Sheila Byfield
Sheila Byfield worked in the media industry for 43 years. Her final role was global Head of Insights and Research at Minsdhare where she managed both industry and proprietary research. She has been a frequent speaker on industry platforms and has a wide range of published work.
She sat on The Media Research Group Committee, was chair of the European Association of Advertising Agencies Research Committee and is a visiting research fellow of the University of Leeds.
Sheila is the author of ‘In with the old. In with the new’ which she describes as ‘a no nonsense approach for communicating with real people in the real world’.
The media / technology revolution is one of the major contributors to the radical changes in our lives over the past half century. It is sobering to compare the media behaviour of a twenty-something year old today with someone the same age in the 1970s.
It is tempting to insert charts here showing changes in available media then and now but probably more useful (interesting?) to examine the core trends and their implications.
Traditional media are dead. Long live traditional media (1) (2) (3)
Negative predictions on the future of ‘traditional’ media are not unusual. They usually come from the advertising business and are typical of an industry responding to hype. We were warned that cinema was doomed first because of television then because of video but the movie business went on to enjoy one of its most successful periods. Predictions about the death of television have been rife for years but it is having its best time ever. Books were set to disappear because of e-publishing but, while audio books do well, dead tree sales are thriving. Vinyl was set to disappear but is enjoying a revival strangely driven by the young.
“ It could be the death of broadcast advertising as we know it… We can’t be sure that ad supported TV will have a future.”
Edwin Artzt (then) Chairman of Proctor & Gamble talking about the future of TV advertising in 1994 (4)
Of course, there are many examples where the new do replace the old. The Guardian newspaper has more readers on-line than paper, streaming has replaced both the CD and the video and classified advertising – along with business directories such as Yellow Pages – has been sacrificed in favour of online Search. In the main, however, the new rarely totally replace the old and it is more likely that they will sit alongside one another quite compatibly and often complimentarily.
There are five core reasons why people use media: entertainment, information, communication, self-expression and transaction. We may be viewing on a laptop but it is still television. We may be reading on a screen but it is still ‘print’ material. We may use clicks instead of bricks but it is still shopping and so on. Undoubtedly, different environments and mindsets effect how people respond to content (including advertising) but it is the method of consumption that changes, the drivers remain the same. It is interesting that many Guardian readers have moved online but its sister Sunday newspaper, The Observer, continues to enjoy strong paper sales. Could this possibly be something to do with a more relaxed Sunday environment?
There is a need when investigating media behaviour to recognise and understand behavioural drivers which, in the main, remain constant and which research needs to reflect.
In a survey conducted by Populus in 2019, over 1,000 nationally representative UK respondents were asked which media they would choose if allowed to keep only three. TV led the way across all age groups although its importance increased proportionally with age. So, for example, 86% of adults aged over 65 placed TV in the top three, this reduced to 65% of 35-44s but only 34% of 18-34s.
Proportion of respondents who placed each medium in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place of media they would keep if allowed to keep only three.
Source: Populous Survey Communications Survey 2019
Personalities are the new marketers
Here’s a sobering thought. Taylor Swift has 112 million Instagram followers. Having previously kept her political views to herself, she issued a ‘Get out and vote Democrat’ message following which over 102,000 Americans aged 18 to 29 registered to vote. (5)
Here’s another one – Kim Kardashian has 318 million followers to whom she promotes her businesses which include beauty and underwear ranges, jewellery and a credit card. All are profitable. For example, her underwear range is estimated to be worth $3.2 billion. Not bad for someone who is famous just for being famous.
But here’s the rub. According to professional Instagram managers advertising with Google, it costs between $450-$850 per month to manage a commercial account. Contrast that with a one-off 30 second commercial in the Superbowl which costs upwards of $6.5 million. The Superbowl is America’s most viewed television programme. It attracted an audience of 99.18 million in 2022. Both Taylor and Kim have significantly more eyeballs viewing their content although admittedly not all are present at the same time. More importantly though, these personalities are operating in an uncluttered, lower risk advertising environment where they have complete control and freedom over content and timing. In contrast, The Superbowl advertisers are at the mercy of contractors who set out all the rules and regulations. Maybe this isn’t a like for like comparison but it doesn’t take long to work out who might be winning the battles for commercial control and return on investment.
Users have become choosers
In the past, media providers decided what we could see or hear but nowadays we decide for ourselves. In theory this should mean a new era of enlightenment as we access different views and perspectives. In reality, many of us live in echo chambers accessing (or being fed) views with which we agree already.
There are many advantages of digital media that have a massive impact on our lives. Here are just some of the benefits that we take for granted nowadays:
- Seemingly unlimited knowledge – it is estimated that around 95% of all available information has been digitised and made available via the internet
- Instant communication with almost anyone anywhere
- Speedy transactions through online banking and shopping
- Ability to work from almost anywhere – especially beneficial in situations like the covid pandemic
- Instant access to global news
- Ease of finding professional services through online Search
- Rarely having to miss TV programmes or movies
It’s a life of what we want, where and when we want it but there are also disadvantages many of which have serious impact on the opinions and behaviour of some individuals:
- Instant, uncontrolled access to illegal and/or inappropriate materials (mainly pornography)
- Spread of racist, misogynist, homophobic and religious hatred
- Algorithms that direct controversial content e.g. conspiracy theories, body-shaming and self-harm images to vulnerable people
- Hacking to steal identity, disrupt business and affect voting outcomes (it is widely speculated that there was Russian interference with both the Brexit referendum and the 2016 USA elections)
- Online addiction, an inability to disconnect from work, disrupted sleep patterns
- Increased crime rate.
“ We’ve had extraordinary damage done to democracy, public health, public safety and people’s abilities to make their own choices … Yet policymakers have done nothing, absolutely nothing.”
Roger McNamee. Author of ‘Zucked’
and early investor in Facebook
So, back to the original question, do the media reflect or create society? Probably they do both but the balance has shifted over time.
In the past the media were mainly a reflection of public life. We were passive receivers allowing broadcasters and journalists to tell us about events in the outside world. They were often our main, if not only, information source and so they influenced our views and, to some extent, told us what to think. We were even categorised by the media. For example, we know what is meant when someone is described as a Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Mirror or Daily Mail reader (6).
The arrival of digital media may mean that we have greater channel choice but this does not necessarily translate into content choice. Several people asking the same question online will receive different answers depending on their previous behaviour and the resultant data held on them. Additionally, the creation of groups formed through common interests (good and bad) has led to behaviours that were previously unknown so now the media are increasingly creating societies (albeit smaller and more individualistic) as opposed to simply reflecting them (7).
Researching the media was relatively straightforward when choice was limited but the arrival of digital media has changed everything and posed huge media planning and research challenges along the way. In this cluttered, complex marketplace, the media have become commoditised and now the emphasis is on automation and speed rather than strategy and insights. Algorithms are largely in control of what we see and there appears to be a belief that digital media and big data analyses hold the answers to all our marketing and advertising challenges (8).
There are volumes of data on the influences of the media and advertising effectiveness from academia, the research business and the advertising industry. Surely in more complicated landscapes the great rules should be re-enforced rather than dismissed. In the opinion of this writer, there has never been a better time to examine the basics, strengthen them through innovative research and apply the learnings to the ever evolving and increasingly complex media environment in which we find ourselves today.
5: Source: Vote.org