Welcome to the latest edition of State of the Screens 

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes [542 words]

Please forward this to friends and encourage them to sign up here. 

Onward,

Michael Beach

Pour One Out for Addressable Linear TV

The big picture: Addressable linear TV ads were supposed to save television. After 10+ years, they went nowhere. I haven't written about them in 280 weeks. Nobody noticed.

Why it matters: Targeting is one of the most valuable ideas in advertising. Linear TV had it first and couldn't cash in.

Let's break it down into 4 big questions:
1) How large is the addressable linear TV market?
2) Why did it fail?
3) Why is targeting important?
4) What's next?

How large is the addressable linear TV market?

Addressable linear TV spend (eMarketer):
1) 2016 - $758M
2) 2021 - $1.8B (↑ 135%)
3) 2026 - $1.8B (↑ 3%)

Not good: Inflation grew 7X faster than addressable linear TV ad spend over the past 5 years. If this market had kept pace with inflation, it would be worth $2.2B today. In real terms, the market is shrinking.

Increase between 2021-26:
1) Inflation - ↑ 21%
2) Addressable linear TV spend - ↑ 3%

Addressable share of linear TV ad spend:
1) 2015 - 1%
2) 2020 - 3%
3) 2025 - 4%

Assuming virtually all addressable TV ad spend is against cable inventory, then it would account for 8% of the total.

Addressable share of cable TV ad spend:
1) 2020 - 6%
2) 2025 - 8%

Why did it fail?

Two main reasons. First, cord-cutting radically lowered the subscriber base. The pay-TV companies (Comcast, Spectrum, etc.) were the only ones who could deliver addressable linear TV. 30M+ households cut the cord between 2010 and 2025, lowering the market opportunity.

Pay-TV households:
1) 2015 - 99M
2) 2020 - 86M (↓ 13%)
3) 2025 - 68M (↓ 20%)

Second, inventory owners (broadcasters, cable networks, etc.) either did not open up their inventory or made the process unworkable.

The chart below is old (2019), but it shows the challenge.  Roughly 3% of linear TV ad impressions are addressable.

Why is targeting important?

It is a win-win for both ad buyer and seller. The buyer reaches the right people for less. The seller charges more for a better ad. Both win.

To see it, you have to change the number you look at. The invoice shows a CPM, the price to reach 1,000 people. But the number that matters is the eCPM, the price to reach 1,000 of the right people. If only half the people watching are your buyers, your real cost doubles. If your target is 5% of the population, your eCPM is 20X your CPM.

Here's what a $20 untargeted CPM actually costs across different advertiser categories:
1) Pet owners - $28
2) Beer drinkers - $53
3) New car buyers - $168
4) Home buyers - $539  

Same $20 CPM. Wildly different effective prices. The audience you target determines the price you pay.

Why this matters: Pet food brands can afford to reach everyone. Car dealers and realtors cannot. And the further you move down that list, the more a 'cheap' ad buy is wasting your money.

Bottom line: Broad targeted campaigns look cost-effective (lower CPMs), but are actually incredibly expensive once you convert to an eCPM.

What's next?

TV advertising will be addressable, but streaming is the one making it a reality.

Increase between 2017-26:
1) Addressable linear TV - ↑ 89%
2) Streaming TV - ↑ 1,263%

What do you think of today's newsletter?

Login or Subscribe to participate

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Keep Reading