Television Effectiveness Versus Digital Video? The Mad Debate.

It's a worrying time when the debate about Television being more effective than Digital still labours on. Nastily.

I don't know how many traditional TV Campaigns we've managed in our pasts..... If it's not in the thousands, it's certainly in the hundreds and that doesn't necessarily gives us authority, but it does give us experience. Saying that too as the author is both a former Madison Avenuer and Fellow of The Advertising Institute. Agency blue-blood.

And how many Digital Video Campaigns have we managed? Thousands too.

But this debate seems to become angry with Traditionalists Versus Digital Evangelists whereas really what matters, is what is the audience doing? 

Where are the eyeballs going?

The TV traditionalists seem to blindly like TV, because that's the way it's always been done without understanding, that the world, their world, has changed 360 degrees.

Clearly too, one is not a substitute for the other, despite traditional TV data produced (and paid for) by TV Broadcasters which is dubious, at best.

It's common sense to understand that the TV audience is in decline.

With the high penetration of Social Media (Facebook, Twitter) predominant and with their peak usage in evening times, has to mean less TV is being watched. You can't be actively doing both.

The increasing high penetration of Ad-free streaming services (Netflix has over 250,000 homes in Ireland alone) which are watched at peak time, has to mean less TV viewing. 

The cable chord cutters are watching less TV too de facto. The prevalence of second screen viewing, must mean less TV is being watched. The huge growth in YouTube especially amongst the youngers, means they're watching less TV.

The decline in published ratings, means less TV is being watched in itself albeit, US broadcasters are now dependent on live sports rather than traditional "shows".

The growth of Apps (Tinder for example) at the very least, diminishes the OTS (opportunity to see) of TV. The growth of Mobile activity takes away from TV viewing. Better broadband brings homes more digital viewing opportunities as well. The Ipad and ITunes. 

And so on it goes on, common sense. The more distractions, especially at key peak time (high advertising expenditure times), the more TV viewing will decline. 

It struck us in this week especially, what a great example of video effectiveness this was.

In less than two days, this online digital video topped over 100 million views and is now Facebook's most video live video ever. We have no doubt it is already over 200 million views.

The Hasbro mask (44.99 usd) sold out (http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/chewbacca-mask-sold-online-womans-video-super-viral/story?id=39292349)

And the Media cost? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Except the cost of producing the video.

Now what TV Campaign could deliver that audience? None. 

And at what cost? Certainly millions of dollars if you could achieve it using TV.... which you can't.

And the one big reason? Shareability. 

You can't share a TV Commercial and that's one big downside of traditional TV viewing (despite audience numbers) where Digital has the advantage (as this video shows).

Not only can it be shared, but to a like-minded demographic (friends and followers), a marketers dream in fact. Thereby, effectively communicating the message exactly to the target. 

So when we talk about TV Advertising effectiveness, let's not kid ourselves because we want Clients to keep thinking it....in our own vested interest, or, because we can't keep up with the digital age.....

And let's not argue blindly.

There's a role for both, absolutely. 

One is growing, one is declining, but all that means is that the eyeballs are switching. And as marketers or Ad men and girls, that's what should concern us most. 

Rather than defend a position because it's all we know. What are we afraid of here? It's good news because online video creates new, long form opportunity. No longer are we hampered by that 30 second Commercial length for example which should nurture creativity. 

Stopping Digital Video is like standing on Dollymount Strand and trying to push out the waves. 

Let's not do that and let's give the correct answer to Clients. Impartial arbitors of media.

Like the peasant's in Lamb's essay, we know not how to roast pork, other than to burn the house down. 

Streamabout.com

Teresa Mannion. The remix....

Sorry, we just loved this.

RTE Reporter (teresa mannion whom we know) reports from a watery stormy town. And here's the remix.....by 'Super Ceili'. Well done boys and girls, lovely bit of editing....

The most shocking reliable data I've seen on the switch away from TV to online. Terrifying reading for TV Stations.

I got this BusinessInsider/Comscore story about BuzzFeed today from a friend, by email. When I opened it, I fell off my chair.

Which is why he sent it.

The most stunning thing I've read yet, that just symbolises the online revolution that has and is, taking place. It's proof positive now, of the takeover and the switchover from TV to online.

Just look at the monthly reach of BuzzFeed in this graph for 18-34's.

Shocking stuff for TV Stations....

