A serious examination of the myth of TV viewing

Internet overtakes television to become biggest advertising sector in the UK – IAB, October 2009

So that's that, is TV finally dead? Contrary to what we may have read, reports of the death of TV advertising have been greatly exaggerated. This article does not profess TV to be a 'silver bullet', but rather seeks to defend it as a viable channel.

We will focus on TV as a medium and the role of the traditional TV spot in today's media landscape, and we'll look at some of the myths such as:

• People don't watch TV any more.
• People don't watch or engage with TV advertisements.
• TV advertising is becoming less effective.
• Fragmentation means we can't afford reach.

We will conclude that TV advertising is far from dead, that it is maintaining if not increasing its audiences, and that it continues to be effective on a range of hard business metrics.

Reaching this conclusion has taken us to a position that requires questioning some core assumptions of how all advertising works and reaffirms the supremacy of TV as an emotional medium.

MYTHS SURROUNDING TV ADVERTISING

'Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought' – John F Kennedy (1963)

We begin by examining some of the myths surrounding TV advertising.

Myth 1: People No Longer Watch TV

The average number of TV sets per household in the UK is 2.7, 44 per cent of us have three TVs or more in our home (1). So what are we doing with all these TVs? Of course we must consider computer gaming and DVD viewing, but the fact remains that we are buying bigger, better and more TV sets for our homes.

TV viewing data provides us with a valuable insight into what we are actually doing with our TV sets. As a population, the number of hours of TV watched per person is at its highest level since 1993 (2). Furthermore, data from a range of sources shows that we spend on average more hours watching TV (21–25 depending on data source) per week than we do online (3–5 depending on data source) (3).

Breaking media usage down by age and gender still shows that we spend more time watching our TVs than online (Figure 1). When Ofcom asked consumers which media channel they would miss the most if removed, 51 per cent of all adults answered TV, with internet coming second (15 per cent) and mobile coming third (9 per cent). Surprisingly, Ofcom data shows that the importance of TV has increased in the period from 2007–09 (4).

It would be fair to argue that TV viewing time may not hold for all demographics. To disprove this hypothesis we chose to study two audiences we thought most likely to watch less TV: 'digi-natives' and high-earning professional families (AB £50k+). We found that 47 per cent of digital natives, (defined by this study as 15 to 20-year-olds) watch at least three hours of TV a day (more than 21 hours per week) (5); 27 per cent of ABs earning £50k+ watch more than three hours a day (17 hours a week) (6).

The idea that we no longer watch TV is a myth. TV viewing time has increased despite the growth of online, an indication that perhaps they are being used together or that we are spending more time with media in general.

Myth 2: People Don't Watch or Engage with TV Ads

We may be watching as much TV as we ever did, but are we still exposed to as many TV ads and do we still engage with them?

The 1998–08 average weekly viewing time for commercial TV was 14.4 hours (all individuals) which is now at 15.7 for 2009. Commercial impacts are now at their highest for five years for a variety of audiences (7).

Quantitative data shows us that the amount of commercial TV to which we are exposed is increasing. But are we actually engaging with TV advertising?

ThinkBox used in-home video ethnography combined with quantitative research techniques to find out what actually happens when the ads come on. It found 68 per cent of the 16,000 commercial exposures showed some observable ad-related behaviour, with positive behaviours outnumbering negative behaviours by almost 2:1.

The types of behaviour observed included everything from singing along/whistling/shouting/tutting/to rolling of eyes. The study goes on to find that observable ad-related behaviour increases with more than one person in the room, with the optimum number being two.

This makes sense; having someone in the room to discuss the advert with should increase interaction. Finally, numerous examples of high engagement were observed to spring from low-attention scenarios. 'Heads in' activities such as eating, exercising and some forms of housework increase observable behaviour (8).

It seems we do still engage with TV advertising when exposed to it.

Personal video recorders (PVRs) are thought to reduce engagement with TV advertising. However, data has shown that homes with PVRs actually watch up to 2 per cent more live TV ads than those without (9, 10). Even skipped ads may still have a role to play – key frames from ads only seen at x30 can still elicit positive emotional reactions compared with unexposed ads (11).

The idea that we are watching and engaging with fewer TV ads is a myth, but is TV advertising still effective?

Myth 3: TV Advertising is Becoming Less Effective

In the era of interactive communications one might assume that the old one-way broadcast channels must be declining in effectiveness. Why would consumers still accept interruptive advertising when they are king of their own media consumption?

The IPA dataBANK has shown that campaigns that include TV advertising are more likely to increase share of market (SOM) at comparable levels of share of voice (SOV) compared with campaigns that do not use TV, gaining around +2 per cent more market share (12).

