viewers a month (Daily Mail) and "more 18-34's watch YouTube than any cable TV channel".
- Online video advertising is expected to grow +40% this year (Business Insider)
- Americans aged 12-34 are spending less time in front of their TV's (New York Times)
- Netflix now has 33 million subscribers (that's paid for viewers who are more valuable to advertisers).
- "Households abandon cable and Satellite TV for streaming" (Forbes).
Will I go on?
The point too, is that all the opposing arguments are based on data - nobody is lying - but it's how you interpret that data for your own PR purposes is the issue. As someone said, if 40% of car accidents are by drunk drivers, then sober drivers are more dangerous.
It's not the data - it's how you use it.
So a word to media planners and buyers. A word to marketing managers and brand managers. A word to Admen. Use your commonsense.
TV isn't dead....but it's dying.
You know it and so do I.
Do you think you'll ever buy a TV again? You won't, you'll buy a connected TV for online content which in a lot of cases, simply won't show traditional TV programmes. If you own the device (like Apple will own Apple TV), you'll own the content and that's broadcasters biggest fear - distribution. It could close them.
You pay to get on the App Store. You'll pay for access to connected TV as a content provider IF they want your content. And they probably won't.
Look at data and ask yourself why it has been given to you.
Question it.
Time for a change.
You can't put up fact with no links or dates - that just makes you look like a charlatan.
ReplyDelete87% of people complete a video ad (Nielson). Piss off.
Sober drivers crash more than drunk drivers, yes of course because most people drive sober. However I don't think you are writing sober. Just gobbledegook really.
I posted your comment because I said I would. You can google what I wrote for the links and facts but you remain anonymous? The drink driver point is a percentage so it doesn't matter how many but it makes the point that data is abused to make PR. Common sense will prevail I'm sure. Oh and by the way, it's Nielsen not Nielson in case you're ever asked.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, like I am going to go an do your research for you. Pls give the link to this one, just one,
ReplyDelete87% of people complete a video ad (that's from Nielsen).
I did google it and top of search comes to your site. So...
You must have taken these facts and stored them from articles to prove your point, surely goodness and mercy, don't tell me you didn't that would be sloppy. One link that's all. just one, easy.
It does look like it is you that is abusing data. nobody else.
Just one? Okay anonymous here's the report from IAB/Nielsen as reported by 'Ad Week' one of the long established bibles of the Ad Industry. Firstly it's titled "Online Video Ads have a higher impact than TV Ads". See that? Then it says, "People are receptive to video ads" in the black cylinder type. See that? Underneath in a yellow box (to highlight it) it says "On average, people streaming video watch ads for 20 seconds with an average completion rate of 87%". Got that? That graphs underneath illustrate it. Does it look like I'm abusing data? There's other good stuff here about online Ad recall Versus TV. I know it's all different to what we expect but....we have to rethink as the world changes. Here you go http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/online-video-ads-have-higher-impact-tv-ads-148982
ReplyDeleteThanks for the report much appreciated. The IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau report sponsored by Yahoo and Microsoft Advertising - http://www.iab.net/media/file/Digital-Video-and-TV-Advertising-Viewing-Budget-Share-Shift-and-Effectiveness-FINAL.pdf which is where the stats where taken from is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest coup of the whole report is (drum roll) that running TV ads and on-line video gives the overall best response for brand re-call.. They call it the multiplier effect, genius. So buy more media get better results, genius, who'd have thought. In fact the biggest results was in Finance where general recall for the TV ad was 50% and it went to 59% if there was on-line video ad too. This means that if the TV ad run on it's own it would have got 50% recall and with on-line it goes to 59%, no small shakes. And that's the largest jumper the smallest is Health with on-line ad only improves re-call by 4%. (39% up to 43%)
Where video ads perform best by miles is TV shows watched on-line...so just watching a TV show in particular documentaries but on your computer for some reason recall is better than watching the TV on the TV..why I don't know but the report says it is better on average across categories on all measures by miles general recall up 39%, brand re-call up 68%, message re-call up 100%
In regard to the sticky stat of 87% completion - the report on page 65 says this, I think, if the on-line ad is 20 seconds long and is streamed within a TV programme watched on a computer screen rather than a TV, 87% complete the ad. It's very specific and does not as you initially said that 87% of people complete a video ad. It certainly can't apply to you tube ads surely. Only in a very specific circumstance they do. In fact it jumps to 88% if the documentary or TV programme is long format over 24 minutes. The 20 second ad includes the 5 seconds or so that is un-skippable too. As expected most on-line content is short form under 24 mins 95% of all content and growing where as long format is static.