BuzzFeed now reaches 50% of US millennials (18-34's) a month according to Comscore/BusinessInsider and this is terrifying reading for TV. 

BuzzFeeds monthly reach outstrips CBS, Fox and NBC.

In fact it's winning in all ages and spelling the end of TV in terms of audience decline, audience attention but notably in terms of advertising money. And be assured, exactly this same model is being replicated in every country including Ireland. The same thing is happening everywhere. 

Put simply, advertising money chases audience and as BuzzFeed climbs it will take those big brand lucrative TV dollars with it. Whilst the TV stations will go into financial decline through that same lost advertising. They simply cannot hold their audiences no longer.

Look too above, at the BuzzFeed video views and Subscriber growth!!! Pretty impressive!!!

50% of the views are from mobile. And those video views are peaking for BuzzFeed in the evening. That's right, smack dab in the middle of prime time TV. The expensive advertising bit.

And that signals a strong probability that the younger 18-34's are having a look at BuzzFeed....during the evening ad breaks! Not what an advertiser wants to hear.

And as The BusinessInsider story says, advertisers want to reach consumers with messages that have sight, sound and motion. Those advantages don't just apply to TV anymore.

I've never seen reliable data like this, that clearly shows the media pulling power of digital and all of this happening in the lucrative TV space - once regarded as the bastion of all things advertising. 

And then we've only spoken here about the impact BuzzFeed has had - nevermind the others!

This ladies and gentlemen, is the end..... Or the start...... It depends on where you're sitting. 

But one thing it sure is, the world has just changed. Totally.

Online Video explodes again shows new data. Television going into freefall.

Europe's online revenue from Ads and Subscriptions through online video is skyrocketing.

It rose +51% in 2013 to 3.2 billion usd and expected to grow +41% in 2014.

In Western Europe Video on demand (VOD) grew +103% alone in 2014. One of the main drivers is ease of access to high end broadband. So the easier it is to connect online, the more online video grows and too, the ease of new devices being available on the high street.

And obviously, Traditional TV is the loser here.

Emarketer have the full report but this is only going way. TV is collapsing, online video is growing. 

That tipping point, where TV becomes irrelevant for viewers and advertisers, is not far off based on these figures.

Indeed in Ireland alone, 200,000 homes have Netflix which is ad free presenting a problem to both TV broadcasters in audience loss and to Advertisers because it's ad free.

It's also clear that Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, would simply close without the circa 180 million they receive from Government. They cannot exist commercially and their commercial future looks dim as they face greater, better online competitors - who aren't state funded.

Pity that.....

Nielsen/BusinessInsider Report on the decline of TV. Especially amongst males 18-24. Time for Digital.....

Important piece in BusinessInsider (again!) about what they call, 'Millennial Males'. In effect, that younger, highly lucrative, Males aged 18-24.

They're a crucial demographic because they've high levels of discretionary spend. Which they use on beer, nights out, clothing, drinks, save a bit, perhaps start their first mortgage.....

But according to Nielsen, their TV viewing has slumped, more than any other demographic.

And because of that, Advertisers are switching to digital to reach them by increasing their marketing spends online (from TV) by up to +30%.

Consequently the reach to this demographic, increased by +11% when they did.

So if you try to reach them on TV, as the report says, "you're spending too much on TV" because that's where they're not, more and more.

But I would go further.

Whatever about the numbers in the decline of TV, the level of engagement and potential for click-through action, only exists online. You can talk to them far better through a digital online video than a 30 second TV commercial anyway.

Perhaps I'm bound to say that but I can say that the effectiveness of simply using a TV commercial cut-down is practically....nil.

Online Broadcasters high end shows, are getting get into the traditional TV Ad market. Another sign of TV's decline.

The global TV advertising market is something close to $300 billion. The online part of this is about 8%, the rest (ridiculously) going to traditional TV Stations. Although online video advertising surged +44% last year.

Younger audiences, a key demographic, are now more online with digital video, than watching TV. Almost in every country.

So online broadcasters want a cut of that spend, as they develop and as their audiences switch away from traditional TV. 

You'll see my other blogs following - about the decline of TV, decline of Cable (pay) TV and how broadcasters such as ITV/Comcast are investing fortunes into content creation for online.

The decline of Cable TV is in fact, a direct switch by consumers towards online broadcasters.

It's a massive wave.
It's also massive that these online shows are being watched on multi devices in the home. They're watching something in the region of 15 hours a week (versus 33 hours watching TV).

