shift keeps on happening

The latest update in the “Shift Happens” / “Did You Know…” series – version 4.0 – was released earlier this week.

Just like the previous versions, it’s full of useful data nuggets, soundbites, trivia, and statistics on the evolution of media and technology:

They’ve even produced a wiki with all their sources.

Many thanks to Tom for the pointer.


2 Responses to “shift keeps on happening”

  1. 1 John Barton September 18, 2009 at 21:41

    Wow. These stats boggle the mind. I am particularly interested in the reach of TV vs. the Web and why we pay so much for TV. I’ve often thought that if TV were invented today, it would have to be very cheap to advertise on it. Measurement of the effectiveness is based on samples not actual viewers and often the best data you get about the actual people in the audience is that generalized demographic/psycho-graphic information. Maybe there is more to it. Id be interested in your thoughts on this Eskimon.

    Thanks very much for the post!

  2. 2 eskimon September 19, 2009 at 16:02

    Hi John, welcome back!

    It’s certainly true that TV measurement data is limited, but I think that’s true of most ‘offline’ media. That’s not to say that these channels don’t still play a vital part in the communications mix, but if we’re going to understand exactly what their contribution is and how much money each justifies, we’ve got to get a lot smarter in what we do. That doesn’t mean more data and more sophistication; rather, I think the issue is focus.

    The key problem is what we measure. We’ve spent far too many years focusing on things that don’t matter. Indeed, many of our so-called ‘effectiveness’ metrics don’t measure any kind of effectiveness at all.

    Until recently, the vast majority of media measurement has focused on understanding whether people had a chance to witness our campaigns (i.e. projected media reach). To my mind, that’s worth very little.

    Even understanding whether the audience actually saw or heard the message is limited; people may well have witnessed the campaign, but seeing or hearing doesn’t automatically entail understanding.

    I’d rather have 1 person hear and understand, than have 10,000 hear and none understand.

    I still believe measurement can be a lot better, and also a lot simpler. It’s simply a case of working out what really matters in our communications. However, I think that merits a post of its own – i’ll put it up in the next few days.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Other Distractions


%d bloggers like this: