"Advertising has not migrated to television".
Contrary to popular belief, media economist Gabriele Siegert sees neither a disproportionate decline in advertising volume nor a weakness in the print medium.
Contrary to popular opinion, media economist Gabriele Siegert recognizes neither a disproportionate loss of advertising volumes nor a weakness of the print genre.WW Publigroupe estimates that 70 to 80 percent of the advertising volume that the Swiss press has lost since 2000 will return. CEO Hans-Peter Rohner believes that the press has lost the remaining 20 to 30 percent. Share this
Opinion?
Gabriele Siegert: That implies that these 20 to 30 percent were absorbed by other types of media. I don't see that confirmed on the basis of net sales. No advertising money has migrated, neither to television nor to radio. Rather, it seems to be the case that these sums have been saved. This means that these funds are flowing back again, including into print, as soon as companies invest more money in advertising again.
Market shares are not shifting?
If so, then only very slowly. Incidentally, the frequent comparison with the extraordinary boom year of 2000 is downright fatal because it almost always results in a loss.
But TV has gained market share.
This may be the case for the total volume of advertising investment, but net TV advertising sales have not increased significantly. At most, the distribution of the advertising pie has changed slightly. The fact is that savings have generally been made. And since print accounts for a large proportion of advertising expenditure in Switzerland, it is logical that print loses the most volume in nominal terms in a general round of savings.
Is saving money really the only reason for the absence of advertising in the print media? The prevailing opinion is still that advertising is shifting further into TV.
This approach already exists in communication science, but a long-term continuous shift depends on the respective TV landscape. In Switzerland, people still read a lot, so this shift will certainly not take place to the same extent as in Germany, France or even Italy. Communication science can explain this shift towards TV: Emotional content can be conveyed much better on TV than in print. And since many products are now only differentiated by their status or image, but hardly by their functional benefits, it is not only emotional aspects that are becoming more important in advertising - but also TV as a transport channel.
So you interpret the withdrawal of advertising from the print media as a loss of trust?
No, I don't see anything to suggest that. Print has certain qualities, for example, particularly affluent target groups can only be reached via this channel. Such advantages remain.
To what extent do advertising losses in print media also have to do with crumbling readership figures?
Once again: If the economy saves money, even better readership figures won't change anything. Of course, a lower reach can result in lower revenues. However, this correlation only applies to individual titles or, at best, groups of titles, but not to a media genre. With one exception: when more far-reaching trends emerge. If, for example, daily newspapers lose young readers to free newspapers, even in the long term, they will face massive problems in four to five years because there will be a lack of future subscribers.
Would this then also lead to a greater loss of market share for print - or only to shifts from the daily to the digital press?
Free newspapers?
First and foremost to shifts within the print genre. In Germany, for example, fewer and fewer young people are turning to newspapers. A shift towards TV, as has happened there, will naturally lead to a loss of market share for print in the long term.
Lower revenues have forced print media to make savings. Is quality suffering as a result?
That would have to be analyzed in terms of content. Based on my personal and academic experience, I have to say no. Cuts are not immediately noticeable, but over time they lead to a loss of quality.
Does the absence of advertisements drive consumers even more to abstain from consumption?
Consumer behavior would not change significantly in the short term, but in the longer term it would plummet, for example because brands would be forgotten. As a result, price, for example, would become the decisive criterion in the actual act of purchase - and no longer image or other values. Incidentally, many media users would not initially be saddened if advertisements were to disappear. In the longer term, however, they would probably miss them. This is because there are now findings from research according to which young people are less and less able to follow a 90-minute movie for the entire duration. Some are no longer able to concentrate for so long, they really need the interruption ads.
According to Mach Basic 2003, print seems to be gaining strength again. Why?
Because media consumption habits don't change that quickly. People who are used to getting their information from the newspaper may stop for a while, for example to save money, but in the long term this reader is missing something.
How do you explain the widening gap between falling
Circulation and rising or at least constant readership figures?
