What's changed?
Interesting slide show from Les Binet of DDB Matrix.
Can't argue with the figures I guess, but I would like to question them.
Both my kids, ages 11 and 15, spend way more time online than watching TV.
They also go online while they're watching TV.
It's as if the TV has become this generation's background music.
Something to have on to take away the silence whilst you're doing other things.
posted by Stan Lee at 9:47 am
4 Comments:
i agree with you stan. the only thing this presentation prooves is that slide shows are boring and outdated.
You should be aware that this very short slide show was part of a rather flippant "balloon debate", that put TV and digital head to head. In reality, I'm a big fan of digital media, but I do think the "TV is dying" thing is massively over-stated. So bear in mind you're kind of viewing these slides out of context.
However, I do have a much longer version which contains a lot more hard evidence to support the points I made.
As for your kids, all I can say is that the data I showed is based on a piece of research that monitored the media consumption of a large sample of people every 30 minutes during the day. It's by far the most rigorous piece of media research of its kind that I'm aware of.
You're right that people do do other things while they watch TV, and that could be an issue. But to be fair, people always did. In the old days, they used to talk, read newspapers and knit. Now they go online and text. The bottom line is that awareness of TV advertising hasn't dropped at all, not even for kids (who, given that they "don't watch TV" have an uncanny ability to quote TV ads verbatim when you talk to them). And the sales effects of TV ads seem to be getting bigger, not smaller.
By the way, Stefanie. "Prooves" is usually spelt "proves". Sorry to be boring and outdated.
Les
The interesting thing about my kids Les, particularly my son, is they spend a large proportion of time on the web watching tv.
They watch things like Family Guy, South Park and Simpsons months before they premiere on Australian tv.
So in essence much of their web time is in fact tv time.
This online accessibility to tv programming is resulting in a change in the way networks air imported shows in Australia.
Where once we were at their mercy, waiting patiently for new series we had only read about, they now go to air down under within days of screening in the US.
So I guess internet has helped revitalise tv. At least here in Australia.
Hi Stan. I think you make a good point, which is that multitasking whilst consuming media is a major issue yet it is paid scant regard in most media planning methodologies. One recent study suggested that as little as 5% of ads were viewed with full attention. I left a comment on Scamp's blog to this effect so forgive me if I'm paraphrasing something I've already written but it is indeed true that people are exposed to more commercial impacts than ever - this is due to an increase in the viewing of digital channels which carry more ads. In fact, according to Thinkbox (the UK TV marketing body), we see an average of 40 TV ads a day. But I'd question whether this is a good thing. 40 is a lot. The reason people are watching more ads is more a consequence of increased penetration of digital TV. But it's not surprising that despite this ad recall remains high for TV. It is typically deployed at media weights which are far higher than other media (upto 6-8 times higher). In fact the disparity is so large that it is often difficult to properly ascertain the effectiveness of secondary media using techniques such as econometric modelling since the activity is simply drowned by the weight of TV. There's no doubt that TV is a very powerful medium but there are many contexts to this . Gosh, I'm back on my high horse.
Post a Comment
<< Home