http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/millennials-care-more-about-tv-and-its-ads-than-youtube/
So much for the talk about on-line replacing TV:
So much for the talk about on-line replacing TV:
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Best Way To Reach Millennials? Television!
- Thread starter Kelly A
- Start date
This seems to be another "feel good" pitch by the industry to pep up the marketing boys. I can poke all sorts of holes in their assumptions but the biggest one is "hours spent watching" and TV comparison with Youtube.
I have three millennials in my family and none of them watch much TV at all outside the boys watching sports programs. Aside from the occasional weeknight hockey game all sports watching is done on the weekends, that is, if they are not actually playing sports of some sort (or at the bar talking about it). The one girl doesn't watch TV at all nor does she watch Youtube except when someone on her FB links something to her. They all seem to be fairly typical.
I also have a problem with "number of hours watched" in general. In virtually every family I have ever been close to the TV is almost always on during breakfast - however it is watched only very briefly when someone is eating (10-15 minutes at most). It wasn't until I retired that I actually watched what was on. I don't know of any families that binge watch daily and certainly not those who have actual jobs or young children.
I have three millennials in my family and none of them watch much TV at all outside the boys watching sports programs. Aside from the occasional weeknight hockey game all sports watching is done on the weekends, that is, if they are not actually playing sports of some sort (or at the bar talking about it). The one girl doesn't watch TV at all nor does she watch Youtube except when someone on her FB links something to her. They all seem to be fairly typical.
I also have a problem with "number of hours watched" in general. In virtually every family I have ever been close to the TV is almost always on during breakfast - however it is watched only very briefly when someone is eating (10-15 minutes at most). It wasn't until I retired that I actually watched what was on. I don't know of any families that binge watch daily and certainly not those who have actual jobs or young children.
Their study isn't based on "assumptions," but actual interviews with thousands of actual people. As we've discussed many times, you are obviously the exception. You are one person, with the experience of your family, who live a certain way. This is a study based on thousands of people who live in other parts of the country, with other economic classes, other educational backgrounds, and everything else. It's a pretty comprehensive study, and I'm usually the first to question methodologies, but not this one. Before you jump to your conclusions based on your personal anecdotal experience, you should read the full study, look at the data they used, and the questions they asked. It's far more detailed than what you put in your post:
http://www.thevab.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TV-is-Emotional-10-30.pdf
I used my kids only as an example of what I see wherever I go. I know a bunch of them outside my family and none of them is significantly any different.
I don't have a dog in this fight but would be interested in who paid for the "study".
And, haven't we already established via the big change to automated listening tracking that interviews (aka "diaries") are not dependable?
They're more dependable than anecdotal experience. That works fine for you. You can believe whatever you want. We have a president who thinks that way too.
If you want to examine the metrics of the study and attack it on that basis, fine. But they did a lot more work and documentation than you'll ever do.
I agree with Tuna. This is an effort to put lipstick on a pig.
According to Nielsen's Total Audience Survey from Q1'17, Millennials age 25-34 watch 10h 48m less television each week than the 35-49 age group. That's 32% less TV viewing than Gen X. And this number is declining rapidly as college kids ("cord-nevers") graduate into the 25-34 bracket. TV viewing by 25-34s fell 1h 24m per week from Q1'16. Just one year, a 6% drop. In the same year in the same 25-34 group, time spent with "smartphone apps" grew by nearly 6 hours a week.
So TV is trying to promote a different metric than "time". The new buzzword appears to be "engagement".
According to Nielsen's Total Audience Survey from Q1'17, Millennials age 25-34 watch 10h 48m less television each week than the 35-49 age group. That's 32% less TV viewing than Gen X. And this number is declining rapidly as college kids ("cord-nevers") graduate into the 25-34 bracket. TV viewing by 25-34s fell 1h 24m per week from Q1'16. Just one year, a 6% drop. In the same year in the same 25-34 group, time spent with "smartphone apps" grew by nearly 6 hours a week.
So TV is trying to promote a different metric than "time". The new buzzword appears to be "engagement".
