My new research says that 41 percent of online Americans are now regularly accessing TV sites. This is up from 31 percent in 1999. Breaking that down, 34 percent say that they visit sites associated with TV news, which is just about double the 17.2 percent who visit TV program sites.

Yes they are. In fact, the TV news sites are quickly catching up with the magazine and newspaper sites in terms of the percentages of online visitors who regularly go there.

    As I’ve been stating for the past several years, availability drives demand. In the past year, more and more TV news and program sites have begun actively promoting their web site on the TV programs. This is especially true of the TV news sites, many of which have introduced some very innovative and interactive content.
    So in this way they have tapped into the very sorts of experiences consumers are looking for online—compelling content such as features that enable consumers to have their voices heard by participating in polls. 
    Many TV news sites poll visitors on the subject of the day, things like "Should Elian be returned to Cuba?" or "How long will NASDAQ continue to reach record highs?" So they’ve created a sense of involvement. I applaud both the TV program and news sites for enhancing their brand by creating this viewer involvement, which benefits not only the online site but also the TV program by motivating them to return to the program to see the results.
    This is all in its infancy of course. Another thing news sites are beginning to do is schedule times that viewers can chat online with news anchors, such as Sam Donaldson. This also creates viewer involvement, which builds greater loyalty for the program itself. In my opinion all TV program web sites should strongly consider tapping into the chat function like this. Because the viewer’s decision to watch a particular program or a particular newscast is based on a psychology bonding with the personalities. Viewers form emotional bonds with TV program anchors and personalities. And the internet allows for the first time in history a true personal bonding as opposed to a passive, vicarious bonding.

     Well, that’s the good news here. Television has now overtaken magazines and newspapers in terms of driving web site visits. Thirty-six percent of online Americans say that they have visited a web site based on TV advertising or promotions, compared to 29 percent for magazines and 23 percent for newspapers. This has happened because the advertisers, particularly the dot.com advertisers, have woken up to the value of television as not only a medium that is used to create awareness but as a medium that can close the loop. 
   In a way it’s a marketer’s dream. In the past we had TV as a passive medium that would create awareness; now we have it as a quasi-interactive medium that provides a call to action—namely: visit the web site. 
    And then the web site can close the sale either online or at the retail level. I have to say, however, that the advertisers themselves have barely scratched the surface of the potential of TV advertising as a direct response medium.

    The response here is sending people to their web sites. Advertisers voice over their 800 numbers on TV, but the majority do not voice over their web address. The dot.coms obviously have it together on this, but the traditional advertisers are still far behind in grasping this unprecedented opportunity to drive site traffic. I call the TV commercials that drive web site traffic "indirect direct response."

    Well actually they still have a lot to learn from the traditional advertisers. Look at what happened during the Super Bowl. Many studies have shown that viewers found the Super Bowl advertising this year to be innovative, humorous and engrossing. However, few remembered the specific brands. 
   The dot.coms have got to recognize that television advertising has got to work at creating a brand name. We all remember the ads but people don’t remember the brands. Which should be sobering news to companies that spent most of their advertising budgets on these 30-second Super Bowl ads. In my opinion, they should be focusing more on brand name recognition and less on extraneous entertainment.

    The bad news for the networks is that because of the internet, people are watching less TV. According to my research, 35 percent of online Americans say they are watching fewer TV programs or TV movies because of the internet. This figure is slightly higher than it was in 1999. Now of course we can’t really say whether this is the result of a programming problem or an internet problem.

    Well, we can’t know this. It’s a possibility. It is true that the internet draws fewer people away from TV news—just 17 percent say they are watching less news on TV as a result of the internet. That’s because online users tend to be news junkies. They can’t get enough, so they’re still watching the TV news too.

     I don’t think so. I was talking recently to Andy Morris, who’s vice president of research at Lifetime, and he says he is not concerned about the internet seriously affecting audiences, at least on the cable side. As he put it, "I don’t think the couch-potato factor will ever disappear." Because people, particularly in our high-pressure, workaholic society, have a need to relax, escape and be entertained. Even younger people occasionally just want to veg out in front of the TV.
   Morris also says: "Lifetime sees the internet as a perfect vehicle to provide additional involvement and enhance our relationship with our viewers."
     For example, when they are doing a show on adoption, they are limited by the half-hour or one-hour time availability on the network. 
    So what they are doing online is using their web site to provide additional information on key subjects rather than just leaving viewers to be interested and then have to fend for themselves. So now the viewers can have the full information and the full experience.

    Well, again, quoting Morris: "The internet measurement systems are still new and developing. And advertisers are not as comfortable with them as they are with Nielsen." So this is a big reason he feels that online advertising has lagged so far behind traditional media.
    Looking at it from a broader perspective, advertisers have fixed, limited advertising budgets. And they have not fully recognized the value of the internet as a direct or an indirect sales medium.
    So when they have to allocate their limited TV advertising dollars, they are reluctant to take money away from television. 
    Another factor I’ve seen from my discussions with many clients is that traditional advertisers are feeling priced out of the TV medium by the dot.coms. Because the traditional advertisers have low profit margins and high accountability. And the dot.coms have virtually no accountability. Their main goal is to get people to the web site whatever it takes; when they run out of money they simply do a second round of financing. In fact I would personally be reluctant to invest in a dot.com that showed a profit.
     An interesting phenomenon is that in many households the TV set and the PC are in the same room. So viewers are multi-tasking—watching TV and going online simultaneously, particularly the younger generation. 
    In some cases the web site has begun to be specifically complementary to the TV show. For instance, you might be watching the World Series and going online to get the statistics you’re interested in yourself. Or look at "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?": viewers can actually play along with the game online. I think few advertisers have tapped into the potential of creating a complementary experience by sponsoring the TV program and the interactive, interrelated web content.

Well with broadband we have to separate the hype from the reality. And the experts agree that broadband is three to seven years away from becoming a mass market factor. Right now everyone seems to be crazed about broadband but what they have to do is just put broadband aside for a moment. 
   Certainly they should be planning for the broadband future, but what everyone should still be focusing their attention on is the narrowband reality that will exist for the next three years at least. We are living in a 28.8 society.

-Jeremy Schlosberg is the senior editor for new media. 
-Bernadette Tracy, a respected authority on the internet, is founder and president of NetSmartAmerica.com, an online consumer motivational research firm that specializes in spotting emerging trends. She appears every Friday in the pages of Media Life. 

                     Cover Page | Contact Us