Netflix's 'House of cards' and 'Orange is the new black' and others, are showing advertisers the way. Of course too, as I often say, ad money follows audience, so the real task here is to drive viewers and it is happening.

Indeed, online broadcasters are using traditional media (notably Outdoor) to promote their shows.

However, online ad rates remain high but are decreasing. And of course, sponsorship on online programmes is working.

Fundamentally too, digital advertising generates direct measurable response which traditional TV cannot do. You cannot click a TV Commercial.

But as online broadcasters get better and better at producing online digital video content, the eyeballs will follow and so too, the advertising. 

The time lag is really down to agency media planners who are moving slowly and older marketing managers who haven't got to grips with the way it's changing so fast.

Content is still....king.

The death of TV pure and simple. New Nielsen data shows Google + Facebook have a higher audience than TV. Ad Agencies need to start diluting TV spend.

Just when TV thought thought recent reports went unnoticed about their demise....along comes another Car crash.

Following my blog on Monday (which is below this) which highlighted those recent shocking data reports about the demise of TV - through a collapse in ratings, a collapse in subscribers and bizarrely, rising Ad costs - another credible piece of research worsens TV's pain. Both are based on facts and that's what's causing all the trouble. Facts.

This time it might be terminal.

Credible research, because it's current (November 2013) but completely credible because it's from Nielsen - as I often say, the doyenne of TV research. This to be fair is brave by Nielsen because in effect, they are shooting themselves in the foot. But the truth will out.

Facebook AND Google active monthly users, are both going to take over from TV in total reach. That means, more people use Google and Facebook, than TV. 435 million as against 294 million. That's a HUGE difference.

It is the death of TV, nothing less.

Google and Facebook combined, both already have a much larger audience than TV, but of course, there will be duplication between Google and Facebook users.

And yet, time and time again I've said it, Media buyers are spending significantly more of their budgets on TV. Over 55% goes on TV. 

Why oh why? 

Laziness? Sweetheart back end margin deals? What can be the reason for these supposed data-driven buyers? How can the dominant continued use of TV on a Media schedule, to the detriment of online, be justifiable?

And I do understand how it works, having recently owned the biggest media buying Agency in Ireland. But I cannot for the life of me, understand why it's still going on? Perhaps old habits die hard....but it is now, indefensible.

A UK TV Station (UTV) has recently announced plans to start broadcasting in Ireland with all the expense that goes with it. 

With these results now, they might be better off, opening a Facebook page.

The Death of TV and the stats to prove it. Landmark research from BusinessInsider.

Very, very, interesting article from BusinessInsider entitled 'The Death of TV. TV is dying and here are the stats that prove it'. It follows from research by 'Citi Research' and this is a landmark, elaborate, piece of work. 

You'll get the whole story here http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11

US Pay TV (cable) is having its worst year ever. 

This links with another blog I wrote on November 8th (which follows in my posts), where Nielsen reports that tablets and mobile will be more advertising important than TV in 2016. It also follows which all of us in the business already know.....TV is dying on its feet (Streamabout is active in online video so we understand the TV market).

Audience ratings "have collapsed" and with all the major TV providers losing subscribers (about 5 million subscribers cancelling). The number of cable subscribers will drop below 40 million for the first time ever. It's something a lot of us knew, but didn't have the data to support it.

Time Warner Cable lost 306,000 cable subs and 24,000 Internet users. 

The CEO of a cable company, Charter Comms, expressed surprise that a staggering "1.3m of his 5.5m customers (a quarter) didn't want TV", they wanted broadband only packages - meaning they're switching online alright, but not to watch TV. 

Even ratings for major sporting events are in decline. Like Baseball...

Like Basketball..

So this is a real example of the shift to Internet where consumers are watching video and not, TV. They're watching shows and movies notably on mobile and probably as part of a broadband/Wifi 'deal' from a Telco. Or from the proliferation of free Wifi at a variety of stores or indeed, from city hotspots. But they're not watching traditional TV programmes, as they air live.

The other fundamental, is that more and more households, now have less "TV's" as we know them but rather, connected boxes like Apple TV or even via their Xbox or an internet set-top box. They want fast Internet access speeds with online content. Nielsen, the doyenne of TV research,  are even reporting this decline.

So if people have less "TV's", they'll watch less TV as it's aired. They now have a global choice of frankly, better content.

