Commentary
FAST Channels Are One Key To Maximizing Reach
- by Karlene Lukovitz @KLmarketdaily, November 2, 2023
Inclusion of free, ad-supported streaming/FAST channels is one of several characteristics shared by 70% of the multiscreen TV campaigns that achieve the greatest reach.
That’s according to the first-half 2023 edition of the TV Viewership Report from Effectv, Comcast Cable’s ad sales division, based on analysis of 40,000 multiscreen campaigns using both traditional TV and streaming during the period. Comcast aggregated viewership data and ad exposure data from TV and Effectv campaigns was used.
Analysis of the 1,000 highest-reaching campaigns found that 88% included FAST channels, 96% included news content, and 80% included sports content.
In addition, 98% included impressions
across dayparts; 90% included more than 20 traditional TV networks; 83% had more than 90 streaming endpoints (unique publisher and device viewership combinations); 78% were on air for more than 90% of
the month; and 76% streamed on at least two devices, with 40% streaming on four or more.
advertisement
advertisement
The analysis also found that while streaming-only’s share of reach increased from 9% in second-half 2021 to 13% in 1H 2023, traditional TV still accounted for 77% of multiscreen campaign reach, on average.
Streaming impressions overall were found to be 4.6 times more likely than traditional TV impressions to be seen within light and no-TV viewing households.
FAST impressions reached 85% of those households, making them 10.6 times more likely to be seen, while VOD impressions reached 25% of them.
Effectv also confirmed and reiterated its previous finding that multiscreen campaigns’ reach peak when 20% to 30% of a campaign’s investment is in streaming.
The analysis found 81% of streaming time occurring on a TV screen, with 48% of impressions viewed through connected TV, 33% on set-top boxes, 13% on mobile and 6% on desktop.
Households were found to spend nearly six hours per day (5 hours, 56 minutes), on average, watching traditional TV.
Live viewing accounted for 89% of that time, and cable for 68%. Nearly two thirds (72%) of viewing was outside prime time. On average, households viewed 28
networks.
Karlene Lukovitz is editor of MediaPost's "Digital News Daily" and writes the weekly "Video Insider" and "Advanced TV Insider" columns. You can reach her at karlene@mediapost.com.
As usual, this kind of research needs some context and expalations. For example, I believe that it is based on a panel of cable subscribers---which may not be representative of the total population.Also, the data appears to be based on set usage not viewing and if so, this creates some issues in interpretation.
A basic issue is the definition of reach. If a TV set is tuned in to a show when a commercial is on -screen, the home is "reached" no matter who---if anybody---- is present, let alone looking at the screen. Typically, households with many residents---adults aged 25-55 with several children are much more likely to be heavy users of TV than those with a single resident or only two--most of whom are older adults without any children present. And, light viewing households go in the other direction--often 1-2 member homes and mostly older adult residents. But this does not mean that the residents of a heavy viewing household are, themeslves, heavy viewers. Indeed, tallies tell us that in many heavy viewing households with 3+ members, the individual adults are moderate to lighter viewers while in many light viewing homes their older residents tend to watch more TV than the norm.
In other words, a household may use its TV sets more often than the norm because so many more people reside in that home and its heavy usage reflects the combined viewing of all household members. In conrast, many light viewing homes are less frequent users of TV because they have only a single resident or, sometimes two. Yet these may watch TV far more frequently than their large family adult counterparts. Whereas the former tend to be home most ofthe day and have no child caring responsibilities, the latter---adults in heavy viewing homes with many kids or teens, often are gainfully employed outside their homes and their offspring keep them quite busy when they are home---so they have less time for TV.
My point is that set usage is a very misleading surrogate for individual viewing. Accordingly, I wouldn't go overboard in accepting these findings without verifying them froma source that measures viewing as well as set usage.
Make that "explanations" not "expalations" in the first sentence of my last post.Sigh!