I've been reading Thinkbox's latest research into how many people are watching TV ads. I have to say that it the findings don't tally with my television viewing habits or those of my friends and family.
Let me say, for starters, I think television advertising is a wonderful thing. There are ads out there that are truly quite memorable, but in the last couple of years you can count them on one hand (Cadbury's Gorilla, Tesco, Stella, Skoda, Carling and VW - maybe one or two other campaigns). Beyond that some is okay, but a vast amount is totally average and forgettable.
As a consumer I try to watch as few ads as humanly possible. I don't think I'm alone. I'll say again that I appreciate good advertising (as I write about it), but I don't want to watch most of it and nor does anyone else.
So I can't help but take Thinkbox's figures today with a slight pinch of salt when it reports that the total number of commercial impacts, or ads seen, rose by 6% compared with the same period in 2007. I just don't buy it.
The best bit is that it claims in part that the increase in TV ad viewing is down, in part, to what it calls a 'creative renaissance' in UK advertising. OMFG. A creative renaissance? Is it just me or is the body that promotes TV advertising in the UK being a bit overly generous about the quality of TV advertising that the industry is producing?
I can see it now at a lunch in the Wolseley: "I think we're witnessing a creative renaissance. A wonderful time to be in advertising."
Sorry, maybe I'm just a twisted cynic, but I don't think I am.
The report also says that new technologies are boosting television hours and commercial impacts, and includes data from Sky's Skyview panel, with the eyebrow-raising claim that households watch 5% more ads on television when they get the Sky+ service.
Again, I just do not buy it. I have Sky + and the beauty of it is that I watch next to no ads. Okay I might notice a logo, but thinking of the one bit of TV, I watched last night I don't remember any of the brands that were advertising.
Last night I watched 'Dexter' which airs on FX late on Sunday night. I fast forwarded through each ad break at 30+ and didn't touch the sides. I don't remember a single commercial message, for which I am grateful. It makes it feel almost like I am watching a show on the BBC, for which I am also grateful.
Who are these people I wonder who own Sky + boxes and have taken it upon themselves to watch more advertising as I don't think I know any of them.
The one bit of research from Thinkbox with which I wholeheartedly agree is that our lovely British weather keeps us stuck in front of the television. Now if only we could organise a climate renaissance...
Follow me on Twitter
People in Sky+ are exposed to more adverts because they watch more TV - either because they want to get the most out of their investment, or because it empowers people to be able to watch more of what they want.
( A separate issue is the concentration on the adverts that it takes to effectively fast-forward through them. A more preferable situation to channel-hopping)
I see no issue in more people watching more TV. Big audiences may be down but fragmentation is up
- Technology is cheaper so there are more TVs in the household
- People are less active than they have been in the past
- Rise of laptops and wireless means that people no longer have to go to the office to go on the pc. The TV can accompany the Internet as wallpaper
Remember, higher exposure to impacts doesn't necessarily mean more people are watching/paying attention to ads
Dear Gordon,
a) I would never call you a twisted cynic
b) I never go to the Wolseley
Just a few things to say. This is not Thinkbox research; it's from BARB, the joint industry body, which commissions the most rigorous media research techniques in the world. To that extent, I would say you really have to buy it, or effectively you are saying that your research of one (viz you and your mates) is a more reliable measure than this massive survey.
We encounter your attitude a great deal, particularly from journalists. It seems to be a requirement of the job that you spend all day online and so think everyone else behaves like you.
You're right that there are too many crappy ads out there, but I would absolutely contend that standards are improving in TV You left out Honda, Sony, Orange, the COI, Lynx, Carling and Carlsberg and many, many others who are gracing our tellies with good work. Ironically, the neurosis the industry has about ad-skipping is probably strengthening the arm of creatives, which is a very good thing.
A lot of what Simon K says is true. When you get a DTR (Digital TV recorder is what we should be calling them) like Sky+ it makes you watch about 14% more TV (because it's more rewarding and you rent fewer DVDs). We're all kidding ourselves if we think that people pay attention to ads, whatever the medium. Ads have to engage people, draw them in and seduce them, and you'll find that TV ads on average do this best. Ask any group of people, whatever their age, what their favourite ads are and you will find that almost 100% of the answers will be a TV ad. Likeability plus implicit - rather than explicit - memory are the key to effectiveness as so many studies have proved.
I'm disappointed to hear you're not going to the Wolseley. I would give you Carlsberg and the COI (I voted for the binge drinking one in the Thinkbox selection this month), but Honda, Sony, Orange and Lynx are all past their best. I am with Charlie Brooker on Orange, from his column yesterday: " This week Charlie laughed at the glaring bum-awful rubbishness of Orange's current I Am Who I Am Because of Everyone advertising campaign, which somehow manages to be cloying, irritating, pretentious, irrelevant and baffling all at once: "If ever an advert deserved a punch in the face, it's this one."
Personal taste is a wonderful thing, so there's no point trading ads that either of us love/loathe. I'll just say Irn-Bru to you.
But I forgot to give you the hard numbers on DTRs in all my excitement. 18% of homes have one (mostly Sky+ but others are growing now). These homes time-shift 15% of their viewing. So only 3% of ads are even vulnerable to ad-skipping. Of the recorded breaks, 44% are viewed at normal speed and 56% fast-forwarded - or speed-watched maybe? Interesting reasons why people don't fast-forward all recorded breaks; some people forget they are watching time-shifted stuff, and some people even like the ads!
So, with the 14% extra viewing that DTRs encourage, you do the maths yourself and you will end up with about a 5% increase.
I have been known to frequent the odd restaurant, even ones owned by the same people as the Wolseley. I'd hate you to think I was some sort of Puritan.
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
