Written by John Sintras for afr.com and published in afr.com 12.11.09
It’s certainly a dynamic time in TV land at the moment. Thirty three new TV channels will have launched by year end; time shifted viewing data will finally be incorporated into the OzTAM currency in late December; Seven, Ten and Foxtel have been busy spruiking their 2010 product line ups in launch events around the country; and the Multiview research panel will be introduced into subscription TV homes early next year.
That’s a lot of pro-activity for a medium that is supposedly dying. The reality is that consumer engagement in TV programs is as strong as ever. Our recent word of mouth study, Branded Conversations, confirmed that TV programs are the most talked about product category of all, with 79 per cent of all people talking about a TV program an average of 2.7 times each week. And contrary to popular belief, technology is actually helping to increase consumer engagement with TV content, with the DVR in particular helping people to view more programs more often on their own terms.
To validate this trend, and to give us an idea of what we can expect when time shifted viewing data is introduced in Australia, Starcom recently commissioned a major TV behaviour survey in conjunction with Network Ten. We spoke to 1600 respondents aged 16-54 years across Australia, using a combination of household surveys, viewing diaries and in-depth interviews during September and October.
Among the key findings:
•The majority of viewer interaction with TV sets across the week continues to be for viewing TV programs. Almost three quarters (72 per cent) of all interactions were watching live TV, 15 per cent were watching a recorded program, 7 per cent were recording a program and the remaining 6 per cent were watching DVDs, gaming or hooking up their PC.
•People have very quickly embraced the new FTA digital channels. Seventeen per cent of all respondents claimed to be regular watchers of both One HD and Go!, and the results were similar in both DVR and non -DVR households (we were in field too early to get a result for 7TWO). Also, 6 per cent of people nominated both channels as their favourite channel, already higher than the results for SBS or any of the existing subscription TV channels among total people 16-54 years old.
•A DVR presence in the household drives more daily viewing. More than three quarters (78 per cent) of respondents claimed to be watching more than 1.5 hours of TV on weekdays versus 71 per cent in non-DVR households, and it was 86 per cent versus 77 per cent on weekends. Engagement metrics in DVR households are also high: 54 per cent say they enjoy watching TV programs more since getting a DVR, 55 per cent say they watch a greater variety of programs, 40 per cent say they spend more time watching TV, and 70 per cent rarely miss an episode of their favourite programs since getting a DVR
•Time shifting varies dramatically by genre, and is consistent with the trends already seen overseas. News and current affairs is the genre with the highest ‘mostly live’ watching score in time shift enabled households at 76 per cent, followed by sport with 60 per cent, and light entertainment at 54 per cent. The genres with the lowest ‘mostly live’ viewing scores are mini-series, movies, documentaries and drama on 32 per cent, 34 per cent, 37 per cent and 38 per cent respectively.
•Most time shifting happens within a week. Seventy-one per cent of respondents claimed to watch back recorded programs within the week, validating OzTAM’s decision to limit the capture of playback viewing at seven days. Almost a quarter (23 per cent) of people claimed to watch recorded programs the same day, 21 per cent the next day, 15 per cent within two to three days, and 12 per cent within four to seven days.
•Ad skipping is prevalent in time shift playback, but so is ad avoidance in traditional viewing in non DVR homes. Interestingly only 9 per cent of DVR households nominated ad skipping as the main reason for recording programs. However, 74 per cent said they frequently or occasionally skipped through ads. On the surface, this represents a huge challenge for traditional TVC formats. Of some consolation is the fact that 42 per cent of people said they would stop skipping through an ad if they were interested in the product being advertised, 35 per cent if the content was interesting, and 30 per cent if the content was humorous.
Before we all get too depressed about these figures, we must remember that people have been skipping ads by other means since TV was invented. To try and qualify this, we also asked non DVR households what they did during the ad breaks: 40 per cent of people claim they never or rarely watch the ads, and the majority of people also claim to leave the room, channel flick, or multi-task during ad breaks anyway, so it’s difficult to make the claim that DVRs themselves are driving ad avoidance.
•Downloading TV programs is increasing. Twenty per cent of people claimed to have streamed or watched TV programs online, 15 per cent claimed to have downloaded and saved a TV program, and 11 per cent claimed to watch TV programs downloaded by others. These figures will undoubtedly continue to grow and the next challenge for the ratings currency will be how we start to measure this increasingly large viewing opportunity.
There has never been a more dynamic time in TV, and it’s going to be fascinating to watch the developments over the coming year. While there will be more content, increasing viewer engagement and interaction and more opportunities for advertisers, it’s not a given that viewers will also engage with traditional TVC formats. Now more than ever we need to understand how and why people are viewing to successfully connect our brands with their favourite TV content in meaningful ways.
Communications news and views, from Starcom Australia
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Who Said The Banner is Dead
Great article about the growing similarities/convergence of TV and online advertising.
Who Said The Banner Is Dead?
by Cory Treffiletti, Source: Mediapost (Online Spin)
For years and years I've heard that the banner is dead, or that it was dying, or that it was morphing into larger, more impactful, richer media units. I believed what "they" said, but just this past week while watching the World Series on Fox, I realized that the banner hasn't died, it just went over to TV!
How many of you noticed the eerily familiar, 728x90-esque unit that was laid across the top of the screen and resolved into the scoreboard graphic at random times throughout the night? I did -- and the irony was not lost on me.
One of the most frustrating aspects of being a digital media strategist is that recurring dialogue (or debate, depending on the mood) about the impact of advertising in television vs. the impact of advertising online. TV-centric marketers speak of the sight, sound and motion of TV vs. the limited screen size of the Internet. Internet pundits claim the state of engagement (lean-forward vs. lean-back) and the interactive component of online as the rationale for increased spending. Both sides have a point, but I find it funny that TV advertising is starting to incorporate more and more of the online units into the fray, thereby undermining their very own argument.