Not only are campaigns that use TV advertising more effective, but TV is actually becoming more effective over time. The IPA dataBANK shows us that during the 1980s, campaigns that included TV produced an average market-share gain of 6 per cent. Data available since 2000 has shown that campaigns using TV have seen an average of 8.5 per cent growth in market share (13). It seems TV ads still work.

Myth 4: Fragmentation Means We Can't Afford Reach

We may still be watching TV, and TV advertising may still be effective, but that matters little if advertisers can no longer afford to reach their audience. It's worth first considering the cost of airtime. After adjusting for inflation, it is now the cheapest on record (14).

There is no doubt that we have witnessed media fragmentation over the past 10 years. However, closer inspection reveals standard terrestrial TV to still reach a considerable proportion of the population (see Figure 2).

Commercial terrestrial TV (ITV, C4 and C5) makes up more than 40 per cent of total TV viewing time of all individuals (15), and 60 per cent of all adults watch one or more hours of commercial terrestrial TV per day alone (ITV and C4 data only) (16).

Although it may still be possible to reach large numbers of people through the use of single channels, fragmentation actually allows us to be more targeted. The number of digital commercial TV channels may be increasing, but they are also starting to attract their own specific audiences (see Figure 3).

More specific media buys also make it possible to target by programme, attitude or interest. The 2007 IPA Effectiveness Award Winner Original Source (17) employed these approaches well to take advantage of fragmentation and maximise budget.

USING TV AS AN EMOTIONAL MEDIUM

'The basic difference between emotion and reason is that emotion leads to action while reason leads to conclusions' – Donald Calne, Neuroscientist

We talk about brands as having 'personality' and 'emotional values' but continue to focus on the USP and rational persuasion such as 'message take out', 'believability' and 'persuasion'.

This contradiction has been a recent hot topic among industry experts, and their conclusions help us understand why TV advertising is so effective and how we can best use it in the future.

A common assumption is that advertising works through message transmission, and that the role of creativity is to maximise attention in order to transmit that message (AIDA).

Instead, Feldwick and Heath (18, 19) have found that brand favourability is primarily driven by emotional connection, and contrary to traditional theories, emotional connections are most likely to form during low-attention scenarios.

The ThinkBox study that reported higher levels of behavioural engagement in reaction to TV advertising occurring during low-attention scenarios supports these findings.

Feldwick and Heath's hypothesis makes intuitive sense. Emotions are not usually formed by intense study; they are feelings that arise in reaction to a general impression. When was the last time you heard a friend say, 'After intense study of my partner I decided to love her'?

The dataBANK also supports the role of emotion in campaign effectiveness. Field and Binet categorised all the case studies in the IPA dataBANK by communication strategies, rational (information or persuasion) and emotional (emotional involvement or 'fame'). Emotional campaigns were found to outperform rational campaigns (see Figure 4).

Emotional campaigns were also found to outperform rational campaigns in both emotional and rational categories (20). Peter Field attributes the effectiveness of TV as a channel to the 'supremacy of TV as an emotional medium'. IPA effectiveness data supports Feldwick and Heath's hypothesis.

It seems prudent to explore how advertising forms emotional bonds. Paul Feldwick introduces the idea of analogue communication: 'TV ads work, I believe, through the analogue mode where emotional engagement is created through the actual sights and sounds of the commercial (21).'

Feldwick is referring to modes of communication. Digital communication is used to describe that which is always verbal or numerical; it is precise, logical and intellectual. Analogue may be verbal but it is also visual, audible, gestural or tactile. Analogue communication does not always need to be consciously processed and by its nature is hard to define.

Analogue communications are at the core of how brands form emotional connections. Feldwick defines associations as 'connections in the brain that link together ideas, images and feelings'. Associations don't have to be conscious and verbal. Analogue communications also play a vital role in expressing the relationship between the brand and the consumer.

Human communication relies on two elements: the content (digital communication) and the way it is expressed (analogue communication), with the latter often being more influential. If we believe the role of advertising is to build personal relationships between brands and consumers, then we have to accept the importance of using analogue modes.

TV AND ONLINE TOGETHER

We do not claim that TV is the total solution but simply aim to defend its status as a valid communication channel. The DataBANK shows that campaigns that also use below-the-line channels alongside traditional channels are more efficient (22).

Online is often reported to be the enemy of TV advertising as it is seen as taking the viewer's attention away from the TV in either absolute terms or by dividing the viewer's attention while they are 'dual screening'. However, campaigns using both online and TV achieved a 10 per cent increase in effectiveness success rate, so were more likely to have achieved very large business effects (a reliable proxy for actual ROI) than those TV campaigns not using online (23).