Mobile video is on the other hand, booming, with about 40% of all YouTube videos being watched on mobile. Staggering. And again, as you'll know, YouTube video is not TV programming in the main.

Tablets too, are being viewed more during the key TV primetime, so each device has its moment across the day. But if tablets are being used during primetime, advertising effectiveness is diluting.

Of course too, as I've blogged about so many times, Advertising money is not following this shift. Yet. 

Old habits die hard - the US TV Ad revenue is 64 Billion Dollars whilst mobile is a mere 3.4 Billion. It certainly raises questions about TV Agency buyers who are supposed to buy on the basis of data, rather than cosy "back margin" volume deals. 

Most US Advertising money goes on traditional TV by a mile. Yet TV prices are increasing reports Morgan Stanley....as indeed, bizarrely, are cable subscriptions!! Questions should be asked.

The former Time Warner boss, Glenn Britt, nailed it I think, when he said that "the cable business had spent too many years complacently dismissing the competition" and that is such a well worn lesson. 

They have also been actively producing spurious data in vain attempts to try to keep convincing clients that TV is ploughing ahead, when it's not.  

It happened in the music business, it happened in the retail video rental business, it happened in the bookseller business and now it's in the TV business. For me, this is the crux of the matter leading to this downfall.

Rather than dismissing online, they should be embracing it.

Slowly, but surely, the game is up.

Online TV and Movie Content. It's killing Television. It's killing Cinema. It could kill Advertising because it's ad-free.

Internet-only film businesses, have really declared war on Television. Netflix have invested 100 million usd in the remake of the British series, 'House of cards' with Kevin Spacey, as you'll probably know. 

A 26 episode series that's not on Television.

Rather too, than asking people to wait week-by-week for each episode, it was all released at the same time to subscribers. Viewers could then schedule it as required, as it suited them - something which kills the rigidness of TV schedules.

Indeed they produced 6 trailers. Each one targeting the particular demographic of the Netflix subscriber. So female subscribers got the weepy trailer, young males the fight scenes - another thing you can't do on traditional TV.

Online content is also not beholden to advertisers...rather, is driven by subscriptions and subscribers on fixed monthly rates.

Consequently programme viewership fluctuations, is not the issue anymore for online broadcasters - another gaping hole in the way TV works and is funded. Netflix, with nearly 30 million subscribers, just needs to keep attracting those subscribers to stay or join the service, nothing more. Whereas, TV stations have to keep reaching out to audiences, to get them to watch, to generate Ads, when we know, through second screen viewing, their audiences are shrinking. No, Collapsing.

Netflix has already commissioned another feature, a horror called 'Hemlock Grove' and because they're not advertising dependent, they need to simply feature on quality broadcasting. 

But online broadcasters will force change too. Voice control is the future too, for Netflix rather than "gesture control" being considered by other online broadcasters (like the Xbox function). So you simply "call out" your movie and up it comes and online will eventually create too many features that will just force TV stations to close because they simply haven't the technology to match.

Online broadcasting is affecting traditional movie-making too and not just TV.

Profits in the traditional movie business are down. Between 2004-2011, the big 5 studios profits were down -40%. Time Warner for example, in generating 12 billion usd in 2012 from film, generated 14 billion usd from TV/Online. And that balance is quickly shifting away from traditional movie-making towards content making that has subscribers attached such as cable/online.

Fees to cable/subscriber channels are estimated to be in the US, about 32 billion usd a year and growing +7% annually. And it's this steady income that content makers want to chase, rather than traditional TV dependent on advertising swings and thereby, focused on shows being popular (or not). Cinema revenue for film is equally volatile with "hits" and "misses". Content makers want broadcasters with steady income.

Film Theatre/Cinema attendance is not a growth business with too many distractions, such as Netflix, at home on multiple devices. 

DVD/Blue Ray sales are obviously down too, about -46% in the past 6 years. DVD Pirating in Russia and China has become an issue too nevermind general illegal downloads. Actor and Director salaries are being cut, as are the number of projects. 

It is the likes of Netflix that has been the lifeline for Hollywood, with big talent like Spacey/Hoffman/Jeff Daniels moving away from movies into online content. 

Equally too, Netflix and Amazon's Love film are competing for broadcast rights against traditional broadcasters and have the cash war chests, to win. It's estimated that Netflix spent 5 billion usd in 2012 acquiring content.

In terms of 'connected devices' such as smartphones, games consoles, laptops, ipads and so on, Americans own 2.6 of them in each household. So the "theatrical window" of holding back online movie release is now becoming defunct to allow movies access this online market. 'Arbitrage' with Richard Gere, was released everywhere at once and understood to have made 3 times the money because it had a massive global audience at once.

But movie makers don't like it (because they'll lose the cinema premium) and theatre owners don't like it either.

So digital programme/content provision is winning time and time again meaning traditional movie makers will switch (as will talent) into creating online content. It also means traditional TV stations are getting more and more stuffed.

They're being outbid for content; they're losing audiences; they're losing money (180m+ euro a year in Ireland for RTE) every year; their content is poor; and their model has a doubtful future. 

Even their anchor product - news - is being covered better and quicker (much quicker) by national newspapers online.

This game is over.

40% of TV viewers in the US, have a second screen open at the same time. Passive viewing, turned off audiences, are hitting TV Stations Advertising.

Nielsen, the firm of TV ratings, have released new figures from October about second screen usage in the US. (The full report is here but you'll have to enlist, although for free http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2012/state-of-the-media--cross-platform-report-q2-2012.html)

That is the trend where people watch TV and at the same time, use a smartphone, tablet or laptop. Indeed. Exactly as I am doing whilst I write this blog and my missus is doing the same thing - probably updating Streamabout video actually.

But both of us almost every night, are second screen users.
Which of course has a dramatic affect on TV "viewing" and certainly TV advertising engagement. Basically we're, what's called, "snacking" on TV.

Not good for the medium.

Neilsen today says we're part of 85% of adults who do that monthly and a massive 40% who do it daily. And remember, Neilsen are the bible of TV viewing so this is very pertinent. Given that not every home has a tablet or smartphone, this is also truly astonishing. 

Older people use tablets, younger use smartphones the research shows.

And it shows the power of online is preferred compared to TV broadcasters fare. Yet again, they should see this coming but they won't and they don't. 

Even if they look at Netflix usage, it averages 5 hours and 20 minutes a day! Wow indeed. TV is getting dead in the water without question. TV Advertising makes less and less sense and at one stage I was at the helm of Ireland's largest TV Advertising buyers. So it's not bias on my part, it's that the world has changed and TV broadcasters haven't.

It's pure and simple. Advertising money chases Audience and with 40% of the audience using a laptop or spending 5+ hours on Netflix, clearly they're not watching TV. And yet Ad agencies haven't got around to measuring this passive audience yet - neither have TV stations because it will mean their airtime is less valuable.

Although RTE, the Irish state broadcaster, is already starting to experience it.
In 2011, its Ad revenue is down -40% on 2007. It actually produced a deficit of nearly 17 million euro after receiving a staggering 183 million euro from Government. So if they were to stand on their own feet, without Government subvention, they'd lose circa 200 million euro. 

Government subvention to a broadcaster is also a strong potential conflict and RTE have been in hot water this year about its coverage of the Presidential Election. If your company receives that kind of investment that simply keeps you "afloat", how critical would you be of the investor? so how critical are they of Government?

So the threat of online and second screens, as shown by Nielsen, must put their future under further threat. And indeed, all traditional TV broadcasters.

It's a sea change that isn't going to go away.

YouTube's online TV. 100 Stations reduced to 30 after one year. They are getting ready and will be the new global TV broadcaster. Have no doubt.

In order for YouTube to enter the broader world of broadcasting, it needed to encourage content suppliers and did so through its 100 "premium channels" concept. The intention was to encourage speciality programming which might compete with terrestrial television. 100 channels got 1 million usd each. "SourceFed" looks like the winner.

A year later in the 100 million usd experiment, it's about to pull the plug on 70% of the channels and withdraw funding from them. 

What YouTube have done is to look at the viewership levels, look at the cost, and then determine which channels give the best return. So out of a 100 channels, they reckon a year in, that 30 are doing the job effectively and 70 just haven't made it.

Some of them were of course, just crazy. Like the channel dedicated to Al Gore....but if they end up with 30 channels that are viable in terms of audience and cost, that's a result.

And a review like this makes sense further enhancing YouTube's reputation as being serious in the broadcaster space.

Some of the channel are getting 3-6 million viewers a week which no standard broadcaster can compete with. Online will bring in that level of audience so that even speciality programming can attract in huge numbers.

