Time spent on different media does not directly correlate to their advertising efficiency. A study found that while TV accounted for 27% of time spent, it received 45% of ad spending. Conversely, magazines received 7% of time but 9% of spending. The study conducted experiments where respondents spent 30 minutes consuming TV, internet, or magazines. TV ads were recalled best, with a 76.4% net recall rate. Internet had the lowest recall at 26.3%, despite receiving a larger share of ad spending. Print formats like magazines and newspapers showed less confusion between real and fake ads compared to internet. However, the experiments may not fully replicate real-life conditions, as people often multitask or do not

1. Time will tell, won’t it ?
Why one minute media consumption does not equal
one minute consumption of another medium
when it comes to advertising efficiency

2. Obviously in a given day (or week),
time spent differs from one medium to another
21%
25%
27%
15%
7%
5%
Time spent allocation per medium
OOH (potential) TV
Radio Web
Newspapers Magazines
Source: EIAA 2010 – CIM PMP 2010. Adults 16+

3. Hence, some (many ?) point out the disproportion
of time allocation by consumers and adspend
breakdown
8
9
11
26
45
Web
Magazines
Radio
Newspapers
TV
Adspend breakdown %
7
9
24
28
31
Magazines
Newspapers
Web
TV
Radio
Time spent shares %
Source: Microsoft Advertising

4. This could have a huge impact on ad revenues
(especially for print)…
Source: Microsoft Advertising
… does it make sense ?

5. An American survey first analysed this:
what is the advertising efficiency of exactly the
same time allocated to 3 different media ?
This is what we called the first « 30 minutes survey »

6. Ads shown Incorrect
recall *
Net recall % Net ads
recalled
Television 16 6,5% 72,1% 12
Internet 28 8,4% 13,6% 4
Magazines 65 2,4% 37,5% 24
30 minutes of usual media consumption
in a controlled environment
100 respondents for each medium
Recall @ end of the experiment
Source: Mc Pheters, Rebecca,. and Mc Donald, Scott, “Time-based comparisons of media effectiveness: a new approach”
in Worldwide Readership Research Symposium Valencia 2009 Session papers, WRRS, 2009,
* Recall of “fake” ads (ie that were not in the content the respondents actually saw).

7. Sep 2010, a comparable experiment was conducted in Belgium
by Ant Research (now Aqrate) with the same
30 minutes consumption by 3 groups of
qualified users (± 100 each) aged 18-64 years. Media included were
TV,Internet and newspapers. Survey
conducted indoors, in Brussels & Antwerp, with a
50/50 language breakdown Dutch vs
French speaking.
Respondents were recruited via the Internet panel but had to come to the places
where the survey was conducted.

8. 3 groups
30 minutes of media consumption…
• Popular TV shows (each respondent selected one in 3)
with 3 ad breaks (before, after, and centre) with 4 ads
each, all recently broadcast on Belgian TV
• Surfing on sites (no email, no blogs, chats or social
networks). Ads captured « live » during their surfing
session.
• Reading of any newspaper title from the Scripta selection
(47% of total circulation). Video recorded. Ads
preselected.
…and then a self-completed questionnaire
on ads they had seen (or not seen: there were 4
they had the opportunity to see & 4 fake
ones), spontaneous & aided recall.

9. Exposed Spontaneously
recalled
Total correct
Spontaneous+aided
From ads exposed to ads recalled
5 2 2
10 1 3
12 4 9

10. Ads shown Incorrect
recall
Net recall % Net ads
recalled
Television 12 3,9% 76,4% 9
Internet 10 4,9% 26,3% 3
Newspapers 5 1,5% 45,3% 2
Results presented as the US survey

11. US or Belgium, similar conclusions
TV
• Gross recall (net+incorrect) almost
identical
• Less confusion, so net recall higher in
BE
Newsp-
Magazines
• Not the same medium, but print
« second best »
• Same behavioural engagement pattern
for newpapers & magazines  least
confusion between ads
Web
• Better recall in Belgium (lower clutter)
• Highest confusion (incorrect recall).
Least potent of the tested 3 when it
comes to ad efficiency.
Source for US : Mc Pheters, and Mc Donald, Scott, 2009 (see above)

