Commentary
30% Of Millennials Have Snipped The Cord
- by Daisy Whitney , Op-Ed Contributor, January 27, 2017
Stop the presses.
Okay, fine. It’s not rocket science to discover the proclivity of today’s youth to consume video in an over-the-top fashion. But marketers would be wise to understand the large share of cord-cutting this group claims.
Millennials represent the biggest portion of cord-cutters, and they’re also a group marketers desperately want to reach. That’s why figures such as the new data from research firm GfK are worth noting. From a survey of 25,000 American consumers, the firm found that those ages 18 to 34 make up 43% of the so-called cordless population. That includes those who’ve never had cable, satellite or any kind of pay-TV service and have cut the cord. When looking at the group of U.S. Millennials, about 30% are cord-free, almost twice as many as the 16% of cord-free boomers, the research found.
When Millennials watch TV though, they often do it via streaming. About two-thirds of their viewing time is devoted to streaming from a TV set of other device -- nearly twice the amount that boomers stream. That demo spends the majority of its viewing time watching live or broadcast TV.
The cordless Millennials prefer the most popular streaming services like Netlix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and YouTube. They also like Crunch Roll, Twitch and the Adult Swim app, GfK found.
Overall, video viewing in non-linear enviroments grew last year, according to FreeWheel’s third quarter Video Monetization Report. Ad views and video views grew 28% and 37% respectively. Sports and news should continue to drive online video viewing, which will further normalize non-traditional modes of TV viewing.
No worries, Ed has Alternative Facts that the Millenials are there based on Nielsen samples. What say you?
Data like this, without context, doesn't tell us anything. Really anything at all. There's lots of proviso's...
The research write-up is quite flawed. "Those who have cut the cord are those using the most streaming". Well, duh. And it leaps gigantic chasms to say things like "These viewers are huge fans of quality programming and content – but they are not fond of being told where, when and how they should watch it." Classic projection by the researcher - the Rorshach reality of research interpretation.
So, here's the real concern that should be in this post: My agency, as well as the advertisers and media buyers I talk with regularly, aren't seeing advertising on streaming have a pay out. The impact simply isn't there.
A few points to note:
* The Gfk sample is 25,000 people annually (claimed usage)
* The Nielsen PPM sample is 75,000 people daily (metered usage) ... over 25 million days of TV usage a year
* The 18-34 cohort is roughly 23% of the US population
* Gfk pegs that cohort as 30% cord free and 43% of the cordless population
* It holds that cordless 18-34s are 6.9% of the US population but 43% of the cordless population
* Therefore the cordless population is around 16% of the US population or around 52m people
* The 18-34 cohort claim they watch 2/3 of their TV viewing (I assume that should read 'video viewing') on 'other devices' so the 18-34 streaming is around 4.6% of the US population
So what is your case Leonard - especially as TV ratings are now moving to include 'anytime-anywhere' measurement.
John, it's hopeless. He doesn't get what a survey is. You are wasting your time.
Just to be clear, "Alternative Facts" per usage are lies.
Is that what you're saying Leonard? Or are you asking if Ed has different data that might offer different or better insight?
Doug, this is just LZ's way of needling me---or so he thinks. LZ is a digital guy who regards Nielsen as the teller of lies---"alternative facts"----since it fails to show data that supports the doomsday vision of the digital Taliban that "linear TV is a dead duck and that everyone who counts---those absolutely precious and affluent Millennials, for instance----has deserted "TV" for digital. In this warped scenario, Nielsen is "wrong"---or "lying"--- because of its "small" sample size. What Nielsen should do is increase its panel to 116 million homes, then, under the supervision of the IAB, it might present the "truth", nalely that Millennials spend virtiually no time with "TV" and do nothing but watch videos on their smartphones. Oddly---or, perehaps, not so oddly, the faithful ---who denounce Nielsen for its "small sample" will sieze upon any study, regardless of sample size, that they, mistakenly, think supports their concept of "the Truth".
Make that "namely" the "truth", not "nalely". We don't want to be accused of presenting "alternative words". As for LZ, it is best to ignore what he writes and look into his heart, instead.
Brilliant, Ed... Particularly the "digital Taliban"... And proves why careful, thoughtful looks at data are so critical - to make certain we're not being misled by "neophilia" (a fascinating word I found in a Rory Sutherland post recently).