And are the traditional Irish broadcasters experimenting with YouTube? No. Are they experimenting online? No. They think that simply by rebroadcasting their daily content through an online player, is a strategy. It has become as ludicrous as that.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - TV broadcasters are getting stuffed online and as more and more devices that facilitate online TV come into the market, the more stuffed they're going to get. And they've not a clue. Not an idea as to what is going on.

Notably, as we move into a new era of connected devices, the manner in which we consume TV will change 100%. Not only the manner in that the devices will change (which frankly is insignificant although the traditional broadcasters seem focused on it) but rather the style in which we consume it.

The online audience will look for better, niche content which broad market broadcasters will not be able to supply. They don't have the expertise for Social media, the platform, the financial resources (more ads means broad content) nor the skills (just look at their Facebook pages alone. Shocking) and in particular, they lack the understanding. Mostly, they've been propped up by Government for too long so as no longer to have a real commercial bone in their body.

So with competitors like YouTube, who have all of those skills but just need to develop the content, which they are, it's a great opportunity for YouTube to simply own the space. Own the platform.

They're not there yet....but they are getting there.

Connecting Internet TV. Easy to do, saves a fortune (no more cable sub), greater choice and the licence fee goes. Not a bad day's work then.

In a recession, one way to reduce your costs is to switch from cable TV to internet or "connected" (as it's called) TV.

After all, the channels that you currently have are all online and about a million more. Plus you get your videos on demand (like Netflix), YouTube content, Facebook/Social Media, a music centre through itunes and a whole lot more. So it makes sense anyway - but when money is that bit tighter, now's the time to make the move.

What you do need is a good, strong internet connection which most of us already have and are paying for anyway. The better the connection the better the download speeds but generally things are improving all the time.

Next you need a "smart" TV. Don't have one? No problem. Most Blue Ray players and gaming consoles have this capability of internet connection but failing that, buy a streaming box (like a Roku box as illustrated circa 100 euro) in somewhere like Peats in Dublin. Easy to buy, easy to connect and job done.

It's as simple as that.

Some obscure programming is not online but that's more than compensated by what is and you'll just have saved yourself that monthly cable subscription as well as, the licence fee if you're in backward Ireland.

So internet connected TV makes sense economically as well as by choice. It's cheaper and better, which are the watchwords of Irish businessman, Denis O'Brien. Make it cheaper and better and it's a winner.

So a little trip to the electrical retail store to buy a streaming box (if you don't already have a connected device) and you're up and running.

It's going to happen anyway so you might as well get in first and impress your friends as well as save some money. And in Ireland, I'm guessing you don't have to pay a licence fee either? Why would you. After all you're using a computer not a TV and you're watching other stations rather than the national broadcaster, RTE. Because if you've choice, you'll move on.

So does this mark the end of the licence fee? I can't think why it doesn't. Apart from anything else, you'd have a monitor on your wall and a laptop - not a TV in sight. So it would be impossible to police. Maybe RTE would like to correct me?

Another saving.

Is this the start of the end of licence fee income?
It's sure going to have a massive impact on viewership.

TV Broadcasters watch out, Newspapers are coming......

                       

There was a time when we all said, newspapers were dead.
Online news was where it was at.
Free online news. 

I didn't disagree and neither did most of us at the time. Wrong again.

Recent research (ABC) data seems to show that newspaper readership is in decline and whilst that may be true, it takes no account of the growth of their online assets, which are not.

What you're seeing is a switch of readers from one format to the other. And if I was investing, I'd invest in newspaper publishing - no doubt about it - because they are the new TV.

As Rupert Murdoch said recently, "news is the most valuable commodity in the world" and the recent, very excellent launch of Huffington Post Live, confirms that but the definition of "news" is changing.

I blogged here about that launch http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/08/huffington-post-live-launches.html

Look at youtube. What people want to watch are short (the average youtube length is 2 minutes 1 second) video clips giving more entertaining news. No more press conferences but rather, interesting interviews and insights into opinions about the news - exactly what the huffington post is all about.

The problem was of course, that printed versions of newspapers can't show video. But their online editions can - and boy, are they moving fast. Plus they can not only show you video but give you the full news story. Extensive, informed news with live action.

Firstly, they can have video posted by the hour, whereas TV broadcasters hold their news until their traditional ad breaks (such as the 6 o'clock or 9pm bulletins).

So now newspapers can time beat TV broadcasters to delivering news/sport/entertainment/weather. 

Secondly it's what consumers want. When something happens, they want to see it now, not later and certainly not when it suits a TV broadcaster to show it. If something happens, out with the mobile phone and you view it there and then.

