Research on smartphone penetration shows that there is a clear generational gap in smartphone penetration. The gap shows clearly in a Nielsen report from last fall, and in recent Pew Research Center findings.
Penetration is one thing, and actual usage is another. A number of recent reports show distinct generational differences in both frequency of use, and in the types of applications and uses. Most of these reports, however, have yet to really establish that smartphone ownership and usage have had a serious impact on either TV viewing or Internet use on laptops or desktops.
A recent study by Millward Brown Digital (MBD) finds that 77% of Millennials (those aged 18-34) report using a smartphone on a daily basis compared to 60% of Gen Xers (aged 35-50). While this fits in with previous research, the MBD survey also reports generational differences in other media habits. They report smaller, but still consistent, reports of daily TV viewing (77% for Millennials, 86% for Gen Xers, and 91% of Boomers), and daily use of laptops or desktops (58% for Millennials, 67% for Gen Xers, and 71% for Boomers).
The difference is enough that MBD's research director, Joline McGoldrick, indicated that online marketers are not only finding mobile as a growing segment of the advertising marketplace, but that marketers should take into account the emerging generational differences as well. Advertising placement on mobile is one of the fastest growing ad segments, with a 60% growth rate this year, and predictions that mobile will account for more than 20% of all ad revenues by 2018.
Source - Millennials Spend More Time With Mobile, Impacts TV Time, Mobile Marketing Daily
This blog is affiliated with a course at the School of Journalism & Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I'll try to use it to share relevant news and information with the class, and anyone else who's interested.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Infographic - History of Phone System Development
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Tidbits from Superbowl viewers
eMarketer released some recent poll stats on Superbowl viewers.
Almost half (46%) of smartphone and tablet owners reported they were likely to use a second screen while watching the Superbowl this year. About a third said they'd likely be on social media, while one in five thought they'd be on sports cites or apps. Grouping at just under 20% were the following uses: playing games, watching videos, checking news, and getting weather updates.
Another study looked at how people thought about Superbowl ads. It was no surprise that people overwhelmingly thought of them as primarily entertainment. About one in five thought the ads contributed to brand awareness. Other than that, people didn't like the ads as advertising. 16.6% saw them as a waste of money that could better be used to keep product prices low; just under 10% thought they made the game too long; and about 7% saw them as unnecessary interruptions. Only about 10% thought that the ads might encourage them to seek more information about products, or influence they buying habits.
Almost half (46%) of smartphone and tablet owners reported they were likely to use a second screen while watching the Superbowl this year. About a third said they'd likely be on social media, while one in five thought they'd be on sports cites or apps. Grouping at just under 20% were the following uses: playing games, watching videos, checking news, and getting weather updates.
Another study looked at how people thought about Superbowl ads. It was no surprise that people overwhelmingly thought of them as primarily entertainment. About one in five thought the ads contributed to brand awareness. Other than that, people didn't like the ads as advertising. 16.6% saw them as a waste of money that could better be used to keep product prices low; just under 10% thought they made the game too long; and about 7% saw them as unnecessary interruptions. Only about 10% thought that the ads might encourage them to seek more information about products, or influence they buying habits.
Source: Mobile Apps Score Among Super Bowl Viewers, eMarketer
Boom in online ad dollars - for some
Analyst Gordon Borrell puts the growth rate for online advertising dollars at 40% for 2014, and 42% for 2015. Some firms could see online ad gains of 30% or more. But for others, online dollars aren't going to be able to offset traditional advertising losses.
In particular, Borrell noted that newspaper print advertising is looking at continued advertising revenue declines of 10% annually. Even when adding in the weak growth in online ad revenues for newspapers, total newspaper advertising revenues are predicted to fall 4.8 % in 2015.
Furthermore, the report notes that even in markets where newspapers have strong digital news content, advertisers are shifting to more targeted sites for directed and targeted advertising efforts.
With targeted ads remaining the fastest growing sector, having an audience is not enough - you need to be able to demonstrate having the right targeted audience. Newspapers have had trouble doing that for their online editions. In fact, Borrell predicts that online "Internet pure play" sites will grab about three-quarters of local online advertising revenues - mostly at the expense of traditional media outlets.
The report suggests that traditional media strategies towards online advertising tend to fall into one of three basic approaches:
Source: Analyst Gordon Borrell sees local digital ads soaring in 2015, but not for newspapers, Poynter.org
In particular, Borrell noted that newspaper print advertising is looking at continued advertising revenue declines of 10% annually. Even when adding in the weak growth in online ad revenues for newspapers, total newspaper advertising revenues are predicted to fall 4.8 % in 2015.