Last edited:
Well, the data used is Nielsen data. One question I have, is how they consider someone who receives the Nielsen mailer and says they do not have a television (which is a substantial portion of the under-30 crowd, although I can't find a statistic. I'd guess 5-10%). Are they considered zero-TV watchers, or non-respondents for the purposes of the Total Audience Survey?
You might have to change your definition of television. Just because they don't have a specific device called a TV doesn't mean they're not watching. If you analyze any of the social media discussion for people under 35, it's all based around celebrities and characters who appear on TV. So they may not have a tradition television, and may not watch it the traditional way, but they ARE watching the content. We can see the reaction. The challenge may be to quantify it and monetize it.
The only definition of television that matters to the VAB membership, which consists of OTA and cable networks and cable providers, is the traditional one. They can't monetize anything that is streamed through Amazon Prime/Netflix/YouTube.
They are considered non-watchers. The Total Audience report shows total media usage and total exposure to advertising, and is not platform-dependent.
Anecdotal experience is not necessarily invalid. And it serves a different master than a study paid for by an invested party.
But never, NEVER compare me to that Orange Faced Imbecile who occupies the White House (and is not a "president" by any stretch of imagination).
Perhaps, but if you believe in studies verbatim you would be of the opinion that Hillary is now our president. My statement was my opinion - which anyone on this forum is free to express. You are free to believe whom you wish. But, somehow, I just knew the first response would be yours.
Anecdotal experience has validity only in the earliest stage of planning consumer research. It can be used, particularly in a committee environment, to make sure all potential scenarios are explored before developing the recruit specifications and the questionnaire for a formal project. It is the equivalent of "what if" analysis in product development.
A study that is syndicated, such as the Nielsen Total Audience report, takes a representative and proportional sample of the American universe and finds out what the nation does in the area of media consumption and gives the results with different demographic groups. Within tiny percentages, the results mimic the behavior of all Americans and all subsets and groups.
While Trump can be directly or indirectly linked to lots of things, but media usage is not one of them.
Not the same thing. Polls that try to predict behavior are not the same as ones that measure exact, actual behavior. The Nielsen data, on which the report referred to in the original post, is the result of recorded actual behavior. The results of the proportional sample are then projected into the universe. In this type of data, margins of error of a percent or two do not change the validity of the results, as there is no "win / lose" absolute situation.
My statement was my opinion - which anyone on this forum is free to express. You are free to believe whom you wish. But, somehow, I just knew the first response would be yours.
BigA deals with facts, not assumptions and personal opinions.
Big A supported the study in question which is his opinion. My opinion does not diminish the validity of the study but does cast my doubt as to the way it was done. As everyone should know by now studies/polls can be very selective in their data acquisition or analysis or presentation. My observation is simply that I do not necessarily agree with the study presentation but, as I stated, I have no dog in this fight so on to bigger and better things.
Ford vs Chevy pickups: Chevy says its pickup bed is steel and therefore not destructible if you drop a ton of bricks into it. This may be a correct statement but it only applies if you drop bricks into it. Less than half-truth which is the case with most advertising, including this study. "Facts" are not correlating with observation (IMHO).
Casting “your” doubt based on purely anecdotal experience and about $7 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Same for my doubt, belief or any other opinion based on anecdotes. They’re interesting for conversation, but real data is real data.
There is no selectivity or appreciable sample bias in the underlying Nielsen data. Nielsen, for its TV, its radio and its Total Audience products, uses a random probability sample that is designed to accurately reflect the composition of America or the particular markets being studied.
That means if the country is 15% Hispanic, then 15% of the sample will be Hispanic. If 8% are 18-24, then 8% of the sample will be made up of 18-24's. The final product should be very close to mirroring the population on age, gender, ethnicity, income, education and a variety of other stratification variables. Any instances of oversample or undersample are compensated for by weighting down or up of the particular subset.