Thirdly, it lets newspapers enter the TV advertising market using the variety of pre, mid and end rolls (ads before/during/after the video) at a premium price and thereby attract in those TV advertiser brands that they never had before.
That means more revenue.

So it's the real magic combination whiich newspapers are perfectly placed to capitalise on. And they are.

Look at www.independent.ie for example (the website of The Irish Independent, Ireland's largest daily www.independent.ie) and you'll see lots of video. Even daily weather video in a newspaper - who'd ever have thought it!

Which will bring lots of readers and consequently, lots of Ads. Irishtimes.com, The Daily Mail and Examiner.ie are well into the race too and all are to be congratulated. Meanwhile, TV Broadcasters are stuck showing old series through their iplayers. Successful, for now.

Because Newspapers have taken something which in the internet age, was a major threat and turned it into a new opportunity. As so few others did - such as Video rental businesses and music/book sellers.

Newspapers are the new broadcasters. 
It's TV that needs to look out.

Olympic online data just in from BBC. 34 million unique viewers on their site alone. Astonishing numbers.

You don't think the world has changed? Have a look at the video highlights of the London games 1908. Don't you love the Ladies tennis?

I know were all finished with, what was to be fair, excellent Olympic games. And this is the last time I'll mention them.

However, the BBC have just released social data about how well their online business performed and it's not unreasonable to use it as a typical benchmark.

It covers 2 weeks when 34 million unique users, saw BBC coverage online. 34 million online visitors. Astonishing.

On their busiest day it delivered one quadrillion bytes of data (yeah, it's a lot) and that busiest day was when Brit, Bradley Wiggins (Tour de France winner and secret smoker) won gold on August 1st.

After the opening and closing ceremonies, the men's 100m final was most watched (Usain Bolt) both on and offline globally.

They keep referring to these Games as "the digital games" and these results show that's exactly what they were.

In one 24 hour period, the online BBC traffic was higher for them than the total hours online for the 2010 World Cup! They also looked at device usage and saw it was generally, PC's during the day, Mobile usage from 6pm and then Tablets took over from circa 9pm.

The other benefit of this of course, is that they introduced BBC online to a new audience whom might very well comeback. It's really a superb performance but clearly shows consumers preferring to watch/follow online. It's further proof of the domination of Social and all things digital.

According to NBC (whom you might remember really messed up and if not, go here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/nbc-olympics-and-way-brands-can-easily.html), these games were the most watched TV event in history as well. So online got its share too or you might say, online viewers made it the most watched TV event. 

According to Nielsen, 219 million people watched some part of the games in the US alone (a viewer they consider as someone who watches 6 minutes or more). The Superbowl by contrast, gets circa 100 million viewers.

The closing ceremony had 31m viewers.

Irish broadcaster RTE, hasn't got data yet but indicated, based on data usage, it had 3,500 online at one time to watch an event. Which seems to me incredibly low? Katie Taylor? Oh sorry, that's right, their server went down just before broadcast.

In Canada, each Canadian watched 21 hours on average. 

Of course all Press titles saw increases and generally an uplift in advertising.
But all in all, this was the watershed event for online viewing and for Social Media. There's no doubt about it that it made online an intuitive place to go and almost "normal".

It shows how well planned media can generate new traffic and sell more ads by using online effectively. People are prepared to go online and watch something if it's good and will do so in huge numbers.

Extraordinary numbers that will pale by the time we get to Rio.

TuneIn. Internet Radio with 22 million in funding, 40 million monthly listeners, growing 267% pa, coming soon. Radio is changing.

 

TuneIn, the online radio service has just raised 16 million usd from VC's on foot of the 6m it has already raised.

It's using this capital to scale the business worldwide and in other words, bringing their station to local markets - such as Ireland + UK - and promoting it directly to advertisers. In the same way that Irish advertisers and UK ones can advertise in US online paper The Huff Post - media has become cross boundary, quickly.

TuneIn has 40m active users (listeners) a month and growing at a rate of 267% a year, by offering free access to 70,000 stations and unlimited programming. Stunning.

Irish stations 'Today FM', 'RTE', 'Newstalk', '104', 'Q102', 'Clare FM' are all there. And I noted 'play fm dublin', 'dublin coast guard', 'radio kerry', 'radio ri-ra', 'the freak', 'triplag', 'athr', 'beat', 'dublin city fm' and 'dublin physics live' are already there too (!) with some I hadn't heard of (triplag, athr, freak etc so good for them starting their own online radio presumably without the need for a licence or BAI interference. Breakthrough! And I hope existing stations start to demand their BAI money back because they can no longer police this). 

