Overnight at the Festival of Media Awards held in Valencia, Spain, Starcom Australia has once again cleaned up!
The Festival of Media awards are dedicated to rewarding media excellence, sourcing entrants from a global pool of full service agencies, specialist digital agencies, advertisers, social network developers, mobile agencies, content creators, production companies and more. Within this extremely competitive field we have achieved great results.
On the Global front, our very own Jack Klues was nominated Media Professional of the Year, and Starcom Australia was short listed for agency of the year - a truly amazing result.
The Festival will be a highlight in the careers of a couple of our own team - Peter Toone and Laura Bartal who have led the development of several highly awarded campaigns and have continually produced excellent work. They have earned the opportunity to attend the festival, this was just as well, as we have won:
Best Use of Content for Strauchanie: Sponsoring a legend campaign. Congratulations to Peter and his team for this award.
Consumer Benefit Award for Pedigree Dog Adoption. Congratulations to Laura and her team for this award.
Our client Mars has also won advertiser of the year for Pedigree, Mars and Snickers. This is excellent recognition of our role in achieving delighted clients.
Thanks also must go to the Australian Product Committee for continuing to champion great work throughout our agency.
Congratulations to our winners and lets ensure these results provide inspiration to us all in continuing our focus on delivery of great work for our clients.
Communications news and views, from Starcom Australia
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
As Screens Abound, Monitoring is Critical
Don’t believe the hype that TV is in decline. Recent research reiterates people’s engagement with TV content is stronger than ever, and many homes claim they watch more content than ever before. Why? Because they can.
Technology continues to make more content available with more flexibility. PVR penetration continues to increase, and this will accelerate with the launch this week of Internet-based FetchTV. ninemsn’s FIXPlay video player has also launched and Internet enabled TV’s are here too.
More platforms will launch increasing people’s ability to engage with TV content. And that’s a key issue for our industry – how are we going to meaningfully capture this new viewing behavior? Yes, the traditional free-to-air TV bucket is leaking eyeballs, but they aren’t going down the drain, they’re leaking into different buckets that we need to identify and capture, soon.
The measurement of TV viewing took a giant leap forward this year with the measurement of time shifted viewing and the FTA digital channels. The panel is now more representative of homes with PVR technology. But it’s not enough.
Our industry needs to figure out how we are going to capture in-home and portable viewing across all three screens (TV, computer and mobile) with a meaningful and consistent currency. And we’ll probably have a fourth screen to deal with soon as Apple’s iPad and its clones take hold.
If you think this type of viewing is too small to worry about in the short term, think again. In a recent TV viewing study that Starcom conducted with Network Ten in November, one third of 16-54 year olds said they watched TV programs accessed over the internet. More specifically, 20% of 16-54s stream TV programs over the internet, 15% download and save the programs, and 11% watch programs downloaded by others.
In terms of the three screens, 87% of people who downloaded are watching or streaming on computers, 23% are watching on TV and 7% are watching or streaming on mobile phones. Sixteen per cent of these people are watching on more than one device.
That’s a lot of viewing not currently being captured. And it’s only going to increase as more content becomes available and download speeds increase. It’s time to start evolving our TV and digital measurement currencies now. We need a people-centric or content-centric approach that captures all viewers as TV content is remediated through different platforms. And we need to understand the varying impact and engagement of viewing on different platforms – does a smaller screen necessarily result in lower engagement, and if so what impact should that have on pricing? Yes, it’s a complex issue, and it will most likely require a hybrid approach, but that’s no excuse for not starting to test potential solutions now.
It makes sense for TV ratings supplier OzTAM to take the lead on this issue. OzTAM CEO Kate Inglis-Clarke agreed this week that this was the next major issue being investigated, and that preliminary work was being done by its ratings supplier AGB/NMR on how this viewing might be captured and when the viewing was sufficient enough to justify the costs associated.
The issue is a priority for both the Media Federation of Australia and the Australian Association of National Advertisers, and both will commit the necessary resources to work with the media companies and research providers to address it. But it’s going to take time. The sooner we get started the sooner we can better understand what’s really happening with all types of viewing. There may be an additional cost, but it’s a cost we can’t afford to ignore.