Dual screening should be detrimental to the effectiveness of TV advertising – approximately half of all adults have been found to use the internet and watch TV at the same time at least once a day (24). However, as emotional connections are most likely to be formed during low-attention scenarios, we should not presume that divided attention means reduced effectiveness. Furthermore, we should not presume that being online and watching TV are always two separate activities; correlations between search terms and TV content observed by Google show the opposite to be true.

'TV and search are highly compatible, money should be taken from below the line and pushed back into TV alongside massive growth in search. We see huge spikes in query volume following TV exposure, both editorial and ads (25).'

IAB/ThinkBox observe cross-fertilisation at many levels. TV advertising can prompt online search/purchase behaviour, and online communication increases the saliency of the TV ads. IAB/ThinkBox have also found that TV and online are better at driving purchase via different means.

TV is much more likely to prompt consumers to visit a store in the real world versus online advertising (+22 per cent). This study also found that TV advertising was more likely than online to prompt purchase online (+7 per cent). It is clear that TV and online are more effective together.

CONCLUSIONS

This article aimed to review the best of industry thinking and data sources available to evaluate the state of TV advertising in its traditional sense of live broadcast to sets in our homes.

We found that TV viewing is actually increasing, that it is increasing in effectiveness and that fragmentation does not have to threaten reach.

Analysis of hard business metrics has proven that effectiveness of TV as a channel is rooted in its 'supremacy as an emotional medium' (Peter Field). Contrary to traditional theory, TV advertising is most likely to be effective when it forms emotional bonds between the brand and its consumers, and this is most likely to occur during low-attention scenarios.

Understanding that these bonds are formed by associations, and influence the relationship between brands and consumers (Paul Feldwick), is key to the creation of effective TV advertising.

TV advertising is more effective when used with online channels. Our finding that online advertising works better to support TV as opposed to the other way round is more controversial and needs further investigation.

TV still provides a point of shared cultural experiences. YouTube hits such as the Cadbury 'gorilla' and the T-Mobile 'flash mob' ads have been viewed, re-edited and re-viewed by consumers millions of times.

In today's media landscape, traditional TV advertising is far from dead.

REFERENCES

1. TGI GB, base: all, 2005–8

2. BARB data, via Thinkbox, August 2009

3. TGI GB Q3 2009 (Base: All), BMRM, Of com, MB. ThinkBox, IPA Touch points

4. Media use in the UK: Ofcom's Communications Market Report, 2009

5. TGI GB Q3 2009 (Base: All)

6. TGI GB Q3 2009 (Base: All)

7. Data taken year on year for the month of August, BARB data via Thinkbox 2009

8. ThinkBox/ACB Ethnography Study 2008 via http://www.thinkbox.tv

9. Skyview Apr 08, Sky Results 30 June 2008

10 Why TV is Stronger Than Ever, James Appleby, Admap Magazine June 2008, via Warc

11. PVRs: Why ads work on fast-forward and the implications for accessing TV campaigns, Dr Alistair Good and Julian Dobson, Market Research Society Annual Conference 2006, via WARC

 12. Marketing in the era of accountability, Peter Field and Les Binet, Warc/IPA, 2008

13. Marketing in the era of accountability, Peter Field and Les Binet, Warc/IPA, 2008

14. Zenith Optimedia, 2008

15. BARB Tech Edge Jan-June 2009, via ThinkBox

16. TGI GB Q3 2009 (Base: All)

17. 2007 IPA Effectiveness Awards, Original Source – It takes 2,997 words to make one zesty case study for Original Source

18. 50 years using the wrong model of TV advertising, Paul Feldwick and Robert Heath, Annual MRS Conference, 2007

19. Heath, R.G. (2006) The Influence of Emotional Content in TV Advertising on Levels of Attention, Doctoral Thesis, University of Bath School of Management, Bath, UK.

20. 'Marketing in the era of accountability', p.62, Peter Field and Les Binet, Warc/IPA, 2008

21. Exploding the Message Myth', Paul Feldwick, 2008, via ThinkBox

22. 'Marketing in the era of accountability', p.62, Peter Field and Les Binet, Warc/IPA, 2008

23. 'Marketing in the era of accountability', Peter Field and Les Binet, Warc/IPA, 2008

24. TV and Online: Better Together. ThinkBox/IAB, 2008, via ThinkBox.com

25. Mark Howe, MD Google Media Sales, 2008

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim Jones is brand planner at Ogilvy Advertising London.

[email protected]

Tom Baxter is formally of Cultural Insights, Ogilvy Advertising London

 

Figure 1: TV vs Online Usage: Average Weekly Hours

Figure 2: Average Weekly All-Home Reaches for Terrestrial TV

Figure 3: Favourite TV Channels by Audience Age

Figure 4: Effectiveness of Emotional vs. Rational Campaigns