When people in the sample are surveyed, their behavior is sampled by using techniques developed over the last half-century or more by Arbitron, Nielsen and survey companies in general to avoid interviewer bias, cultural bias and anything else that can cause false responses or the failure to sample all significant groups of the population. Even questionnairs, recruit letters and scripts and the like are tested over and over against different groups to make sure the language, accent, use of terms, etc., is not biasing the results.
Of course, the real issue is that the main users of any type of media statistic are ad agencies and their clients. They even have an association that audits media usage measurements, because advertisers want to make sure their money is being well spent. So trying to please the TV, radio and new media operators is much further away on surveyors minds than producing data advertisers trust.
No, your observations are not correlating with facts gleaned from hundreds of thousands of folks from Bangor to Biloxi to Bakersfield.
What I did was challenge your statement that their survey is based on "assumptions." It wasn't. That isn't my opinion. It's based on real quantitative data.
I thought that's what I said.
What I said regarding your opinion was that the study was based on real facts. As anyone who has operated a poll can tell you they can be very wrong at times. The only way you would have an absolute correct database is if you were to interview each and every person in the subject demographic and that person replied absolutely truthfully. If you personally participated in the data gathering and analysis then you have more information than me. If not, then you are accepting their data gathering, analysis and presentation as correct. I always look at the conditions surrounding such "studies" because I have noticed over time that they are usually skewed to favor whomever commissioned it. The finding of this study do not correlate with my personal observations and I think I have enough data to support my opinion. That is all I am saying. Were I in a position to spend money based on this study I would not do so. It smacks too much of "marketing".
Regardless, it's based on real facts at the time. As I've said regarding the election polls, the people interviewed responded, and the polls reported their responses factually. Whether or not people actually voted the way they responded, or voted at all is another story. But the polls were factual in reporting what people said. Same here.
So if your kids don't fit what this study says doesn't affect the validity of the study. Like all polls and research, they account for a certain percentage of error, and your kids fit within that percentage. Your kids are the exception to the rule. That doesn't change the rule or what a majority of people do.
Polls are "conducted" and not "operated".
As someone who has actually run a research company (proprietary quantitative and qualitative research for radio stations) I know that a survey is essentially a snapshot of a moment in time.
The song that researched big when tested may, just a few weeks later, have stiffed out. We have no ability to research the future.
Political polls are also snapshots, generally phrased as "if the election were held today...". Well, the election is not "held today" and much can change in the charged political environments of the last decade or so. So don't blame the polls, all of which stated clearly that they had a margin of error that was in nearly every case greater than the difference between the presidential candidate's actual percentages.
In media, there is really no "first place" as stations are judged by buyers not only on rank but other aspects of audience such as ages, gender, income, etc. There are many winners and the "who's on first?" question has a response of "in what demo?".
When dealing with companies like Nielsen, we are talking about nearly 70 years of media research history and experience. Most "errors" are not errors at all, but the issues caused by smaller samples which, in turn, are caused by the media not being willing to pay for larger ones. But the data is not wrong. It is good enough for the purpose of placing billions of dollars in radio and TV and streaming advertising.
Add in "and if you could find every person". It has been suggested that statistical sampling would be much better than the current "count every person" method of the US Census. But when a census was mandated, statistical sampling was unknown. It is a newer science. Yet demonstrations of its use are made in 9 out of every 10 years in the Census Bureau's "American Community Survey" which is an update to the decennial census using sampling and projection techniques. It's more accurate than the actual census itself.
There are widely known and practiced sampling and survey techniques that were introduced nearly 90 years ago by marketers like Proctor & Gamble and radio ratings companies like Crossley. The use of computers has made the raw data even more useful by facilitating many and diverse ways of looking at it.
While I am what would be considered a research professional, I defer to the MRC, the Media ratings Council, a group of the best surveying, polling and statistical experts in the private sector. They look at the various products that measure electronic media and evaluate them. Based on their findings, I have a high confidence in the data being referred to in this thread.
The data at the foundation of the report referred to here is Nielsen multimedia data, which is a syndicated service used by media and the advertising communities. Nobody "commissioned" the report as, due to being a syndicated product, Nielsen created it and offers it for sale to any and all qualified users.
- Status