Written for Fairfax, published in SMH April 16
Technology continues to make more content available with more flexibility. PVR penetration continues to increase, and this will accelerate with the launch this week of Internet-based FetchTV. ninemsn’s FIXPlay video player has also launched and Internet enabled TV’s are here too.
More platforms will launch increasing people’s ability to engage with TV content. And that’s a key issue for our industry – how are we going to meaningfully capture this new viewing behavior? Yes, the traditional free-to-air TV bucket is leaking eyeballs, but they aren’t going down the drain, they’re leaking into different buckets that we need to identify and capture, soon.
The measurement of TV viewing took a giant leap forward this year with the measurement of time shifted viewing and the FTA digital channels. The panel is now more representative of homes with PVR technology. But it’s not enough.
Our industry needs to figure out how we are going to capture in-home and portable viewing across all three screens (TV, computer and mobile) with a meaningful and consistent currency. And we’ll probably have a fourth screen to deal with soon as Apple’s iPad and its clones take hold.
If you think this type of viewing is too small to worry about in the short term, think again. In a recent TV viewing study that Starcom conducted with Network Ten in November, one third of 16-54 year olds said they watched TV programs accessed over the internet. More specifically, 20% of 16-54s stream TV programs over the internet, 15% download and save the programs, and 11% watch programs downloaded by others.
In terms of the three screens, 87% of people who downloaded are watching or streaming on computers, 23% are watching on TV and 7% are watching or streaming on mobile phones. Sixteen per cent of these people are watching on more than one device.
That’s a lot of viewing not currently being captured. And it’s only going to increase as more content becomes available and download speeds increase. It’s time to start evolving our TV and digital measurement currencies now. We need a people-centric or content-centric approach that captures all viewers as TV content is remediated through different platforms. And we need to understand the varying impact and engagement of viewing on different platforms – does a smaller screen necessarily result in lower engagement, and if so what impact should that have on pricing? Yes, it’s a complex issue, and it will most likely require a hybrid approach, but that’s no excuse for not starting to test potential solutions now.
It makes sense for TV ratings supplier OzTAM to take the lead on this issue. OzTAM CEO Kate Inglis-Clarke agreed this week that this was the next major issue being investigated, and that preliminary work was being done by its ratings supplier AGB/NMR on how this viewing might be captured and when the viewing was sufficient enough to justify the costs associated.
The issue is a priority for both the Media Federation of Australia and the Australian Association of National Advertisers, and both will commit the necessary resources to work with the media companies and research providers to address it. But it’s going to take time. The sooner we get started the sooner we can better understand what’s really happening with all types of viewing. There may be an additional cost, but it’s a cost we can’t afford to ignore.
Written for Fairfax, published in SMH April 16
Thursday, March 25, 2010
News Digital CES presentation from Ed Smith
Ed Smith, CEO of News Digital presented to the Sydney team today.
Ed has recently been to Las Vegas for the 2010 CED and has pulled together a short presentation on the latest developments as he sees it.
To that end, here were his (edited by me) highlights:
Ed has recently been to Las Vegas for the 2010 CED and has pulled together a short presentation on the latest developments as he sees it.
To that end, here were his (edited by me) highlights:
- 3DTVs are huge business and set to be the big news this Xmas
- However, already in the pipeline thereafter is the even more exciting (thinner, clearer) AMOLED, which will probably be the next big thing in TVs in 2011
- e-readers appear to have been over before even reaching Australia with tablets offering the same functionality and more (having said that their best usage appears to be office based report reading which makes some sense, no more lugging around 200 pages)
- Interesting combo products are in the pipeline, such as e-reader/tablets (fold out one each side) and even e-reader + whiteboards designed for the class room
- e-readers are now so common place/cheap he saw them for sale in a vending machine at a train station
- There is much debate over the very small netbook vs the tablet with people taking sides
- Wireless is becoming increasing important in the household as devices are popping up everywhere - one wireless connection could cover your TV, PC, fridge, tablet and bedside 'clock'
- Widgets and apps are becoming the next big thing on TVs
- There is a new iteration of gaming approaching that is much more about multiplayer and social off the back of World of Warcraft success (think eg kids playing with lego online with their friends, building and sharing)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Time shifted TV ratings a real drama
By John Sintras
CEO, Starcom MediaVest Group
To the casual observer, Australia’s first weeks of time shifted viewing data may look less significant than expected. Make no mistake though: we are in the midst of a major structural shift, and we are all on a continual steep learning curve as we examine the early results and implications for programming and advertising. TV program engagement is stronger than ever, but the impact on traditional ‘ad breaks’ needs to be watched and assessed very carefully.
