The Sunday Times Business Section had a nice piece on the move to online advertising at the weekend by Paul Durman. It still seemed to assume that the same tactics (ie broadcast not dialogue) would drive the online spend, but some nice quotes included:
“Television companies will tell you that kids are still watching as much TV,” said Morris (Nigel Morris, Chief Executive of Isobar), “but they’re not. Television does not have the emotional pull. Programmes do, the stuff they see on a screen does. But conventional TV — something that’s scheduled, that I sit down and watch at a time someone has decided for me, prepared to watch the ads while it’s on — they don’t get it.” He continued: “You ask any kids, what would you rather be without: the TV or the internet? They will tell you, we’d rather be without TV.”
Advertisers are already spending more online than on radio (£582m), outdoor-poster sites (£932.5m) and in business magazines (£1 billion). But what is more striking is the continuing rate of growth. Online grew by 41% last year, and the IAB’s Guy Phillipson is forecasting the sector to attract at least another £500m this year. In contrast, the growth in other sectors is at best anaemic. TV advertising revenues shrank 4.7% last year, radio by 5.2% and press classified by 7.8%.
Claire Enders of Enders Analysis, the media-research firm, said: “We don’t believe that display advertising as we know it will be kaput in 2010. It’s not going to happen. “We’ve had five years of really fierce experimentation online. But there’s very little emotional response to online display. It’s still viewed as an experimental medium.”
Footnote: I read this story in the print version of the Sunday Times at the weekend and then found it on-line and copied the quotes over and linked to the story itself. But why I wonder, do I feel the need to link to sites of Isobar and Enders analysis and the TimesOnline does not? They have a nice comments section, but they are being pretty selfish with their links and I would have thought it was a very simple reader service? Or are they worried that a link is an endorsement or compromising in the sense it could arguably drive enquiries and business?
[tags] Digital, Online Advertising, PR[/tags]
sixtysecondview.blog 
Have been having an interesting discussion at the agency as to what exactly is “television”
If you do VOD through your computer of Lost and then choose to up-load it to your video iPod, is that television? If you watch a Mobisode (short mobile episode) of 24 on your mobile, is that television? Or is television actually simply the box, the device that sits in the television room. You’re right kids would rather than you take away their television than their mobile or their internet but that’s because they are finding the same “television” content to engage with online
LikeLike
Agreed. Jarvis takes the same perspective as well I think. The quote I liked from the Sunday Times piece was that kids don’t care about TV, they care about programmes. And to your point I think they will watch those programmes on whatever is most convenient. My dear old iPod is charged up for tomorrow’s day return trip to Paris with all sorts of stuff for example. I guess from your point, that the agency netted out that Television was now just video content on any device?
LikeLike
Kids are looking for a platform to create content and interact. TV is passive and while it does have a ‘group watch’ value the younger generation is less interested in that than getting interacative. (Tried to get kids sitting with you to watch TV together lately?) What I find fascinating is the speed, range and scope of Social Media tools and ‘kids’ willingness to experiment. As Marshall McLuhan said ‘It is not the message but the messanger that is sent’.
Kids are creating music and songs as well as ‘mash-ups’ online but what is really interesting is to see the collaberation that goes on across the internet. Lyrics and harmonies are being exchanged, video is be ‘re-authored’ multiple times. Content collaberation is in full swing. Some psychologists are worried about the potential harm that the internet will have on the social and communication skills of children. This could be a risk for some but for most the internet is a powerful creative tool – a fantastic adverture playground – to create and communicate globally. ‘Crinklies’ (like me) will just have to run faster to catch up and join in.
LikeLike
I agree. I have an eight year old and I can already see much of what you talk about. Her “rations” now are based on how many “screentime” minutes a day she can have. She (and her mother) see no difference in whether that is spent in front of the TV or watching YouTube pets category.
LikeLike
My son is three. He watches his favourite kids channels but the moment I try and switch the tv to adult viewing he wont have it.
He’s also picky about exactly which kid’s programmes he watches and he seems to understand that at age three, he doesn’t like pokemon but he loves Post Man Pat. These kids, they know what they like.
He also likes to play the games associated with his favourite programmes online. He can’t surf the net yet but he can use the interactive games that are on websites like CBEEBIES.
On the subject of online adverts, well I spend a lot of time online, reading various blogs, looking at trends that kind of thing and I very, very, very rarely click on an ad banner.
Why?
In cyber space everything is about interacting. Those ads don’t touch me. They don’t make me want to interact with them.
A blog on the other hand is all about a relationship, learning, connecting.
I prefer traditional ads that touch me in the same way. Ads that create a relationship with me, that don’t take it for granted that I will just buy something from them just because they are there.
If there is a way to make online ads more.…more…..just more…I might be tempted to actually press that button and go shopping.
LikeLike
Hi Josephine,
love the site by the way. I have a two year old boy who has taken to the online version of Fifi and the Flowertots.
LikeLike