I can only assume that this is due to individual cost-cutting measures: People have replaced individual print titles. In other words, they still have a need for information. But their willingness to pay for it has decreased.
Gabriele Siegert is a professor at the Institute for Journalism and Media Research at the University of Zurich.
Interview: Markus Knöpfli
Opinion?
Gabriele Siegert: That implies that these 20 to 30 percent were absorbed by other types of media. I don't see that confirmed on the basis of net sales. No advertising money has migrated, neither to television nor to radio. Rather, it seems to be the case that these sums have been saved. This means that these funds are flowing back again, including into print, as soon as companies invest more money in advertising again.
Market shares are not shifting?
If so, then only very slowly. Incidentally, the frequent comparison with the extraordinary boom year of 2000 is downright fatal because it almost always results in a loss.
But TV has gained market share.
This may be the case for the total volume of advertising investment, but net TV advertising sales have not increased significantly. At most, the distribution of the advertising pie has changed slightly. The fact is that savings have generally been made. And since print accounts for a large proportion of advertising expenditure in Switzerland, it is logical that print loses the most volume in nominal terms in a general round of savings.
Is saving money really the only reason for the absence of advertising in the print media? The prevailing opinion is still that advertising is shifting further into TV.
This approach already exists in communication science, but a long-term continuous shift depends on the respective TV landscape. In Switzerland, people still read a lot, so this shift will certainly not take place to the same extent as in Germany, France or even Italy. Communication science can explain this shift towards TV: Emotional content can be conveyed much better on TV than in print. And since many products are now only differentiated by their status or image, but hardly by their functional benefits, it is not only emotional aspects that are becoming more important in advertising - but also TV as a transport channel.
So you interpret the withdrawal of advertising from the print media as a loss of trust?
No, I don't see anything to suggest that. Print has certain qualities, for example, particularly affluent target groups can only be reached via this channel. Such advantages remain.
To what extent do advertising losses in print media also have to do with crumbling readership figures?
Once again: If the economy saves money, even better readership figures won't change anything. Of course, a lower reach can result in lower revenues. However, this correlation only applies to individual titles or, at best, groups of titles, but not to a media genre. With one exception: when more far-reaching trends emerge. If, for example, daily newspapers lose young readers to free newspapers, even in the long term, they will face massive problems in four to five years because there will be a lack of future subscribers.
Would this then also lead to a greater loss of market share for print - or only to shifts from the daily to the digital press?
Free newspapers?
First and foremost to shifts within the print genre. In Germany, for example, fewer and fewer young people are turning to newspapers. A shift towards TV, as has happened there, will naturally lead to a loss of market share for print in the long term.
Lower revenues have forced print media to make savings. Is quality suffering as a result?
That would have to be analyzed in terms of content. Based on my personal and academic experience, I have to say no. Cuts are not immediately noticeable, but over time they lead to a loss of quality.
Does the absence of advertisements drive consumers even more to abstain from consumption?
Consumer behavior would not change significantly in the short term, but in the longer term it would plummet, for example because brands would be forgotten. As a result, price, for example, would become the decisive criterion in the actual act of purchase - and no longer image or other values. Incidentally, many media users would not initially be saddened if advertisements were to disappear. In the longer term, however, they would probably miss them. This is because there are now findings from research according to which young people are less and less able to follow a 90-minute movie for the entire duration. Some are no longer able to concentrate for so long, they really need the interruption ads.
According to Mach Basic 2003, print seems to be gaining strength again. Why?
Because media consumption habits don't change that quickly. People who are used to getting their information from the newspaper may stop for a while, for example to save money, but in the long term this reader is missing something.
How do you explain the widening gap between falling
Circulation and rising or at least constant readership figures?
I can only assume that this is due to individual cost-cutting measures: People have replaced individual print titles. In other words, they still have a need for information. But their willingness to pay for it has decreased.
Gabriele Siegert is a professor at the Institute for Journalism and Media Research at the University of Zurich.
Interview: Markus Knöpfli
