American marketers have long favored television for its power to get consumers into stores, but of late that faith has taken a deep hit, as a recent survey by the Association of National Advertisers reveals. It found that 62 percent of marketers believe TV's effectiveness has decline in the past two years.

But has it? And how about the effectiveness of other media?

For answers, Media Life turned to the people who ought to know best, media planners and buyers. It posted a reader survey yesterday, and it came back with some interesting insights.

As for TV, most media buyers disagree that it's lost its effectiveness.

The question: Is TV advertising less effective than it was two years ago?

Just 31 percent thought so, agreeing with the statement: "I think it has declined as audiences have shrunk for broadcast TV."

Almost as many, 26 percent, said definitely not. They agreed with the statement: "TV ads still reach a mass audience, and that hasn’t changed even as the audiences have grown smaller."

But the largest group, 41 percent, dismissed the issue entirely.

They agreed with this statement: "The whole question is silly. TV is the right medium in some cases, whereas magazines can far outdeliver in others. What medium is most effective depends on a whole lot of factors."

A much smaller group, 3 percent, shared the belief that marketers had long held TV in too high regard and were now simply coming to realize its weaknesses. They agreed with this statement: "Marketers have long believed that TV was the most effective medium, regardless of the message or the audience."

And for the effectiveness of the internet as an ad medium?

One might expect an unqualified thumbs up from media planners and buyers. That turned out not to be the case.

Those who thought so were the largest group, at 40 percent. They agreed with this statement: "Marketers are coming to see that as they increase their online budgets."

But the remaining 60 percent, the majority, thought the web had in fact not become more effective.

A third, 21 percent, agreed with this statement: "No, the internet has not changed, nor has its effectiveness, apart from whether marketers are upping their budgets."

And a larger share, 27 percent, thought online advertising had not become more effective but that the hype around it had.

They agreed with this statement: "We are in a new era of internet hype, much like the old one before the big dot.com meltdown, with lots of overselling of the web and its power to move mountains for advertisers. The worry is that we will have another meltdown when the hype fails to deliver."

Yet another group, representing 11 percent of respondents, believed the internet had actually grown less effective, agreeing with the statement: "We are seeing more clients putting dollars into online when they'd be better served elsewhere, just because it's online."

For magazines, readers are surprisingly positive, considering all the talk of ad dollars flying off to the web.

The question: Are magazines any less effective as advertising vehicles as they were two years ago?

Nearly half, 47 percent, agreed with the statement: "Magazines, like newspapers, are the right vehicle for the right advertiser with the right message, and here they are no less effective than they were two years ago."

Just 21 percent thought magazines were indeed less effective, agreeing with this statement: "For the simple fact that the internet does a better job of getting messages in front of consumers at far less cost."

A larger share, 32 percent, thought magazines were less effective but not because of competition from the internet. They agreed with the statement: "So many have cut their rate bases that they don't have the reach they once had. They are reaching fewer eyeballs but their costs have not gone down."

Media buyers and planners are a lot less rosy about newspapers.

Just a fourth of readers, 24 percent, thought newspapers were as effective as two years ago.

Roughly half the remainder, 36 percent, thought not, agreeing with this statement: "It's simply a numbers game. As readerships decline so does the effectiveness of newspaper advertising. Fewer eyeballs means fewer impressions which means fewer sales at the retail counter."

The remaining 42 percent were even less charitable, agreeing with this statement: "It's more than a numbers game. There's an accumulative effect whereby the decline in effectiveness exceeds readership declines. As newspapers attract fewer readers, they lose marketplace clout. They don't matter as much, they are not read as seriously, and the advertising has less impact."

Readers were more upbeat about radio. Two thirds believe radio has not declined in its effectiveness in delivering for advertisers.

Roughly half that group, 30 percent, agreed with this statement: "Radio is going through tough times, and advertising is hurting, but it remains a viable advertising medium, especially at the local level. Radio is evolving and reinventing itself. Don't count it out."

The other half, representing 32 percent of respondents, agreed with this statement: "Radio works for the right advertisers, as it always has, and not for the wrong advertisers. Nothing's changed in that regard."

Just 38 percent took the negative view, agreeing with this statement: "The clutter problem remains, there are way too many stations in most markets, and more and more car-owners are choosing satellite radio."

As for out of home, the last category, it came out the best of all media, even ahead of the internet.

Just 7 percent thought it had become less effective.

The largest group, 49 percent, thought out of home had become more effective, agreeing with the statement: "New technologies have improved the look of billboard ads, which has attracted advertisers who would not have been caught dead advertising on them a decade ago. You also now have digital billboards in growing numbers. They didn't exist years ago."

The third group, at 45 percent, believe it was no more or less effective than two years ago. They agreed with the statement: "A fundamental issue is that people don't like billboards, and that has an impact on marketers who put their ads up on them."