"Internet Advertising overtakes TV"... Ah? Yes? But maybe not! Such a catchy headline may hide an attribution fallacy.
To compare advertising online revenue with that from one offline media only (TV, print, etc.) could be seriously misleading. Let's see.
Revenue statistics include Internet revenue from legacy media in the global Internet revenue, whereas to make things clear and relevant, revenue from the media on the net should be included (added to) in the total revenue of the media itself.
Among Internet advertising revenues, how much comes from the legacy media which publish their content on the web, on varied social networks? With few exceptions, Internet by itself is barely a media, it is more of a distributor, like cable, telcos or satellite (cf. MVPD). And there is often even no real content, no curation, no journalists, no fact checking. Easy!
To build comparative statistics, shouldn't Internet revenues include only the so-called "pure players"? And if so, this would certainly change the picture...
For everything to make sense, shouldn't we be able to distinguish at least four separate aggregates for advertising revenues:
- Revenues from the Internet reduced to pure players
- Revenues from the legacy media distributed online
- Revenues from the legacy media distributed offline (newsstand, over-the-air...)
- and, of course, finally, a total (off + online) for each media: total TV, total press, total outdoor, total radio
For the time being, as far as one knows, this data is not available. Meanwhile, let's note that to compare one media with the total Internet is an unfair fallacy for the media ; it adds to the usual celebration of the web and diminishes the image of TV. Since, in fact, what is the Internet without the media? Not much! Conversations, opinions, and moreover, sometimes fake information, clickbait...... L'empire des doxosophes ?
|Source : European Audiovisual Observatory, November 21, 2016.|
* On the same topic, in French: Im-pertinences de la terminologie média