But so is everything you could possibly want to listen to. Global Sports being one clear winner.

It's almost back to the concept of 'portals'. And a recent study reported on the reliable Mashable reported that 42% of US households with internet access, listened to streamed radio. Of course, they also continue to listen to AM/FM but in the younger segments of 18-35's, it's in decline. They prefer to hear their radio online and with the advent of good, wireless streaming audio boxes it makes sense.

Internet streaming devices (as well as tablets and iphones) are replacing standard audio equipment and so, internet listening will increase and eventually, take over. It has to. As indeed TV will go exactly the same way.

I would imagine that a radio 'portal' idea like tunein is going to find some way to distribute its listeners (streams they're called) across various channels and then share that revenue. So you might buy a million streams in Dublin from the tunein sales office who in turn, will get some of these provided by RTE, Today FM, Play and so on because no single station can deliver solely that number of ads.

If that's the case, you now have stations sharing in advertiser revenue sold by tunein, rather than generating their own. RTE (Ireland's state broadcaster) no longer selling its own inventory? Interesting idea.

The development of internet radio is here and now starting to attract good funding. Online listening will grow (it has to) and will overtake AM/FM listenership. That's not even arguable.

So stations now need to promote their online offering (which generally here are so poor it's hard to believe) and encourage online listenership. They also need to forge alliances with large global players such as tunein.

Local radio stations need to get ready and get onboard.

The internet is coming.

Take heed from those who've ignored it in the past.

Have a look http://tunein.com/

Apple's worth is 539 billion, with 117 billion cash, new financials show 20% growth. But shares fall 6% and Media are on their case. Why?

 
Apple have just posted their financials.
And everyone is on their case - like they hate to see you doing well.

They used to say the Irish hated two things. Success and Failure.
But the disease seems to be spreading globally. Virally.

The company is doing fine but below expectations....particularly because of a slide in Iphone sales after 5 years on the market....but being well replaced by a surge in 2 year old Ipad sales and as the Ipod starts to move well down the food chain.

Apple TV has also gained (and very quietly) 4 million sales which sure surprised me.

Iphone still accounts for the bulk of revenue at 16 bilion usd (46% of total income) although well below its previous quarter and is still in a battle with Samsung both in the courts and in the shops. Clearly Samsung is winning on the street probably due to lower price points for pretty good phones (which Apple claim, they copied). Or possibly, people are holding off to buy the new Iphone later this year.

Following behind is Ipad with sales of 26 milion units and 9 billion revenue. The Mac portable is at 3.6 billion with Itunes and the App store at 2.1 billion. The poor Ipod is only now at a mere 1.1 billion. So you see the typical brand lifecycle as older products move aside to allow for new ones - which is the clear point, that you have to keep innovating.


Apple TV sold 1.3 million devices in the last quarter alone which points to a reason for Apple to further their interest in this market with a fully fledged push late in 2012. Just wait until they start marketing it properly! And of course, this is Samsung's space too.


This is the most valuable company on the planet and still growing with a value of 539 billion. Rumours of the new "Mini Ipad" will further bolster sales when it is launched, as well as, the new Mac Retina Pro.

Wall Street didn't like the numbers forcing CEO Tim Cook to explain the Europe as a market was "flat" and notably Germany, France, Greece and Italy. Although UK sales were up 13%. Greater China posted a nearly 50% growth and growing at an "incredible rate" according to Cook!

But the headlines are, such as just posted on Ireland's national broadcaster today, RTE, that "Apple results miss target, first time since 2003, shares fall 6%".

What?

Overall, the company's revenue is up 20%, although lower than expected but what a performance.

It has 117 billion usd in cash reserves and the App store ploughs on as well as 150 million Icloud users.


This is a company that deserves its status.

A company that understands brands and the need to keep on developing products as older ones reach the end of their lifecycle. Apple TV will be the next big thing, make no doubt about it.

They just seem to get everything right and I would think, with that amount of cash reserves, it's hard to see what Apple cannot do. 


A quality brand, a quality company.
Incredible in fact.

Everyone wants to tell you how badly everyone else is doing.

And when they do, share price falls.

In the case of Apple, the headlines are beyond ridiculous.