Old Media Companies Try to Sabotage New Media Efforts

Given the number of "studies" I've seen that claim to show the "superiority" of print over online, I've gotten a sense of desperation on the part of publishers. (And given their financial results and dropping ad revenue, no wonder.) The latest has some interesting data:

Among Web users, nearly two-thirds (63%) of banner ads were not seen. Respondents' eyes "passed over" 37% of the Internet ads and "stopped" on slightly less than a third, McPheters & Co. found.

In contrast to online ads, TV and magazine ads generated a strong propensity to be seen and recalled. Full-page, four-color magazine ads were determined to have 83% of the value of a 30-second television commercial, while a typical Internet banner ad has 16% of the value.

Here are the major findings from the press release issued by the market research firm that undertook the study:

• Within a half hour, magazines effectively delivered more than twice the number of ad impressions as TV and more than 6 times those delivered online.
• Though TV doesn't deliver as many ads per half hour as do magazines, net recall of TV ads was almost twice that of magazine ads; magazines in turn had ad recall almost three times that of Internet banner ads.
• 85% of Internet ads served appeared on-screen and could be identified by brand.
• Among web users, 63% of banner ads were not seen. Respondents' eyes passed over 37% of the Internet ads and stopped on slightly less than a third.
• For Internet ads, almost all net recall could be attributed to ads that were seen.
• Internet video ads appeared much less frequently than banner ads, and their exposure skewed heavily towards young men. When they did appear they were twice as likely to be seen as banner ads.

In my experience I definitely avoid looking at banner ads. But there are some enormous suppositions and biases here:

• The report does mention online vehicles other than banner ads, but only mentions video ads as appearing less frequently than banner ads and skewing heavily toward young men. But that is one of the most desired demographics for marketers. And, apparently, it didn't seem to measure text ads, which are surely the most prevelant form of online marketing today.
• Recalling an ad is not necessarily the same as ad effectiveness. Consider the famous example of the hilarious Alka Seltzer ad series from the sixties. They had huge recall, but the company dropped them because no one remembered the product, just the humor. Also, if you find an ad irritating, is there any transference of that feeling toward the manufacturer?
• Although it may be in the study, I don't see any mention of the intent of the ad. Was it meant to sell product? Recall doesn't show whether people buy, or even if they become more inclined to favor the mentioned brand.
• Where is the audience spending its time? Even if magazine and television ads are more effective in a more extensive way than recall, is that the medium that consumers prefer to consume? If they read news and watch video online, then placing ads in print and on television starts reaching a smaller audience.
• That last point has another implication: cost. Print and television ads cost more to run than online ads. So how much does it cost to acquire and maintain a customer? That must be part of the equation, particularly when budgets are constrained. Even if one type of ad is five times more effective, what if it costs a hundred or thousand times as much?

And now for the really big point, in my opinion. Conde Nast and CBS Vision (described by CBS as a new research initiative to explore changes and opportunities in the media marketplace) sponsored the study. I've generally found that sponsored studies almost always mean that the results are only released when they support the underlying goals of the corporate sponsors. For example, can you imagine a drug company backing a study showing that a cheap alternative to an expensive prescription medicine was superior?

But publishers and broadcasters all claim to be interested in online as a medium. (Disclosure: I cover high tech for BNET, which is owned by CBS Interactive.) But this clearly delivers the impression that the sponsors are interested in having older media -- which deliver more ad revenue and profit -- shown to be superior to online. In other words, it's the old dog at the media companies trying to kill off the upstart medium, with the Internet still a business toddler compared to print and broadcast. How are the media companies ever going to make the transition they say is coming if they do everything in their power to defeat it?

This is why tech companies like Google and Amazon, which are big in online advertising and media, are likely to be the real winners in the media wars. They aren't spending significant resources and time trying to debunk the very businesses they say they are anxious to establish. And the financial results the market has been seeing is nothing more than the public results of the internal uncivil wars taking place in these companies.

The Recession Slide

Everyone seems to be using the term these days. Greenspan says we're doing it. Pundits say we're doing it. I understand that those who feel in a position to influence the economy - generally those who make a profit off how the public perceives it - are loathe to use the R word, lest they create a general perception that creates the condition it describes. But people I know have been tightening their belts for some time, now. Gas has been pretty far up for over a year, heating a house in winter is expensive, people fear losing their jobs, foreclosures are at a high, and everything gets more expensive. What the hell did the experts think about public perception? That everything was fine and dandy? People badly want things to be better, and yet see a greater and greater share of the common wealth being held by the relatively few. To play into fear and hope for your own purposes is a dangerous and dirty business. Those who are at the top of the economic food chain should remember that there have been periods of reckoning, whether a depression or heavy-handed regulatory interference, because politicians are even more scared of the public than the well-to-do. You can win for a long time at some games, but eventually your number comes up and you have to pay. Better to deal more honestly with things than to try putting a bright face on for too long.

Getting the New Media Landscape

Although I try to keep my blogs separate, I'm going to point to an entry I did in WriterBiz, which is about the freelance writing business and intended for freelance writers. For those who don't want to make the jump, it refers to a post on Reflections of a Newsosaur. In short, sometimes web sites that you'd swear must be obscure can generate more interest and attention, and direct more readers, than even sites of the largest traditional media outlets - we're talking BusinessWeek, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and so on.

This matters to business because it's about communication - with customers, employees, stockholders, business partners, and so on. Many companies make the enormous mistake of thinking that a mention in major media, or placing an ad there, is going to do wondrous things for their businesses. That may happen, but it doesn't have to. Talk to people in PR, for exmaple, and if they will be candid, they'll acknowledge that prominent treatment in even a publication like the Wall Street Journal might do exactly nothing in terms of driving sales or interest. I've heard the same from some book authors who found that mentions on specialized blogs coudl sometimes get them many, many more sales than traditional media.

The world is changing, and if you want to be successful in communicating, you have to start understanding how the new media work. Send the assumptions out the window and start exploring things without a guide whispering in your ear, "This one is important ... that one isn't." Chances are that the tour master has never been off the main streets and has no idea what the real dynamics are. Forget about the ego trip of appearing in Important Places, and figure out what will actually work.

Lure of Lurid Billboards

The Washington Post ran a piece on how digitally-enhanced billboards have become an advertising powerhouse again, at least so far as billing goes. Most of the article will stand on its own, but one point I thought was interesting:

Though outdoor revenue still is a small piece of the ad revenue pie - CBS Outdoor made less than one-quarter of the revenue of CBS's television network last year - it is growing faster than every other traditional ad medium. At CBS Outdoor, 2006 operating income was up 21 percent over the previous year, the biggest gain of any CBS division.

But consider for a moment the relative dynamics. Television is a heck of a lot more expensive to produce than a client's ad, even if the billboards do have whizzbang effects. So maybe the comparative revenue isn't as telling as the amount of profit that stays in the corporate pockets.