Although the data has been collected since December 27th, 2009, we have only started to see the results from regular programming in the last couple of weeks. While the first four weeks of January data showed that only about 3% of overall viewing was time shifted (lower than anticipated), this is growing as regular ‘must watch’ programming returns to our screens.
The latest week of consolidated ratings data shows that time shifted viewing has grown to 5%, more in line with what we were originally anticipating. Further, homes with a PVR time shifted more than double the amount of viewing at 12%. Given that a further 25% of households intend to acquire a PVR in the next year, the overall amount of time shifting will inevitably creep up to this 12% level and beyond.
There are few significant variations by age at this stage, although predictably shifting is much less prevalent for the over 65 year olds. As widely anticipated and reported this week, it’s the drama programs that are showing the big lifts with the incorporation of time shifted viewing. Ten’s The Good Wife went from number six in the overnight ratings to number one in the consolidated ratings, a lift of 9.8%. NCIS also lifted from number four to number two with a lift of 8.1%. Cougar Town also experienced a 7.9% lift, although it could be called a comedy drama. The strong time-shifted performance of drama is consistent with overseas findings and will continue to grow as PVR penetration increases.
The real drama though comes from an investigation of commercial break ratings. In Australia, ratings are made available minute by minute for post analysis of TV spots, but unlike the US, there is no aggregation of commercial break ratings for planning purposes. This means that TV planners and buyers must allow for an amount of ratings drop-off when they buy TV to allow for the inevitable drop between program averages and appearing in a commercial break. And here’s the crunch. The amount that we have been allowing for this ‘drop-off’ is getting higher with the new TV data. Further, it is varying quite dramatically depending on the program type and the amount of time shifting within it.
TEN is quite rightly delighted that its new drama The Good Wife took the top spot on February 7, allowing for time shifted viewing. But let’s take a closer look at the ad break data. For live viewing, there was a 6% drop off in the ad breaks, which is fairly consistent with what we’ve historically seen (and plan for). While the inclusion of time shifting adds almost 12% to the program’s average live audience, the drop off in ads breaks increases from 6% to 11% overall, as 53% of the 165,000 people who watched it later fast-forwarded the ads. This figure is even higher in homes with a PVR, where there is an 18% drop off in the consolidated ad break data.
To be fair to TEN, it still ends up with more viewers in the commercial breaks even allowing for the ad fast-forwarding in playback, but not as much as the program average implies (+5.9% vs +11.9%). This pattern is fairly consistent across dramas on all commercial networks.
Clearly as PVR penetration increases the difference between the program and commercial break ratings will continue to increase. There are two big implications here.
Firstly, in-program content will become quantifiably more valuable based on the higher number of viewers. Commercial networks have an opportunity here to justify a premium for sponsorships and associations that guarantee advertisers relevant exposure within programming.
Secondly, the flip side is that the commercial breaks will increasingly deliver less viewers which will put pressure on the historical value equation of the traditional commercial break.
This behaviour is not new, it was happening last year, presumably in similar quantities. The difference is we can now measure it. It’s time for the industry to look at the introduction of a commercial ratings planning database so that advertisers and their media agencies can more accurately plan and buy activity in commercial breaks. This may well result in a re-valuing of commercial versus in-program activity, but isn’t it better to be dealing with the reality of who’s seeing what rather than misleading program averages?
