Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Thanks to Poynter Online's Rich Gordon, who linked to this fascinating study. It's a look at the "media consumption" attitudes of 18-34 year olds. Some factlets that should scare the daylights out of traditional-media owners (and traditional-media employees, too):

97% believe online is the same or better than magazines for finding information about products and music. In addition, 83% say reading a story on the Internet is the same or better than reading one in a newspaper, and 67% say that watching a short video clip online is the same or better than watching highlights on television. Longer-format videos compare less favorably online, with 63% sill believing that television is better for watching longer video programming ...

Notably, the Internet is the only medium with net growth in perceived time spent. Forty-seven percent of respondents indicate that they spend more time using the Internet now compared to one year ago. Interestingly, 35% of respondents indicate that they spend less time playing video/PC games and 28% say they spend less time watching television.

Not surprisingly, the Internet is used more for informational purposes, while television is used more for entertainment and relaxation ...

38% of 35 to 54 year-old newspaper readers indicat[e] that reading the newspaper is an important part of their day, compared to only 17% of 18 to 24 year-old readers.

Best,

Michael

Sounds about right to me...

Posted by: Michael on May 11, 2005 5:54 PM

All sounds about right. I'm particularly heartened that TV and video games are--at least, in terms of perception--decreasing their hold on time. I like both, but too many people spend too much mind-numbing (TV) or reality-disconnecting (both) time with them.

I would reluctantly have to agree with the 97% who say online is better than magazines. I love magazines; a well-organized, well-designed magazine is a joy to browse or read, far easier and far more fun than most web sites. However, the things you can't easily find on a newstand, and the prohibitive cost of magazines vs. the internet (particularly if you're going to pay for a web connection anyway), and the fact that, online, there's always more to read--well, it's hard to see how the 'net isn't ultimately better. But still, the tactile, the self-contained completeness...sigh.

Posted by: Scott Cunning on May 12, 2005 6:38 AM

Yeah: must be terrifying to people in the various media businesses, especially given the difficulties of making money from distributing content online.

You've got me thinking too: the Web is more like a magazine store than a single magazine. Endless browsing bliss. On the other hand: where's the coherence? It's fun that a reading-and-browsing session can take on its own shape. But sometimes you do want an experience that's been structured by someone else. Or I do anyway.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 12, 2005 11:00 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?