Overall what I gleamed and I wonder if you agree, I think you may re your point about Apple TV for example is that people watch TV shows on a computer so they can watch it when it suits them and for some reason they re-call ads more if they watch the shows this way, in particular, news items and documentaries noticeably TV shows much more so than movies which is surprising. None of the report touches sport, I wonder why?
There are lots of devils in the detail of the report and it points overall to that if a brand has the cash they should make TV ads and put them on-line too. Or more to the point the channel should make it's programmes available on-line If their ads feature in documentaries and news items (i.e. they bought the TV space) and people watch those programmes that are over 24 minutes long on-line, off of the TV schedule they will re-call and like the (20 second ads) more for some reason and with only 15 seconds left off an ad most people don't tend to skip. There really is very little here that suggest in the slightest that TV is dying, in fact doesn't digital just become TV off schedule, to work at it's best. Digital needs TV to be most effective in fact.
Very little to argue over here. Sensible. But you're not suggesting that when someone sponsors/commissions research, they only interpret and issue the data to make their own point? ...Which is EXACTLY my point. To be fair, Nielsen are on the side of TV Broadcasters but it is EXACTLY the issue in my Blog. On both coin sides. Data is being used for spin.
ReplyDeleteTV isn't dead but it's being replaced. So adding online helps recall. As you say, adding any media helps recall! The more money you throw at it, the more will see it. Shock! But it does show that online has value. And I think recall is aided because online on a laptop/tablet is very close one-to-one. It's intimate, like cinema, so that makes it more effective.
The point on TV shows is valid. But do remember, TV is changing in that online broadcasters generate their own exclusive content - Game of Thrones etc and Breaking Bad, although TV originated, doubled it's audience through online. So it's changing is the point ....and a cash rich Netflix, will deliver more exclusive content that's watchable, causing havoc for TV shows. Distribution is changing too (Apple TV) who simply may not give access to Traditional TV. Maybe.
87% completion is of course, VOD, which now mainly comes in long form without the ability to skip in order to generate revenue. So if you want the content badly enough, you'll wait out all the ads (87% will). It does not apply to YouTube but what does is the sharing of Ads. New Guinness TV, over a million downloads so that has another BIG value. (If you haven't see it, have a look - the Basketball commercial).
As you say, and as Kevin Spacey said, the real core issue for TV broadcasters is that they push out content on a schedule that suits them. The News goes out a 6 O'Clock but I want to see it at 830pm. That's the problem that online overcomes and has generated binge viewing (50,000 people watched the full series of Breaking Bad on Netflix, the NIGHT before the new series). Consumers want control and structurally, that's a big problem for TV. The big problem.
Right now, Digital is boosted by TV. Absolutely. But it's changing. TV Broadcasters are becoming content providers to online. CBS are being saved by such revenues. I never said TV is dead, it's not...but....it is being overtaken and right now, a combo of both media works best.
Works best together.
Now that in itself, would be a sound, coherent, logical argument for broadcasters instead of the constant spin that they're winning, they're growing, and that's just not believable in common sense land. But it's out of fear. The same fear that exists in Ad Agencies which is costing them business and clients. The book publishers fear, the music industry fear.
Instead of which, by embracing it, they actually could be part of the greatest shift in consumer behaviour and make money from it.
Thanks for your comments. Piss off wasn't nice (Ha!) but I wish you well. Cheers.