Movie goers vs. Non-movie goers media consumption
According to an article in Advertising Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=124804) about who consumes more media: movie-goers or non-movie goers, research has shown that movie-goers have a " 'Voracious appetite' "What we found here is that they look for those opportunities to consume media no matter what happens," said Tamara Gaffney, director-client services, IMMI. "They seem to have a voracious appetite that doesn't end -- the extent to which they're consuming media is surprising." " It is interesting to study the consumption between the two groups especially since the obvious assumption would be that non-movie goers have more time to consume more media than those who attend movies frequently. The consumption of movie-goers ages 13-24 may be suprising but it is a reflection of their lifestyles. I think this study shows something that may have been flying underneath the radar for some advertisers. Movie-goers usually send red alerts to media planners because this audience is choosing a medium with limited advertising exposure (besides product placement). It was emphasized throughout the article that the target audience (age 13-24) are easily entertained but hard to judge. Therefore, this is necessary information/research to media planners because they know they have an attainable audience but their advertising messages must be efficient and effective because of " a short attention span" for this age group. This research has also presented an obstacle for advertisers because now they need to reach that passive audience of non-movie goers. This can be a problem because this audience is not consuming one of the most highly publicized outdoor mediums (movies). Is it because they are avoiding advertising? Why are they not actively participating in a medium with limited advertising(besides product placement)? How does one reach such a passive audience that possibly have more leisure time? The exposure of this information maybe presenting new focus for some advertising campaigns. Utilize the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) method for those with that "voracious appetite" because you may have their attention but not for long; and find out how to innovatively reach a passive audience that are not easily moved despite the theatrics of the cinema.
posted by Ashley Brunson-Jones @ 11:00 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I agree that it is a challenge to reach people who don't consume as much media. I don't know if comparing movie goers to non-movie goers is going to help come up with a solution, but it is an interesting find. I don't think that there are huge advertising opportunities in movies, other than for upcoming movies and passive product placements, so I am not sure it is something to worry about. There are so many other ways to reach people who aren't consuming as much media. If it is effective, that's a whole other story.
I think in general, exposure time for advertisers using traditional mediums is getting smaller and smaller anyway. I doubt that anyone on in our field would deny that our generation especially is becoming more and more passive to advertising and learning to literally just tune it out. We’ve all studied how it takes more money and more time to reach a smaller audience than ever before. I really think over the next couple years were going to see a large push from the tradition to the non-traditional as well as integrated promotions and possibly mediums we haven’t even though of yet.
Not to make a huge generalization, but I would assume that those who fit into the non-movie goers genre are most likely to be working professionals with very limited free time and very little knowledge of the upcoming slate of movies. Take my uncle, for example. He's a former VP of a national company, a current founder of his own business, and someone that doesn't know there were 3 Spiderman movies released in the last five years or that the book he was reading, The Bourne Ultimatum, was also a huge film. Although this may be bad news for the movie-advertising relationship, it doesn't mean that this audience isn't exempt from advertising. Put an ad in any newspaper or popular business-related magazine and I am sure you will get their attention.
I agree that non-movie goers may not consume as much medium as movie-goers because of time restraints, but we must not forget that the target audience for this study was 13-24 which may rule out the ideal professional like a V.P. of a company, who may not have time to go to a movie. What made this study interesting is that non-movie goers 13-24 weren't consuming as much media as those who took the time to go to the movies. Which could leave advertisers to question lifestyle & choices of that age group. So to only add to my blog I would like to emphasize the fact that non-movie goers, ages
13-24 can be considered more passive than those who actively participate in out-of-home media, like the movies.
Great post and discussion. Movie goers are an upscale crowd, with a movie now costing $10 in some urban areas -- or at least their parents are wealthy. So this is a group that is willing to pay for entertainment. Problem is, the most savvy moviegoers HATE the ads before the show. I think this study points to the reason that product placement has become such a large part of movie revenues -- product placements are about brand image and association, not hard sell, which this group really dislikes!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home