I found Ignazio (Nat) Puccio’s presentation at the ARF both informative and enjoyable, and a timely reminder that in spite of all the change that is happening around us, some things remain the same.
Nat is the EVP & Co-Director of Global Strategic Planning, Grey Worldwide, so it is safe to assume that he knows quite a lot about media. The title of his presentation was “The Structure of Advertising Revolutions” but his basic premise was that rather than new media displacing old, people now consume new media in addition to the old.
The facts as presented seem pretty compelling. Here are just a few:
- In the year 2000, advertising on the four TV Networks represented 6.87% of all advertising in the United States. It doesn’t sound a lot, does it? Then Nat pointed out that in the glory days of 1960, the share had been…6.86%. The memory of the monolithic TV age was really just “a nostalgic fable.”
- The advent of TV certainly did not kill off radio. In the U.S., we spend nearly as much time listening to the radio today as we did in 1945 (2.8 hours on average in 2005 versus 3.3). Of course, TV did not kill radio. You can’t watch TV while driving a car. Radio is one of the few ‘hands free’ sources of entertainment, and as Nat pointed out, it complements TV as a way to reach the youth target.
- What medium has grown fastest between 2000 and 2005? No, it’s not the Internet. The correct answer is Outdoor, the oldest advertising medium in the world. Outdoor expenditure grew 44% while Internet grew 20%. Outside of work, we average 20 minutes online per day, and that has not changed since 2000. Internet penetration is leveling off in the mid-60’s.
So what is happening? Nat’s contention is that, “Media consumption is not a ‘zero sum’ game. The old media won’t go away.” The key fact he highlighted was as follows:
- Time spent with media per day in the US has almost doubled between 1945 and 2005, rising from 4.4 hours to 8.4 hours (based on TV, radio, magazine, newspaper and Internet consumption).
As Nat put it, people today are not drowning in an ocean of media, they are happily swimming in it. When asked what he told clients about 360 marketing and the need for media integration he replied, “We have always has to integrate multiple touch points and identify which media does what job best.” In other words, the world has always been complex; we just have not been savvy enough to realize it. Nat’s advice to Marketing Directors, “Don’t be a lemming.”
I heartily applaud Nat’s common sense viewpoint. There is way too much hype about which medium is growing faster, which medium is better, and what new media are doing to old. Most of it disseminated by the media companies, industry bodies and industry pundits in search of something new to say.
The reality is that things are changing. The reach of an individual TV spot today is far lower than in the 60’s. Internet and consumer-generated media add to the dispersion of word-of-mouth. We do need to get a better, consumer-centric view of how people engage with all the different media today, but as Nat suggests, the key challenge remains as it has always done: to architect the consumer engagement using the right media channel to deliver the right message at the right time.
(38 votes, average: 3.63 out of 5)
Loading ...
March 23rd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Finally! I am delighted to hear that someone is talking sense. Thanks for sharing this, Nigel.
Did Nat comment on the amazing insight so often offered up these days - that people are “consuming multiple media”? That is, that they’re actually reading the newspaper while sitting in front of the television? Wow! How long did it take us to notice THAT ??
Every time I hear that amazing observation, I realize that my parents were decades ahead of their time!
March 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
The one thing that Nat didn’t talk about and is a real concern is that the traditional media are becoming less effective. They’re less effective because of multitasking (thanks Terrier). It’s partly because of the diminishing effectiveness of TV and other traditional media that spending trends on these media are staying high/increasing. Marketers have to spend more money to achieve the same results. Efficiency and effectiveness are down, and so alternative media forms are becoming more exciting in the search for more effective and efficient ways to engage clients
March 24th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Nat is right. no media form has ever replaced an existing form. when TV came to the USA it was we were told the end of commercial radio. When video recorders were invented it was the end of the cinema. when the internet came along it was the end of newspapers. all survived and will survive. all that happens is that channels adapt to the changing needs of consumers. my 20 year-old daughter writes a column in her university newspaper. she brings it home to show us. i asked her if it was on-line - her response was ‘why would we do that, people carry the paper around campus’. people use channels to fit in with their lives. always have, always will.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Thanks for the comments.
Of course, Michelle is right, the big challenge is how to make the most of each medium. Advertisers do have to figure out what their consumers are willing to engage with, not just throw stuff out there and see what works.
And to Brian’s daughter’s point, I have never forgotten a professor at MIT’s Media Lab comparing a book to a laptop: it boots up immediately, has an easy search function, can be read in most light conditions and angles, does not break if you drop it and allows easy note taking. Unlike a computer books have had time to evolve to fit with our ability to use them easily. Each medium will continue to evolve so that it fits a niche in our daily life, and each needs to be recognized on its merits.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Interesting post, Nigel. Reminds me of an observation from Gary Stein of Jupiter Media, if I can paraphrase — “My two-year old son is the fastest growing member of our household.” Accurate, but a reminder on the importance of relative size.