Brian Stelter wrote about the "three screen" reports coming out of Nielsen in The New York Times last week. Nielsen's goal is measurement parity across the three screens: TV, computer, mobile. But something seems missing from the data.
"The average American spent 127 hours of time with TV in May, up from 121 hours in May 2007; and 26 hours on the Internet, up from 24 hours last year."
"Two-thirds of Internet users in the United States, 119 million people, watched video in May."
I think what we're watching, in other words, content, isn't properly accounted for.
"The amount of online video viewing is low compared with TV -- 2 hours and 19 minutes a month on average..."
Why do the ad and media industries continue to couch any kind of viewership that's not TV in direct relationship to TV--as if it might somehow be TV?
"...for every hour of online video viewing, consumers spend 57 hours watching TV."
The answer is obviously money.
"...all that (online video) viewing, 7.5 billion streams and 16.4 billion minutes in total, amounts to new advertising time for the taking."
I wonder--is viewing video online (or on an iPhone, or on a screen in an elevator) the exact same experience as watching TV? Of course not. So, how can we truly compare apples to apples here?
I applaud Nielsen for seeking measurement parity. But I hope in the rush to define a holistic platform, we take into account the elements of online video viewing that make it distinct from TV, and thus of potentially greater value to brands and advertisers: Online, the viewer seeks out content, actively controls it, and has the ability to comment, rate and share.
In accounting for those qualities that make online video distinct, I suspect we'll discover some very different "average" Americans and their various approaches to new screens and content. All of which will greatly affect how we price advertising opportunities in and around new screens.
Sample comment