Monday, August 24, 2009

Nielsen confirms advertising impressions are often fiction


You're not paying attention, dammit! Or at least that's what advertisers are learning about consumers, as shown by the cute triangles on the line at above right.

Nielsen recently enlisted the Ball State University Center for Media Design to spend a whopping $3.5 million and observe 476 U.S. subjects directly for a combined total of 952 days to see how they really acted in front of TV sets, computer screens, mobile phones and other media devices. The study found Americans on average:

- watch 8.5 hours of content on all screen devices each day,
- spend most of that time, 5 hours and 9 minutes, in front of live TV,
- pay the most attention to television and video games (and the least to other media, such as radio, which tends to be on while John and Jane America do other stuff).

All sounds good for advertisers until, alas, Page 46 of the report shows that when spots run on TV, the "concurrent media exposure indices" go through the roof. Um. Yikes. You see the triangles above? In layman's terms, that means when ads appear for dish soap, consumers change their environment -- go to the bathroom or kitchen, pick up a magazine, call someone on the phone, or toy with a laptop computer, things other than watch the 30-second spot on TV. "During commercial breaks," the report says, "people were observed shifting their primary attention."

Impressions as currency

We call this the fallacy of impressions. "Impressions," if you don't work in advertising, are the currency used to price advertising. When you're spending ad dollars, you compare cable network A vs. magazine option B based on the cost to make impressions on the target audience. Impression estimates, like prices in a store, help marketers judge which media thing to buy. But just as the dollar bills in your wallet used to be tied to the gold standard but now represent fictional digits in a bank computer, "impressions" in advertising are often more currency used to price media ... than any actual imprint on the retinas of a consumer.

This is not really news. Numerous studies, such as this one by Mediamark Research, show consumers' attentiveness to advertising slips and slides based on the channel format and time of day. Of course advertising still works, but the question, as our esteemed agency chief says, is "how much?" The solution we recommend for clients is to build some form of direct measurement into your advertising media plan. Impressions may or may not happen. The only way to evaluate your real impact in the market is to monitor the response results.

9 comments:

edwardboches said...

Ben,
This gives me a great idea for an iPhone app for how to avoid watching commercials and fill the time by creating your own. Also an idea for another post. Thanks for digging that nugget out from page 46. Good thing there's YouTube, or no one would ever see commercials.

Ben Kunz said...

Edward, brilliant. Play to the need -- if consumers want a break from TV commercials for something more appealing, there's no reason advertising couldn't do it via another, more relevant channel ;)

Brett T. T. Macfarlane said...

This is a great look at the interplay between media. Thanks for sharing.

Just cause one buys a TV impression doesn't mean they make an impression. Would be interesting if there was a way correlate the quality or interestingness of creative.

Then again, maybe it's more fruitful to focus on what type of content people consume during certain types of TV shows and create more interesting and engaging things they will choose to go consume during the breaks.

Gavin Heaton said...

Of course, in the commercial break I will check Twitter to see if one of my peeps recommends a particular ad. There may be something worth seeing - but I am trusting MY network more than THE networks ;)

Tim said...

Good digging, however, this all depends on weather you believe:

1)That ads work best when we pay full attention to them

2)That being on-line whilst watching TV ads is a bad thing

I've written a paper on this (downloadable from the link below), have a read if you're interested.

I'm not stuck in TV ad land but I do also think it has a valid role to play.

Tim.

Tim said...

Er, forgot the link, feel a bit stupid now...

http://happilymisunderstood.com/2009/08/20/tv-is-dead-really/

Ben Kunz said...

Tim, thanks for sharing that paper (excellent compilation of research). I agree that TV can be very effective; our agency provides television and cable media planning and buying, so we obviously believe in it.

The challenge, as some of the data in your paper addresses, is that there is a *variance* in how attentive consumers are to ads. The ThinkBox study you mention found only 68% of viewers on average were observed having a reaction to an ad. Since attentiveness varies in many ways, our agency recommends advertisers include some form of direct measurement (e.g. unique 800 numbers) to isolate media channels or better yet ad components, and to explore which are really performing. In every instance we have structured such metrics, we have seen a 20-to-1 skew in terms of which ads work best in driving response per dollar spent.

I think we can all agree that an impression is not always an impression. The question is not whether to argue the point, but to help clients fully evaluate the degree their message penetrates the consumer consciousness. CPMs and GRPs are nice math, but they're only an artificial currency one step removed from the real gold.

CMasterson.com said...

"The only way to evaluate your real impact in the market is to monitor the response results. "

Do - ya - think?

This is what marketing is supposed to be about. Not getting creativity awards.

cialis online said...

This is one of the great blogs I’ve read today. Your site contains lots of good information and I’m sure many people will like it as I do. I would like to give this site a thumb up rating. Keep up the good works guys. I think I’m going to come back to this site regularly. Thanks.