A new study by Simmons, a unit of Experian Research Services has found that consumers are 47% more engadged by ads that run with television programs viewed online than those watched on a TV set.
The study also found that viewers are 25% more engaged in the content of TV shows that they watch online than on a TV, are 18% more engaged in ads online, as opposed to print versions (magazines etc), and they are 15% more engaged in magazine articles online than in print form.
The shorter version: online rocks as a superior way to engage with customers.
According to MediaPost, the study defines “engagement” according to six characteristics that respondents identify with media: “inspirational,” “trustworthy,” “life-enhancing,” “social interaction,” “personal time-out” and ad receptivity.
Unlike some recent studies we’ve reported on, this one at least had a reasonable sample size of 74,996 interviews.
Yeah Im more then happy to watch a commercial on Hulu or through Joost, as they are allowing me to have the A LA carte cable I always wanted!
My $40 monthly ISP bill satisfies my content, SKype and web surfing needs! Though if more follow we’ll be paying for broadband via bill by the byte or like we do for cell phone service.
This is most boring topic.
So what?
What’s big deal?
Why print this?
Why waste time writing this topic?
Very Lazy… Save your oxygen Duncan.
And 52% of techcrunch readers go “huh?”
2 + 3 (which I’d note by IP address 4.236.171.31 is the same person)
it proves that online advertising is a better buy that provides superior value to traditional media….or is the word “engage” too difficult to understand in a broader context?
Duncan, buddy: Please stop offering your subjective opinions of what is a “reasonable” or “sufficient” sample size for a study. These are complex statistical sampling questions, and not just something you can eyeball and say “that looks about right”. An adequate sample size to estimate this population at, say, a 3% confidence interval (even at a 99% confidence level) is MUCH smaller than 75,000.
Mac
the last study I wrote about was of 600 ppl, if 74,996 is not a more reasonable and representative sample size than 600, you’re the queen of england.
Duncan, you’re missing the point: You can’t think of “reasonable” sample size in a vacuum. A sample size is an estimate of a larger population. You can’t ask everyone, so you take a sample. If you want to draw a sample to estimate a certain behavior or opinion for the population of: all the people on planet Earth, your sample is going to have to be large indeed, regardless of the parameters. If the population that you’re trying to study is blokes that write for tech blogs, the required sample will be a small NUMBER although it will about the same proportion. Do you follow? You can’t make apples to oranges comparisons about sample sizes if you are talking about different units of analysis.
This was a useful post - thanks Duncan. As an online media producer, this is the kind of study I show my sponsors.
Mac
the last survey I wrote about made a conclusion that ppl weren’t using Google Docs based on 600 “PC Users,” that’s not a representative sample given Apple’s market share for example. The bigger the audience, the more likely the sample will be more representative of the overall market because statistical anomalies flatten out the bigger the sample audience. Can you skew a survey? hell yes, but I’d still more trust the results of a study/ survey that polled 5,000 ppl compared to one that polled 5, wouldn’t you? There’s no vacuum in that when you’re talking about studies of broader market trends…if you’re surveying owners of tech blogs with more than 1million weekly page views for example the number you could suvey would be much smaller, but we’re talking broader market analysis here, not niche topics.
Fine, Duncan, I give. While I will not profess to know more than you about technology start-ups, I would hope that with my Masters in sociology and Masters in statistics would give me the upper hand in matters of survey sampling. Apparently, I’m just the bloody queen of England.
Mac
so be it, Your Royal Highness
I saw a Piper Jaffray report few weeks back, which estimated that online advertising would reach around $100 Billion by around 2011.
Obviously, this will be all the money shifting over from TV. And, a lot of that is dependant on some new technologies. Shelly Palmer, who writes for Media 3.0, has an interesting blog about this shift — called “It’s Just a Question of When. (Basically, he thinks there is currently no way to spend the massive TV-amounts on Internet advertising — since there is no “mass audience” to reach, only smaller, fractured ones.)
But, the shift is on, and there is no doubt to me that this is where the money is heading.
