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
We just read with interest the latest report from the iab, “Ad Receptivity and the Ad-Supported OTT Video Viewer,” conducted by maru/matchbox for the iab and based on surveys conducted in August and September 2018. In this report, ad supported OTT Video Viewers are defined as those who watch: 1. Through a streaming service with ads that is watched for free (e.g. YouTube, Vevo); 2. Through an online-based cable TV provider (e.g. Sling TV); 3. Through a streaming app that requires a cable/satellite/telco login (e.g. Discovery GO, Xfinity); and 4. Through a streaming service the respondent subscribes to but which has ads (e.g. lower-priced Hulu option with ads).
While the goal was obviously to promote the value of such viewers compared to traditional TV viewers, some of the findings remain noteworthy, and in fact brought the warm glow of nostalgia to our hearts. We’ve often looked back to the golden age of television in our own analyses, pointing out how the early days of television presented a nearly ideal setting for advertisers. Viewers appreciated television and gathered around the TV as a family to enjoy it. And ads? Why, they were worth tolerating, because they were the “price” people paid for the free content beaming into their homes. And heck, some of those ads were interesting or funny, and might spur conversation among the family; “Say Ma, could ya pick up some of that cake mix on your next trip to the store? It sure looks swell!”
OK, so maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it is a far cry from the current situation, where people more and more often view alone, ads are generally reviled, and avoiding them has never been easier. According to the iab study, however, ad-supported OTT video viewers are bucking these trends, and gosh darn it, they like ads! In fact, 63% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I don’t mind seeing ads if I’m paying nothing,” 59% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I don’t mind seeing ads if I’m getting to watch content when I want,” 56% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I don’t mind seeing ads if I’m paying a reduced fee.” And 50% of ad-supported OTT video viewers agreed that TV ads “can be useful or enjoyable,” compared to only 24% of linear (“TV only”) viewers. Taking it a step further, 36% of ASV OTT viewers say that ads on free ASV OTT are more relevant than TV ads, 39% say they are better than TV ads, 33% say they are more engaging and 34% say they are more unique. Curious, considering than many of the ads are identical to those on linear TV. Finally, a majority of these viewers claimed that they liked when brands support the content they watch; also that they pay more attention to ads when there are fewer of them, and—amazingly—can remember what an ad was for, even if they skip it.
Although our approach to these findings is rather lighthearted—after all, many of the questions about advertising were general in nature and may not really be reflective of these viewers’ behavior in reality—in this day and age, it’s unusual to find a subset of viewers who aren’t ad averse, and may even be receptive to the messages that appear before them. So, even though such viewers make up a relatively small proportion of overall TV viewership, they may be worth targeting if advertisers really want their messages to get through.
Many observers of the media scene—ourselves included—have commented on the need for the magazine industry to focus on digital readership as their print readership declines. While this is true, the latest Magazine Media 360⁰ Report, published quarterly by the Association of Magazine Media, demonstrates that not all digital platforms are flourishing as hoped. In a title-by-title comparison of YTD 2018 vs. 2017, nearly all web readership on desktops/laptops is down, many by double digits. Notable exceptions are Architectural Digest, Money, Saveur and Town & Country, all of which skew older in readership. As desktop/laptop use is most prominent among older users, this is hardly surprising. Also sharply down is video viewership by title, although it’s unclear whether this is due to lack of interest or lack of content. On the other hand, mobile web usage is up across the board, with most titles posting double—and even triple digit gains—since last year. When factoring in all three platforms, plus print, more than half of the magazines measured reported audience gains over the previous year to date.
What can we take away from this? First, the decline in desktop/laptop use seems to be somewhat offset by the increase in mobile use, as readers shift from one platform to another. Second, video’s declines, although steep, have not cut into overall numbers too much, as video continues to hold the smallest share of overall readership. There’s no doubt that digital is key to the magazine industry’s future, so emphasizing mobile-friendly content will be crucial to continued growth. And video’s tiny share shows that it’s an area where developing more and better content could lead to increased interest and use among magazine readers. Ultimately it’s up to magazines to follow their readers off the printed page and make sure that their content can be accessed in ways that are appealing to contemporary audiences.