Written by John Sintras for afr.com
CEO, Starcom MediaVest Group
To the casual observer, Australia’s first weeks of time shifted viewing data may look less significant than expected. Make no mistake though: we are in the midst of a major structural shift, and we are all on a continual steep learning curve as we examine the early results and implications for programming and advertising. TV program engagement is stronger than ever, but the impact on traditional ‘ad breaks’ needs to be watched and assessed very carefully.
Although the data has been collected since December 27th, 2009, we have only started to see the results from regular programming in the last couple of weeks. While the first four weeks of January data showed that only about 3% of overall viewing was time shifted (lower than anticipated), this is growing as regular ‘must watch’ programming returns to our screens.
The latest week of consolidated ratings data shows that time shifted viewing has grown to 5%, more in line with what we were originally anticipating. Further, homes with a PVR time shifted more than double the amount of viewing at 12%. Given that a further 25% of households intend to acquire a PVR in the next year, the overall amount of time shifting will inevitably creep up to this 12% level and beyond.
There are few significant variations by age at this stage, although predictably shifting is much less prevalent for the over 65 year olds. As widely anticipated and reported this week, it’s the drama programs that are showing the big lifts with the incorporation of time shifted viewing. Ten’s The Good Wife went from number six in the overnight ratings to number one in the consolidated ratings, a lift of 9.8%. NCIS also lifted from number four to number two with a lift of 8.1%. Cougar Town also experienced a 7.9% lift, although it could be called a comedy drama. The strong time-shifted performance of drama is consistent with overseas findings and will continue to grow as PVR penetration increases.
The real drama though comes from an investigation of commercial break ratings. In Australia, ratings are made available minute by minute for post analysis of TV spots, but unlike the US, there is no aggregation of commercial break ratings for planning purposes. This means that TV planners and buyers must allow for an amount of ratings drop-off when they buy TV to allow for the inevitable drop between program averages and appearing in a commercial break. And here’s the crunch. The amount that we have been allowing for this ‘drop-off’ is getting higher with the new TV data. Further, it is varying quite dramatically depending on the program type and the amount of time shifting within it.
TEN is quite rightly delighted that its new drama The Good Wife took the top spot on February 7, allowing for time shifted viewing. But let’s take a closer look at the ad break data. For live viewing, there was a 6% drop off in the ad breaks, which is fairly consistent with what we’ve historically seen (and plan for). While the inclusion of time shifting adds almost 12% to the program’s average live audience, the drop off in ads breaks increases from 6% to 11% overall, as 53% of the 165,000 people who watched it later fast-forwarded the ads. This figure is even higher in homes with a PVR, where there is an 18% drop off in the consolidated ad break data.
To be fair to TEN, it still ends up with more viewers in the commercial breaks even allowing for the ad fast-forwarding in playback, but not as much as the program average implies (+5.9% vs +11.9%). This pattern is fairly consistent across dramas on all commercial networks.
Clearly as PVR penetration increases the difference between the program and commercial break ratings will continue to increase. There are two big implications here.
Firstly, in-program content will become quantifiably more valuable based on the higher number of viewers. Commercial networks have an opportunity here to justify a premium for sponsorships and associations that guarantee advertisers relevant exposure within programming.
Secondly, the flip side is that the commercial breaks will increasingly deliver less viewers which will put pressure on the historical value equation of the traditional commercial break.
This behaviour is not new, it was happening last year, presumably in similar quantities. The difference is we can now measure it. It’s time for the industry to look at the introduction of a commercial ratings planning database so that advertisers and their media agencies can more accurately plan and buy activity in commercial breaks. This may well result in a re-valuing of commercial versus in-program activity, but isn’t it better to be dealing with the reality of who’s seeing what rather than misleading program averages?
Written by John Sintras for afr.com
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Think Australian TV is going through big changes with Time Shifted Viewing? The next step will be a lot bigger.
Last week Starcom released our latest Starflash which discussed the effects of Time Shifted Viewing on the first 4 weeks of the year. I thought this would be a great opportunity to look at what is happening in the US where they have been using Time-Shifted viewing for a few years now and are about ready to embark on the next big change.