Parul
http://www.bhopu.com
Is this related to the faxt that watching TV is typically a shared experience and we can be easily distracted while watching the same programming on your computer is a very personal experience and you can concentrate more?
There’s also a demographic I’m sure comes into play here, too Duncan. It’s doubtful that Grandma is an on-line ad target, nor the “computer illiterate” crowd, so the ads can be more carefully shaped to appeal more closely to the profile most likely to see it..
Bill Burke
http://www.phoneportals.com
Your Audio, Live Streams, and more…
To every phone: On-Demand or Shouted-Out
Bill
true, its certainly not a one size fits all proposition, but they’re still nice figures to see.
Relax Point that I was trying to make was that google apps is not really relevant in the entire discussion..but maybe, it’s important to cover this topic for the “complete” web2.0 coverage!
Merry Christmas to you (wondering what are you doing in the late hours)
http://techindemand.blogspot.com/
Relax people, cut this post some slack. It’s an interesting finding, wherever it comes from. And it’s timely.
And no, it’s not subjective to say that 70,000+ is a decent sample size in this context. If you knew anything about stats, you’d say so too. It just is.
I would say that for myself, the results of the survey are accurate. Who cares? This is huge for the technology and media industries and we will only see more innovation in this field 5 years to come. Digital media advertising might be the next big startup thing after social networking and search.
Surely this is largely down to the fact that TV is a sit back and less attention craving medium than online TV, where the typical posture and holding a mouse in your hand encourages participation.
Online ads can be ignored more easily!
fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Online TV ads are so much better than traditional ads, for several reasons. First, there are so few of them. Instead of five minutes of commercials during each break there is one thirty second commercial. There isn’t even time to get up and get popcorn! Secondly, while they aren’t doing a good job yet there is great opportunity to offer variety in the commercials, ensuring that you see new commercials each time - even if for the same product. Thirdly, the ads offer interactivity that allows them to be more unique, fun, and interactive than strict tv ads.
Strongly agreed.
Most of people switch to another channel as the large number of ads are annoying.
The challenges with studies like this (and I have seen a lot of them over 2 decades in advertising) is that we need to assess the value of consumers self described “engagement” metrics.
Consumer often have little idea on their interaction with advertising as it tends to operate at what you could call “low involvement level”. Most consumers think they are not impacted but yet when you do real experimental design methodlogy studies (basically what the drug companies do with placebo’s and blind split cell studies) then you see that consumers exposed to ads vs those that are not see their attitudes change (whether they think they looked at the ad or not).
Second, how does so called engagement relate to advertising effectiveness? Even if we define engagement (the Adertising Research Foundation tried a couple of years ago and I think failed at a good difinition), how do these metrics Simmons chose relate to that measurement. Likely prececious little I’d guess. And given I said above that consumers’ interactions with advertising are not self decribed, then there is not much value.
So while studies like this may help sales teams in talking to marketers, I find there is very little value. Whether there is good sample size or not. (Duncan is right, 76k is a VERY good sample size in addition to the fact it was done online and via telephone for what I’ll guess was to vaildate the online data points. Remember that TV measurement via Neilsen manages the currency for $60 billion in TV advertising with less than 10k consumers).
This is not only valuable, but I very much agree with the finding. I watch Heroes online and sit through all of the commercials NBC.com shows me while I completely tune out if I watch via the TV. Since I work in IT marketing, I consider this kind of study very helpful.
Thanks for sharing! ^o^
hi, if you have time, go to my blog take a look, thx!!!!! ^o^
The blog have many informations, hope to able to help you!!!^^
Ultimate Diligence Blog (=^ v ^=)
http://ultimatediligenceblog.blogspot.com/
Post 27 is CLASSIC SPAM
Hi,
does anyone know exactly where in the Simmons study this 47% figure comes from? I’ve looked all over the website and at various reports which they’ve put out, and not only haven’t I been able to find this figure, I’ve also been able only to find comparisons between tv, magazines and websites (as opposed to video sites specifically).
e.g. the marketingvox coverage gives this elusive figure but none of its tables show online video - merely online.
Am I missing anything?
http://www.marketingvox.com/tv.....ty-035681/