New research from Ketchum and USC Annenberg among Internet users (18+) in the USA shows the mixed media use and the dominant position of TV and local news. The table shows the evolution over the last three years.
The current economic situation will move advertisers to run more often the same commercial or ad. This despite the increased wear-out of TV commercials. Wear-out refers to a situation that an ad or TV commercial gets unnoticed - because of lack of interest- or even creates irritation because of the high showing frequency. For print advertisements this point is reached after three ads, which proves the effectiveness of print advertising. This figure has been stable over the last 10-15 years. For TV advertising the wear-out figure has plummeted from 15-20 exposures during that same period to only 8 now. Advertising Age has some interesting views on this subject in a recent article.
Dutch digital natives display an astonishing shift in media consumption based upon time serie data. The data indicate an increase in total time spent with media, but a decrease of print media, radio and music and television. Time spent with internet is almost the same as with television. These data confirm what we probably have guessed to be the situation. And also calls for an industry-wide reaction.
This is a quote from Screen Digest, a media analysts company covering global media developments. Their perspective of television advertising expenditures is negative: although TV audiences are still growing, revenues are falling because demand is flat. ITV in the UK and TF1 in France are projecting a 3% drop in revenues for this year, and also Spanish broadcasters Telecinco and Antena3 show a sharp decline. Screen Digest is expecting this month to show the strong effects of the recession.
With all the research available on the lack of attention to television advertising, it is still striking to notice that marketers continue to invest in a medium that has lost its original impact.
EMS, the European-wide media study revealed last week the results of its latest survey. EMS researches the affluent and influential people in Europe and is a valuable balance to many single-media, single-country studies. The study confirms what so many individual surveys have indicated: print media are steady or slightly in decline. On average pan-regional titles were read by 25,3% of the EMS sample, which is a decline of 1.1% compared to last years figures. Individual titles had very little movements, with the free newspapers increasing their average issue readership (AIR).
The EMS survey makes a distinction between the Top 13% and Top 3% (EMS Select) in its sample. The more affluent the higher the readership for print and reach of television. AIR for pan-European (News and Business) print was at respectively 7.2% and 15,3%. Reach of pan-European TV (News and Business channels) was 42,7% for EMS and 53,8% for EMS Select. Next year digital usage will be added to the survey. This will offer an even more complete view of media consumption of this exclusive and influential group of people. Especially in B-to-B and corporate marketing this survey is relevant as C-suits (which are often the target audience in B-to-B) are among the target group of EMS.
I few weeks ago I listened to a presentation at the annual congres of the Stichting Marketing of Patrick Tillieux COO of the TV holding ProSiebenSat1 and was rather shocked by his revelations. His presentation was on the globalisation of the TV industry and was referring to a program format bought from a US channel. The program, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?", was put on air in various European countries. The audience metrics indicated that the program was no success in most countries. The channels' audience was reduced to one third when the program started! Just imagine that from one moment to the other readership plummets with 70%.
Also simple phrases can make viewers shift channels. Dutch research demonstrates clearly the impact of for example a journalist covering daily politics. When he says in a life program " Well, nothing really exciting happened today" viewers zap "en masse". A very floating and expensive audience indeed.
Media planners have a difficult job, the number of options to "touch" consumers explode. Consumers are confronted with advertising all day long, and creativity is put to the extreme to reach and start a dialogue with them. A campaign in Manhattan for example used HDTVs and Bluethooth technology integrated in busshelter walls to promote Discovery Channel.
Google, Yahoo, MSN and AOL dominate online ad spend in the USA -they have 92% of all spend, traditional media brands go online and online media brands start off-line, the number of television channels and pay per view options increase rapidly, television, video, music and games can be viewed and listened to via different platforms. The choice is inflating.
And the planner has not (yet) the tools to measure all of these new media the way he can with traditional media.
Touching consumers is getting more complicated, less reliable, less effective, more trial-based and above all more expensive. That might explain why certain advertisers decide to stick to the tried and trusted media. Unilever and Heineken announced some time ago that they would do so and recently Gini - a drinks brand from the Orangini Group - also announced that it would shift its media budgets away from television. Television simply requires too much budget to be effectively seen by consumers.
Question is whether the online advertising opportunities will not be doomed to the same scenario. The enormous amount of digital data as estimated by the IDC/EMC research this week illustrates the difficult task of the planner. How can he select the most cost efficient places to promote his clients brands? Today he does so by not choosing - he stays with Google, Yahoo, MSN or AOL.
Procter & Gamble announced last week that it would shift budgets from TV to Print media. Already in the first half of 2006 budget for TV was reduced to 69.3%(-2.9%) print media increased to 28.2% (+3.5%). Internet remains at a small percentage of total spendings: 1.4%. This move is part of a strategy that gives more attention to the ROI of media investments. P&G' competitor Unilever also cut TV investments last year in favour of Print. This year that situation has been reversed.