Ratings for Time-Shifted Viewing (TSV) launched at the beginning of this year in Australia and it will be a while yet until those of us in media agencies and marketers really get our heads around how these new reporting figures will really impact us. In a recent Starflash, Linda Brown discussed the effects of TSV on these 4 weeks of viewing. Initially we’ve seen that only 3% of metro viewing is time-shifted which increases to 7% for those with subscription TV - however these results may be impacted by summer viewing and a high percentage of sports, which are expected to be viewed live.
There is an expectation that TV execs will look to increase their rates because of these 'new' audiences (Channel 9's Director of Programming has even openly stated this) while media execs will argue that these audiences have always existed.
While we are busy trying to understand what impact all of this is going to have on our advertising activities, it would be wise to cast an eye overseas to see what the next big thing will be. If a report in Advertising Age on February 8 is any indication, it will be a much bigger change than TSV and has the potential to finally drag digital into the vocabulary of every person in our industry, whether they like it or not.
To date, the buying of online video ad inventory has largely been the responsibility of those in digital teams and while this has been presented as incremental reach on a TV buy, all of the leg work has been done in separation from those who look after TV buying. What Nielsen is proposing in the US is essentially a TV-anywhere approach where the size of the screen shouldn't dictate the way we report viewing habits.
"Starting this fall, Nielsen intends to start making available data that take into account viewing of commercials that run in a particular show, no matter whether they are seen online or on TV. The data will be made available for evaluation starting this September and are intended to become the basis for ad negotiations in February 2011.
But here's the catch: For Nielsen to be able to provide the commercial rating, shows seen online will have to have the same group of commercials that run on TV. If this system were adopted en masse -- and it's not clear that it would be -- online viewing might be crammed just as full of commercials as the more traditional TV-watching experience.”
There are number of different theories currently being discussed (and likely more to come) as to how this could all play out. Large media owners are suggesting that the current model of online viewing - only few ads in a program, most often from only one advertiser - isn’t sustainable as a business model and in order to make money from online we may have to look at either increased ad loads or potentially looking at a paid subscription model.
But is the consumer willing to pay for another subscription on top of their current Pay-TV and Internet subscriptions? Likely not, so finding the right balance will be the next big challenge for media owners. Some in the US such as Time Warner and Comcast provide free online Video on Demand to their current subscribers.
“One academic thinks consumers will, over time, accept more advertising in the digital realm, ”It's not so much the ad load. It's much more about the convenience," said Tom Ksiazek, an assistant professor of communication at Villanova University. Research suggests that "viewers will watch those ads as long as the program is on the best available screen" for them at the time they want to view a program that is important to them.”
With Video on Demand gaining traction through current subscription TV providers and it's increasing popularity through online properties such as Hulu, it is no longer a question ‘if’ but ‘when’ for consolidated ratings, regardless of how a program is viewed. It looks like this system is still being created in the US and no one quite knows what form it will take just yet, in Australia we have the benefit of seeing how this plays out and its potential effect on our market.
The full article from Advertising Age, "Online Video One Step Closer to TV-Sized Ad Loads" can be read here: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141961
Ratings for Time-Shifted Viewing (TSV) launched at the beginning of this year in Australia and it will be a while yet until those of us in media agencies and marketers really get our heads around how these new reporting figures will really impact us. In a recent Starflash, Linda Brown discussed the effects of TSV on these 4 weeks of viewing. Initially we’ve seen that only 3% of metro viewing is time-shifted which increases to 7% for those with subscription TV - however these results may be impacted by summer viewing and a high percentage of sports, which are expected to be viewed live.
There is an expectation that TV execs will look to increase their rates because of these 'new' audiences (Channel 9's Director of Programming has even openly stated this) while media execs will argue that these audiences have always existed.
While we are busy trying to understand what impact all of this is going to have on our advertising activities, it would be wise to cast an eye overseas to see what the next big thing will be. If a report in Advertising Age on February 8 is any indication, it will be a much bigger change than TSV and has the potential to finally drag digital into the vocabulary of every person in our industry, whether they like it or not.