Furthermore, the report notes that even in markets where newspapers have strong digital news content, advertisers are shifting to more targeted sites for directed and targeted advertising efforts.
With targeted ads remaining the fastest growing sector, having an audience is not enough - you need to be able to demonstrate having the right targeted audience. Newspapers have had trouble doing that for their online editions. In fact, Borrell predicts that online "Internet pure play" sites will grab about three-quarters of local online advertising revenues - mostly at the expense of traditional media outlets.
The report suggests that traditional media strategies towards online advertising tend to fall into one of three basic approaches:
Traditional media companies stuck in the analog world, selling a little digital stuff because it’s easy, but not really believing there’s good money in it; traditional media companies that are more excited about the prospects but still reticent (or unable) to invest more in order to grow quickly; and traditional media companies that have seen the light and are determined to grow again, investing heavily in digital by hiring people or acquiring companies.Borrell estimates that about half of traditional media outlets fall in the first group - which explains why they're losing out in local advertising markets - which is increasingly focused on highly targeted content and audiences.
Source: Analyst Gordon Borrell sees local digital ads soaring in 2015, but not for newspapers, Poynter.org
Monday, February 2, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
FCC sets new "Broadband" standard at 25 Mbps
Yesterday the FCC formally approved a long-awaited increase in its definition of what counts as "Broadband" Internet connectivity. The Commission, in giving formal approval to release its annual report on the status of broadband, gave implicit approval to that reports change in what it considers to be broadband service. The old standard was 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream - while the new standard is 25 Mbs downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.Critics have long argued that the FCC's 4 Mbps standard was outdated - it was established well before video streaming usage exploded, and 4 Mbps isn't sufficient bandwidth to stream a TV signal uninterrupted by delays. The industry itself established an informal standard of 20 Mbps as needed for broadband connectivity to homes years ago. That level of bandwidth was based on the ability to live stream 2-3 separate video streams to multiple devices, while leaving enough capacity for second screen data and other Internet usage. The EU is using the 20 Mbps standard for its policy goal of achieving universal broadband access.
The definition of minimum broadband standards is critical to determination of access and availability of broadband to consumers, as well as determining whether there is effective competition in broadband markets. Its been thought that the FCC continued to use its 4 Mbps standard to inflate national availability numbers to seem more on a par with availability numbers in other countries. While that may have been a minor concern, its more likely that they stuck with 4 Mbps because that was the data capabilities of 3G cellular services and the small satellite-based data services. Inclusion of 3G cellular and satellite data coverage provided both near-universal accessibility, and competition to wired (land-based) cable and telecomm providers for about 90% of Americans.
The new 25 Mbps standard basically excludes those (but is within 4G cellular standards), and reflects the reality that 17% of the U.S. population doesn't have access to data services meeting the new standard. More critically, from a policy perspective, is that exclusion of satellite data services (which currently don't provide services at that speed yet) leaves large swaths of rural America without "broadband" access. The new report determines that 53% of rural population (63% of those living on tribal lands) won't have access to data services meeting the new standard for broadband. Similarly, applying the new standard in considering whether there is effective competition for broadband service providers means that only 37% of Americans have access to two or more broadband services. Excluding 3G service providers is the primary cause for the drop in "competition." Also, not all of the "4G" services being offered in the U.S. meet the formal international standards - some peak out at 21 Mbps downstream, which qualifies as broadband under EU standards (20 Mbps) but not the new US standard (25 Mbps).
While the standard for "broadband" in the U.S. certainly needed changing, whether it should be at 20 or 25 Mbps is somewhat debatable in the short term. In the long term, there's already discussion of what the next standard should be (mostly centered for now at 50-100 Mbps). Give it a few years, and we'll need to redefine "broadband" again anyway.
Sources - FCC Says Broadband Now Means Speeds Of 25 Mbps, OnlineMediaDaily
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Interesting graphic on Explosion of Media Channels (Nielsen)
From the recent Nielsen Total Market report comes this interesting timeline showing the explosion of new content delivery channels for video.
I'll have more to add from the report later.
Hiatus over (hopefully)
I've been on a bit of a hiatus (last post was a few months ago, as my classes last fall were all research methods and statistics, and other things kept popping up. But this term I'm back to the present - my classes are on cable, internet, and other content delivery systems, and on programming strategies for those systems (as well as more legacy broadcast and print media).
There's also been a bit of an issue as the University signed up with Google as an organization, which means I may have to shift ownership of the blog. So bear with me, please.
There's also been a bit of an issue as the University signed up with Google as an organization, which means I may have to shift ownership of the blog. So bear with me, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







