Media Matters goes beyond simply reporting on current trends and hot topics to get to the heart of media, advertising and marketing issues with insightful analyses and critiques that help create a perspective on industry buzz throughout the year. It's a must-read supplement to our research annuals.
Sign up now to subscribe or access the Archives
What does the term “cross-platform” really mean? To listen to the buzz, it’s all about TV and digital, not radio or print media. And when it comes to digital, it’s all about video ads, not display. What people seem to want is a way to allow media planners or buyers to equate the commercial minute audience data used as the currency for national TV time buys with some sort of tabulation for digital media (most likely “time-on-screen”) that will tell them how many people “watched” their smartphone, tablet or computer screens.
Unfortunately, the underlying assumption in the quest for a comparable metric between TV and digital media is that there is already such a measure for TV. This isn’t the case; all that Nielsen’s peoplemeter provides is data showing that a commercial was on the TV screen during an average minute. It assumes that a person who claims to be watching a given show when the channel is first selected is watching every second of content—both program and ads—from then on, unless an overt action is taken: the TV is turned off, the channel changed, or the viewer notifies the system that s/he is no longer watching. Since the last action is rarely made, even though viewers often leave the room or become distracted, the result is a major inflation of commercial audiences, both across the board, as well as to varying degrees based on factors like the amount of ad/promotional clutter in a break, the holding power of program content, the availability of other screens, viewer demos, time of day, etc.
Even if this issue were set aside, there is another key issue: are TV and video ads even comparable in terms of ad exposure?
While national TV’s average minute viewer ratings are little more than device usage ratings, at least when a TV commercial appears on the screen, it is the only content viewable. In contrast, many digital ads share the page with other ads and/or editorial content, so even if it could be determined that the user was present and looking at the screen when a video ad appears, it is not a given that s/he watched the ad itself.
The issue of how different ad lengths affect ad impact further compounds the problem of coming up with a single audience metric for TV and digital video ads. In the case of TV, ads of any length are assumed to be seen by all of the “audience.” Does this hold true for a 3-second digital video commercial or an ad lasting 10 seconds or longer? That seems like a dubious proposition.
Lest we get bogged down in the details of ad exposure, the need to create comparable metrics for calculating GRPs and CPMs, and so on, it’s important to remember that media planning also involves many other considerations that are difficult to quantify on a standard basis but are of far greater importance to advertisers. These include past experiences with particular media mixes and the degree to which a medium or content within a medium (e.g. a particular TV show) creates a viewing experience that enhances the impact of a particular brand positioning claim or commercial execution. Advertisers are also acutely aware of the “look of the buy”—the merchandising value of their media buys and how they promote the brand’s image. All of these defy attempts to pin hard and fast numerical values on them, which has led most advertisers to decide on their media mixes in an arbitrary manner, without formally evaluating serious and feasible alternatives.
Times are changing, however. Never before has there been so many new forms of media, many with unique targeting capabilities. Moreover, so-called traditional—or legacy—media are adapting to the evolving media landscape, while digital media are learning the harsh realities of media planning and branding, which requires more than a single-minded fixation on the direct response function. Print media and radio also cannot be ignored in any discussion of cross-platform comparisons, as they too offer positive and complementary value to advertisers.
Bearing all of this in mind, we are pleased to present a new annual, Cross-Platform Dimensions, which presents what media planners, buyers and advertisers should know about each of the media. Even though a single set of comparable audience metrics may not be in the cards, there are many factors that should be weighed and evaluated when creating a media plan, particularly looking at the big picture—how the media components interact to generate ad exposure. A media plan should not be looked at as a lot of numbers in a monthly ad spend and GRP flow chart, but rather as how a consumer will see and be influenced by a campaign. Cross-Platform Dimensions aims to do just that. For more information on this report, visit our website.
As can be seen, there has been explosive growth in digital venues, particular streaming television; however, it must be remembered that platforms such as these barely accounted for any media time spent in 2010, so their growth is impressive. Traditional TV, on the other hand, while showing only 1% growth during this period, accounted for the lion’s share of daily total media usage in 2010, and although digital has made inroads, it continues to be the most heavily used medium today.
Complete findings present usage rates in daily hours spent. For more information on Cross-Platform Dimensions 2019, visit our website.