To date, the buying of online video ad inventory has largely been the responsibility of those in digital teams and while this has been presented as incremental reach on a TV buy, all of the leg work has been done in separation from those who look after TV buying. What Nielsen is proposing in the US is essentially a TV-anywhere approach where the size of the screen shouldn't dictate the way we report viewing habits.
"Starting this fall, Nielsen intends to start making available data that take into account viewing of commercials that run in a particular show, no matter whether they are seen online or on TV. The data will be made available for evaluation starting this September and are intended to become the basis for ad negotiations in February 2011.
But here's the catch: For Nielsen to be able to provide the commercial rating, shows seen online will have to have the same group of commercials that run on TV. If this system were adopted en masse -- and it's not clear that it would be -- online viewing might be crammed just as full of commercials as the more traditional TV-watching experience.”
There are number of different theories currently being discussed (and likely more to come) as to how this could all play out. Large media owners are suggesting that the current model of online viewing - only few ads in a program, most often from only one advertiser - isn’t sustainable as a business model and in order to make money from online we may have to look at either increased ad loads or potentially looking at a paid subscription model.
But is the consumer willing to pay for another subscription on top of their current Pay-TV and Internet subscriptions? Likely not, so finding the right balance will be the next big challenge for media owners. Some in the US such as Time Warner and Comcast provide free online Video on Demand to their current subscribers.
“One academic thinks consumers will, over time, accept more advertising in the digital realm, ”It's not so much the ad load. It's much more about the convenience," said Tom Ksiazek, an assistant professor of communication at Villanova University. Research suggests that "viewers will watch those ads as long as the program is on the best available screen" for them at the time they want to view a program that is important to them.”
With Video on Demand gaining traction through current subscription TV providers and it's increasing popularity through online properties such as Hulu, it is no longer a question ‘if’ but ‘when’ for consolidated ratings, regardless of how a program is viewed. It looks like this system is still being created in the US and no one quite knows what form it will take just yet, in Australia we have the benefit of seeing how this plays out and its potential effect on our market.
The full article from Advertising Age, "Online Video One Step Closer to TV-Sized Ad Loads" can be read here: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141961
Thursday, January 21, 2010
New York Times to begin charging for content in 2011
Rupert Murdoch has been talking about it for a while now, but it appears that the New York Times will be the first of the major mainstream newspapers to begin charging for access to its content.
Niche publications such as the Wall Street Journal and in Australia The AFR have been using a pay system for a few years now with mixed results - certainly for the AFR which has long suffered from a poorly designed site.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out locally and if it is a system we are willing to accept for our daily newspapers or if it will be limited to the more business focused or niche publications.
NYT Confirms Pay-for-Online-Content Plans
Source: MediaPlannerBuyer - Published on January 19, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yb94t9v
The New York Times has confirmed that it will put a pay wall into place for its online content, allowing users to access a certain number of free articles per month but then charging for access beyond that.
The system will launch in early 2011; the newspaper did not offer any more details, such as how much access to the site will cost or how many free articles users will be able to access, writes The New York Times.
The New York Times is the nation’s most popular newspaper site in the country, pulling more than 17 million readers a month in the U.S., per Nielsen Online. Analysts also say the paper is tops in ad revenue.
Other Papers’ Approach to Pay Walls
Newspapers are increasingly considering making content available only for a fee. The Wall Street Journal has long charged for content, as has the Financial Times. Last year, News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch said all of the company’s newspapers would begin charging for content by spring, though he later said that that deadline might not be met. At least one of the company’s publications, The Times, is expected to meet that deadline.
The Times will charge a fee for 24-hour access to the paper’s website; readers will also be able to purchase subscriptions. Micropayment options for purchasing individual articles will not be offered.
Newsday has also erected a paywall, charging $5 a week for access to its website. The company hopes the subscription web service will help boost newspaper subscriptions.
MediaNews Group, publisher of 54 daily newspapers including The Denver Post and the Detroit News, is another company planning to charge a fee for its newspaper content online.
Risky Business
From 2005 to 2007, The New York Times charged $49.95 a year for access to editorials and columnists. The service attracted 210,000 subscribers, but the paper scrapped the model hoping the resulting boost in traffic would help boost advertising revenue. While traffic did jump, and ad revenue rose, the increase was not enough, and the paper lost $35 million in the third quarter of 2009, writes The Atlantic.
The move to a pay model is a risky one for any newspaper, and perhaps particularly for The New York Times because of its position as the top newspaper site in the country. The paper took months of discussions before the decision was made. As NYT digital chief Martin Nisenholtz pointed out, “At the end of the day, if we don’t get this right, a lot of money falls out of the system.”
With the move, the newspaper hopes to build a strong source of revenue through subscriptions, while still selling significant amounts of advertising.
Newspapers Believe Readers Will Pay
A recent study conducted by industry consultants Greg Harmon and Greg Swanson for the American Press Institute indicated that more than half of newspaper publishers believe readers will pay to access online newspaper content. 51% of publishers say they believe they can successfully charge for content, while 49% either aren’t sure or believe paying for content will not work.
68% of publishers said they thought that, even if readers object to paying for content, they would have a difficult time finding that information in other places, while 52% said they thought it would be either very easy or somewhat easy for readers to find replacement content.
Niche publications such as the Wall Street Journal and in Australia The AFR have been using a pay system for a few years now with mixed results - certainly for the AFR which has long suffered from a poorly designed site.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out locally and if it is a system we are willing to accept for our daily newspapers or if it will be limited to the more business focused or niche publications.
NYT Confirms Pay-for-Online-Content Plans
Source: MediaPlannerBuyer - Published on January 19, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yb94t9v
The New York Times has confirmed that it will put a pay wall into place for its online content, allowing users to access a certain number of free articles per month but then charging for access beyond that.
The system will launch in early 2011; the newspaper did not offer any more details, such as how much access to the site will cost or how many free articles users will be able to access, writes The New York Times.
The New York Times is the nation’s most popular newspaper site in the country, pulling more than 17 million readers a month in the U.S., per Nielsen Online. Analysts also say the paper is tops in ad revenue.
Other Papers’ Approach to Pay Walls
Newspapers are increasingly considering making content available only for a fee. The Wall Street Journal has long charged for content, as has the Financial Times. Last year, News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch said all of the company’s newspapers would begin charging for content by spring, though he later said that that deadline might not be met. At least one of the company’s publications, The Times, is expected to meet that deadline.
The Times will charge a fee for 24-hour access to the paper’s website; readers will also be able to purchase subscriptions. Micropayment options for purchasing individual articles will not be offered.
Newsday has also erected a paywall, charging $5 a week for access to its website. The company hopes the subscription web service will help boost newspaper subscriptions.
MediaNews Group, publisher of 54 daily newspapers including The Denver Post and the Detroit News, is another company planning to charge a fee for its newspaper content online.
Risky Business
From 2005 to 2007, The New York Times charged $49.95 a year for access to editorials and columnists. The service attracted 210,000 subscribers, but the paper scrapped the model hoping the resulting boost in traffic would help boost advertising revenue. While traffic did jump, and ad revenue rose, the increase was not enough, and the paper lost $35 million in the third quarter of 2009, writes The Atlantic.
The move to a pay model is a risky one for any newspaper, and perhaps particularly for The New York Times because of its position as the top newspaper site in the country. The paper took months of discussions before the decision was made. As NYT digital chief Martin Nisenholtz pointed out, “At the end of the day, if we don’t get this right, a lot of money falls out of the system.”
With the move, the newspaper hopes to build a strong source of revenue through subscriptions, while still selling significant amounts of advertising.
Newspapers Believe Readers Will Pay
A recent study conducted by industry consultants Greg Harmon and Greg Swanson for the American Press Institute indicated that more than half of newspaper publishers believe readers will pay to access online newspaper content. 51% of publishers say they believe they can successfully charge for content, while 49% either aren’t sure or believe paying for content will not work.
68% of publishers said they thought that, even if readers object to paying for content, they would have a difficult time finding that information in other places, while 52% said they thought it would be either very easy or somewhat easy for readers to find replacement content.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Growth of TV is Something to Watch!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)