– Does a dollar buy the same amount of media in digital as it does in print?
(and how many eyeballs peruse each format?)
ABs & editors have a history of paying less for images used for digital media space. A dollar spent in this fashion buys more than a dollar spent on print media space.
Because of the way digital media is shared and the lower costs of accessing digital media space (including the tubes), some advertisers will spend more on a production (longer run) than they would on a production for say TV. Because the televised media space is so costly to purchase and the air times less accessible. This media DOES compete with print media. Advertisers externalize their costs of access and distribution on to the public and hosts like youtube.
– Finally any given person has only so much time in a day to take in media. There has been an entire shift in the consumption of media. People tend to follow links. Links in email, Facebook, forums, TMs, Twitter, blogs, Digital Editorial, etc. The vast majority of these links provide FREE content. Free images, free writing, free entertainment, free ideas. These are the legal uses – there is a whole nother side in the pirated realm. If a person sees any advertising at all it may be peripheral to the content they came to consume. Even then, they may click through, or have ad blockers. This new paradigm WILL affect budgets. The source of media (be it ads, editorial, or art) must get enough return to continue producing content and make a living. Otherwise they fail. Will there always be another content producer ready to step up and fill that failed spot, (vicious cycle) or will we see the same stuff rehashed with less and less investment in the production of the content? Big media in the USA loves to rehash into oblivion. Everyone ready for Charlie’s Angels V ?
I think that Iwould look at the breakdown from this viewpoint; what percentage is going to be used for the creation of media art(photography work)? Then I would say in need to market for a percentage of what is out there to be earned. It is a pert of the Job isn’t it?
It makes sense after seeing several studies on activities viewers are doing when they come in contact with ads. Magazines are still the most effective advertising, simply because the majority of people enjoying a magazine are not engaged in other activities. With ever shorter attention spans, and more distractions, this is very important.
Digital (mostly internet based) viewing is often a less focused viewing environment for viewers. While not as attention span deficient as broadcast, getting the viewers attention is still difficult. The worst of the current media mix is radio, with more than 90% of listeners engaged in other activities while interacting with radio.
Interesting you say that Gordon, they may be doing other activities but I would hazard that media on a whole would be the biggest. After all, radio on when you get to work, 8-10-12 hours later, radio off. Then into the car to drive home, so another hour a day there too.
It might be in the background but people still notice what’s going on.
9 Comments
What about the remaining 3rd?
@Gu, I’d guess tv/radio/merchandise/…
@Stephan Mantler, my thoughts were similar to yours.
But considering how much digital is catching up in such a short space of time is frankly jaw dropping!
I am actually supprised it is that even. I would have assumed it is even more than that to digital.
A few thoughts.
– Is the study an accurate forecast/prediction?
– Does a dollar buy the same amount of media in digital as it does in print?
(and how many eyeballs peruse each format?)
ABs & editors have a history of paying less for images used for digital media space. A dollar spent in this fashion buys more than a dollar spent on print media space.
Because of the way digital media is shared and the lower costs of accessing digital media space (including the tubes), some advertisers will spend more on a production (longer run) than they would on a production for say TV. Because the televised media space is so costly to purchase and the air times less accessible. This media DOES compete with print media. Advertisers externalize their costs of access and distribution on to the public and hosts like youtube.
Here is an example of a piece created for cinema advertising which has gone viral online and continues to provide returns for the client:
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2009/pantene-violinist-shines-in-chrysalis/
– Finally any given person has only so much time in a day to take in media. There has been an entire shift in the consumption of media. People tend to follow links. Links in email, Facebook, forums, TMs, Twitter, blogs, Digital Editorial, etc. The vast majority of these links provide FREE content. Free images, free writing, free entertainment, free ideas. These are the legal uses – there is a whole nother side in the pirated realm. If a person sees any advertising at all it may be peripheral to the content they came to consume. Even then, they may click through, or have ad blockers. This new paradigm WILL affect budgets. The source of media (be it ads, editorial, or art) must get enough return to continue producing content and make a living. Otherwise they fail. Will there always be another content producer ready to step up and fill that failed spot, (vicious cycle) or will we see the same stuff rehashed with less and less investment in the production of the content? Big media in the USA loves to rehash into oblivion. Everyone ready for Charlie’s Angels V ?
I think that Iwould look at the breakdown from this viewpoint; what percentage is going to be used for the creation of media art(photography work)? Then I would say in need to market for a percentage of what is out there to be earned. It is a pert of the Job isn’t it?
Look on the bright side – that’s 100 billion for print!!!
It makes sense after seeing several studies on activities viewers are doing when they come in contact with ads. Magazines are still the most effective advertising, simply because the majority of people enjoying a magazine are not engaged in other activities. With ever shorter attention spans, and more distractions, this is very important.
Digital (mostly internet based) viewing is often a less focused viewing environment for viewers. While not as attention span deficient as broadcast, getting the viewers attention is still difficult. The worst of the current media mix is radio, with more than 90% of listeners engaged in other activities while interacting with radio.
Interesting you say that Gordon, they may be doing other activities but I would hazard that media on a whole would be the biggest. After all, radio on when you get to work, 8-10-12 hours later, radio off. Then into the car to drive home, so another hour a day there too.
It might be in the background but people still notice what’s going on.
Comments are closed for this article!