For years Fox has been leading the way of integrating more graphical display units into the mix. The digital on-screen graphics (or "bugs," as some people call them) have mirrored much of what can be done online: banners, full-screen takeovers that resolve to a smaller unit, and even embedded images within the programming on sportscasts. This banner unit, which if memory serves me correctly was an ad for DirectTV, steals directly from online -- but without the interactive component that lends it so much strength online!
The banner unit from the World Series expands, shows an ad that is very much like any of the plethora of Flash ads you see online, and the resolves back into the scoreboard graphic. The strategy is simply one of exposure, with no opportunity for a response or any user-initiated action. If it were up to me, I would put a message in there about visiting a Web site or a special digital cable channel that would be set up with more information.
I would think creating unique channels for marketer follow-up within a digital cable environment would be a killer way to encourage interaction and measure consumer response (drive to channel 1436 to get more information). In this way, TV would be gaining ground on digital as a means of measuring response. The picture-in-picture feature, or even the "last" button on my remote, would allow me to parallel path an inquiry for more information while not losing my place on the program I'm watching (though this is all for naught, since I could just pause that program as well).
It's inevitable that TV is going to be more like digital and digital is going to become more like TV. Digital is already embracing video into the platform, which marks where the future is headed for integration. TV is taking more steps to promoting brands during programming because DVR usage and commercial skipping are on the rise. When will TV begin to offer these digital on-screen graphics as a type of standardized offering?
That last question is one that intrigues me the most. As more consumers avoid commercial interruptions, TV is going to have to find ways to monetize programming during the show, and the old ad banner seems to be a logical consideration. If more shows, beyond sports, start to integrate that kind of unit and create ways for consumers to click or respond for more information, then the lines will blur even more between online and digital. In fact, everything will go digital! It's only a matter of time before my third-party ad-serving partners will be rotating into a fixed TV banner that comes up once during every content pod, right? The limited real estate and the limited availability will create a low supply, high demand -- and therefore, high premium -- placement, won't it?
I look fondly toward the future when the banner receives the embrace from advertisers that it so richly deserves. A toast, if you will, to the ad unit that was years ahead of its time!
Don't you agree?
Couldn't have said this better myself Corey!
Who Said The Banner Is Dead?
by Cory Treffiletti, Source: Mediapost (Online Spin)
For years and years I've heard that the banner is dead, or that it was dying, or that it was morphing into larger, more impactful, richer media units. I believed what "they" said, but just this past week while watching the World Series on Fox, I realized that the banner hasn't died, it just went over to TV!
How many of you noticed the eerily familiar, 728x90-esque unit that was laid across the top of the screen and resolved into the scoreboard graphic at random times throughout the night? I did -- and the irony was not lost on me.
One of the most frustrating aspects of being a digital media strategist is that recurring dialogue (or debate, depending on the mood) about the impact of advertising in television vs. the impact of advertising online. TV-centric marketers speak of the sight, sound and motion of TV vs. the limited screen size of the Internet. Internet pundits claim the state of engagement (lean-forward vs. lean-back) and the interactive component of online as the rationale for increased spending. Both sides have a point, but I find it funny that TV advertising is starting to incorporate more and more of the online units into the fray, thereby undermining their very own argument.
For years Fox has been leading the way of integrating more graphical display units into the mix. The digital on-screen graphics (or "bugs," as some people call them) have mirrored much of what can be done online: banners, full-screen takeovers that resolve to a smaller unit, and even embedded images within the programming on sportscasts. This banner unit, which if memory serves me correctly was an ad for DirectTV, steals directly from online -- but without the interactive component that lends it so much strength online!
The banner unit from the World Series expands, shows an ad that is very much like any of the plethora of Flash ads you see online, and the resolves back into the scoreboard graphic. The strategy is simply one of exposure, with no opportunity for a response or any user-initiated action. If it were up to me, I would put a message in there about visiting a Web site or a special digital cable channel that would be set up with more information.
I would think creating unique channels for marketer follow-up within a digital cable environment would be a killer way to encourage interaction and measure consumer response (drive to channel 1436 to get more information). In this way, TV would be gaining ground on digital as a means of measuring response. The picture-in-picture feature, or even the "last" button on my remote, would allow me to parallel path an inquiry for more information while not losing my place on the program I'm watching (though this is all for naught, since I could just pause that program as well).
It's inevitable that TV is going to be more like digital and digital is going to become more like TV. Digital is already embracing video into the platform, which marks where the future is headed for integration. TV is taking more steps to promoting brands during programming because DVR usage and commercial skipping are on the rise. When will TV begin to offer these digital on-screen graphics as a type of standardized offering?
That last question is one that intrigues me the most. As more consumers avoid commercial interruptions, TV is going to have to find ways to monetize programming during the show, and the old ad banner seems to be a logical consideration. If more shows, beyond sports, start to integrate that kind of unit and create ways for consumers to click or respond for more information, then the lines will blur even more between online and digital. In fact, everything will go digital! It's only a matter of time before my third-party ad-serving partners will be rotating into a fixed TV banner that comes up once during every content pod, right? The limited real estate and the limited availability will create a low supply, high demand -- and therefore, high premium -- placement, won't it?
I look fondly toward the future when the banner receives the embrace from advertisers that it so richly deserves. A toast, if you will, to the ad unit that was years ahead of its time!
Don't you agree?
Couldn't have said this better myself Corey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)