29-05-2013, 11:29 #1
[EN] [UK] Sorry Eric, audiência do Youtube é pifia
"In the UK, for every minute spent on YouTube, the average person spends nearly an hour watching linear TV."
Eric Schmidt’s missing chart
By Neil Mortensen May 29 2013
Every year, we like to give you an enlightening chart; last year we gave you this one.
This year’s chart was partly inspired by Google’s Eric Schmidt and his recent gob-smacking claim that YouTube has ‘displaced’ watching TV.
The chart, based on official joint industry figures from BARB and UKOM, compares the total monthly reach and time spent in the UK watching TV, using ‘the Internet’ as a whole (including watching TV online), and using some of the key Internet-based media that receive the most attention in the marketing industry. Here it is:
As you can see, Eric was playing a bit – shall we say – fast and loose with the facts. Hopefully this will offer a sense of perspective next time someone glibly announces that YouTube has ‘already’ displaced TV. In the UK, for every minute spent on YouTube, the average person spends nearly an hour watching linear TV.
This is not to denigrate Youtube in any way. We happen to rather like YouTube and appreciate it is complementary to TV and that not all its employees – certainly not those in the UK – make crazy statements like their boss. But his unsubstantiated claim was immediately reported unquestioned so it makes sense to us to make the facts available so that you can join us in shouting ‘Bollocks’ next time someone repeats it.
Two other points to make. YouTube is going to grow, but the assumption that this time will inevitably cannibalise linear TV time is flawed. We are not in a nil sum game and the consumer research we’re in the middle of at the moment (‘Screen Life: TV in demand’) would suggest that the time spent watching clips and videos shared virally are part of people’s ‘social’ time.
Secondly, Sir Martin Sorrell has recently returned to his theme of how the amount of time spent with a medium ought to be relative to the amount of ad money invested in it. We have blogged on this topic before and pointed out that time spent with a medium (quantity) is not the be all and end all for advertisers; effectiveness (quality) is. But hopefully this chart will be a useful addition to that debate as well. If time spent really was the best benchmark for deciding ad investment, then search would take a fraction of the money it does take, and TV would be laughing all the way to the bank.
29-05-2013, 14:33 #2
Advertisers should slash newspaper and magazine budgets, says WPP boss
Sir Martin Sorrell says WPP finds huge disparity between outlay on advertising and time consumers spend reading publications
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 April 2013
Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, has said advertisers should think seriously about slashing the amount they spend on newspapers and magazines – and accused Google, Facebook and Twitter of being "media owners masquerading as tech companies".
He said that WPP – which he said spends $73bn (£47bn) globally on buying ad space across media from TV and press to Google and Facebook – had found a huge mismatch in the amount advertisers spend on newspapers and magazines compared to the time consumers spend reading them.
He said that the data related to the US, where WPP spends $40bn annually buying ad space, but that it was probably indicative that most of the world was "going the same way".
"TV viewing is about 43% of consumers' time, [ad] investment is 43%, outdoor [advertising] and radio are about right," he said, speaking at the FT Digital Media Conference in London on Thursday. "The two big [anomalies] are newspapers and magazines. We are still investing 20% [of client ad budgets] but consumers are only spending 7-10% of time. That has to change".
Jeff Bewkes, chief executive of Time Warner, didn't agree that the issue related to magazines. Time Warner owns magazine division Time Inc , the owner in the UK of Marie Claire publisher IPC Media that it is looking to spin off into a separate business.
"At Time Inc rue revenue is down in advertising 6-8% a year, but readership has stayed up," he said. "Young people are reading the same as they were [across platforms]. Not sure I buy the data on reading less, maybe that is newspapers not magazines. As a magazine goes from a glossy picture, think of fashion magazines, they are not going down. With the move on to [devices such as] tablets – pictures, video – there is no reason they can't continue to do what they do now."
Sorrell said that the second anomaly is internet and mobile where in the US it counts for about a third of time spent by consumers, but that the ad spend level is about 20%.
He said that in terms of where WPP invests its $73bn of ad spend on behalf of clients, News Corporation gets the biggest share, clocking up $2.5bn last year.
However Sorrell added that Google is "a juggernaut" with WPP spending $2bn on ads across Google products last year, up a massive 25% year-on-year.
He said that by the end of 2014 Google is likely to supplant Rupert Murdoch's media empire at the top of the list of media owners where WPP spends client money.
"I do regard Google as a media owner, yes," he said. "These are media owners masquerading as technology companies. Google sells Google, Facebook sells Facebook. Twitter sells Twitter."
He said that last year WPP spent about $500m of client ad money on AOL/Yahoo and about $200m on Facebook, a huge boost on the previous year's $200m. He said that the spend on Twitter was "very much smaller".
Advertisers should slash newspaper and magazine budgets, says WPP boss | Media | guardian.co.uk
Última edição por 5ms; 29-05-2013 às 14:45.