12. Was the experiment free of bias or
external determinations ?
Surely not. Just see which ones.
Do the protocol make sense especially compared to
« real life conditions » ?
Hence, can we accept the findings ?
This is the purpose of 3
discussion points

13. Ad recall
(as
measured)
Format ad
Adspend
tested
brands
Spend in
medium
Spend in
all media
% adspend
in medium
GRPs
Average
frequency
Newspapers
only *
NO *
NO *
NO *
NO *
NO *
NO *
External determinations (1) ?
* All based on r² coefficients and probability @ 95%

14. Ad recall
(as
measured)
Socio-
demographics
respondents
Media behaviour
(heavy-medium-
light usage)
FEW * FEW *
External determinations (2) ?
* All based on r² coefficients and probability @ 95%
Most likely to be recalled by
women than Web or
newspapers
Most likely to be recalled by
younger people than TV &
newspapers
Affinity at not active people
Heavy users newspapers
most likely not to recall
Web or TV ads
Light users newspapers
more likely to recall TV ads

15. 3 discussion points
In line with « real life »
conditions ?
Weak in test, as it is
or should be ?
A fair testing way ?

16. In line with real life conditions ?
18%
39%
43%
People do not always even
watch ad breaks
Attentively watching Watching
Not watching
100
85
Programme before/afterAd break
On average 15% less
viewers break vs
programme
Source: CIM TV 2010 live data
9
Ad break audience: 9% do
not watch everything
Completely
Not
completely
Source: BVA 2005
Schokkend nieuws voor de
buis, registratie van het
feitelijk kijkgedrag van
consumenten naar reclame
40%
30%
30%
TV viewing, mono- vs
multitasking share
Sole medium, no activity
Sole medium, other activtiy
Other
Source: M. Bloxham
“Channel planning: Media
mesh or media
mash?”, Admap Jan 2011
Meaning that audience all break =
± 77% of audience @ daypart level
100% exposure as in the experiment not realistic

17. Is it that weak ?
Eye-tracking survey 2009:
The ads on the website are viewed
more often, and for a longer
time, but the more experienced
surfers have the tendency to avoid
ads.
Source: L. Van Meerem & Al
“Measuring the true value
of advertising in print against online
– an eye tracking experiment” in
WRRS Valencia 2009 Session papers
46%
5%
49%
Display Web advertising, not
the most frequent in digital
Display * Email Search
Source: GroupM, Belgium, 2010
Net investment.
* IAB Adex: display limited to 33% of
total digital spend (2010)
5%
12%
21%62%
Internet advertising seldom
used alone by brands
Web only TV only
Newspapers only Mixed media
Source: MDB 2010.
Shares of active months * brand
Web users to escape ads ( confusion), display Web generally not in isolation

18. Fair test and fair test results ?
2.78
2.93
2.94
3.09
TV
Radio
Newspapers
Magazines
Ad engagement per media
category
Least confusion or incorrect recall
for print = likely consequence of
higher ad engagement
Source: Sanoma Engagement Survey 2012
But sole exposure to print maybe
not as usual as one might think…
18
19 19
20 20
Magazine Radio Newspaper TV Net
Internet
% respondents with no other activity
than media
Source: IAB
Mediascope Belgium
Data Report 2012
Source: M. Bloxham
“Channel planning: Media
mesh or media
mash?”, Admap Jan 2011
Multi-tasking also affects print, but it is a strong support for ads

19. Few external determinations: results may be
considered « pure enough »
But it is definitely a « lab experiment »: real life
conditions are not fully comparable
Nevertheless: time won’t tell anything. The art for
media is to create opportunities (time may help…)
but above all to transform these opportunities into
persuasive consumer experiences
Hence, time devoted to media is not and will never
be a robust base for ad budget allocations.

20. More ?
http://www.paper-works.be/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/30minSurveyforNe
wspaperswork.pdf
The most extensive protocol
explanation + discussion, with
all possible stats  :
« Media Dwell time », Admap, February 2012
pp. 40-41.
Also available via WARC.com (for subscribers)
A lighter version reduced to
basic learnings: