Perspectives on Television in Words and Numbers

Foreword

Gatherings of the good and great in television can at times verge on the maudlin.

Television and crisis are mentioned in the same breath. Past glories trump today's successes. Glamorous, little-viewed imports are lauded; home-grown productions boasting double the viewers are ignored. The poster children of new media are proclaimed as the industry's reaper. Yes – we often hear that things are not as good as they were, it seems the grass is always greener on someone else's turf. But are they and is it?

Yet the UK television industry has had a robust year since the last Edinburgh. Against a background of debate positing pay versus free-to-air both business models have performed well. While some imported content continues to triumph – especially among critics – it is home-grown productions that pull in the 10 million plus audiences week after week.

Television has resisted competition from new and traditional media for its advertising revenues, its premium content subscriptions, its audiences and even its highly produced approach.

User-generated content, which had been regarded five years back as one of traditional television's biggest threats, has largely been consigned to the thinnest end of the long tail. Online television has proved more supportive than disruptive to broadcast television. Social media has so far proven to be a powerful ally in raising awareness of television's most compelling content.

Television's resilience over the last 12 months and before is a credit to its unrelenting (and often unnoticed) innovation. It is easy to overlook just how much has changed in the UK television sector in the last decade.

In 2000, plasma televisions were the playthings of the super-wealthy; flat panel televisions are now ubiquitous and often vast. A decade back, personal video recorders (PVRs) were on the cusp of launching; they are now in close to half of all UK homes.

At the start of the millennium, digital satellite was just two years young and Channel Five just three; high definition, now in millions of homes, was six years from launching; broadcaster on-demand services were wishful thinking. And as for reality television – well that was just an experiment.

Television's got talent, as we asserted last year and in this year's report we provide five essays in words and numbers on the ways in which television shows its strengths, to varying degrees.

Firstly we discuss television's role in 2010's general election, the first ever to be shaped by televised debates among the Prime Ministerial candidates. Next, we provide a current and historical view of the perception and usage of television-on-demand. This is followed by a discussion of how social media's and social networks' current synergistic relationship with television may evolve over the medium-term. Fourthly we look at the UK public's attitudes to advertising across 4 screens: cinema, television, computer and mobile phone. Finally, we take a look forward to the anticipated introduction of product placement.

We hope you find our perspectives stimulating and that you enjoy this year's Edinburgh.

In words. Television and the election: Was it television what hung it?

2010 will likely be considered a seminal year in UK politics. Not just for the change of government (only the second in 31 years) or for the coalition that resulted, but because it featured the first ever televised leaders' debate.

The UK thus followed the precedent set by radio in 1924 when it broadcast 20 minute speeches by leaders of the political parties: that election also resulted in a hung Parliament1. The UK was also following the US' example, albeit five decades later. More recent adopters of the televised pre-election debate include Mongolia and Afghanistan2.

The impact of televised debates has, in other countries and other times, been significant – enough, arguably, to settle an election in favour of an underdog. One US president remarked: "We wouldn't have had a prayer without that gadget"3.

More recent adopters of the televised pre-election debate include Mongolia and Afghanistan.

The debates were thus much anticipated, not just among political parties, but also among media analysts. The election had wider significance for the media industry as it was expected to expose fundamental shifts in influence.

In the 1992 and 1997 election, newspapers were generally considered as having had a significant influence on voting intentions4. But over the past two decades, the published press, measured by readership and sales, has been in decline. Television has largely held steady, in terms of hours viewed, viewers and revenues – but what about influence? 2010 was also to be the first ever social media election, and a chorus of pundits foresaw a Web 2.0 election, with more inclusive, more nimble social media and social networks driving the agenda5.

The election results, at first glance, suggest that the televised debates – and arguably television writ large – ultimately had little impact on the outcome of the election, despite the massive impact that the debates had on stated voting intentions during the course of the campaign.

The Liberal Democrat's share rose eight percentage points to 30 percent following the first debate on April 15; its support was still at 28 percent the day after the final debate6. Yet in the election, the Liberal Democrats won 23 percent of the vote, similar to the 2005 result, but ended up with fewer seats. Labour, which was generally regarded as having fared less well in the debates, was polling 28 percent of voting intentions on the day of the first debate, but ended up one percentage point in the election itself7. And the gap between those planning to vote Conservative on 15 April and the election outcome of 36.1 percent was less than one percent.

Looking at the outcome, television appears to have mattered little: once in the voting booth the electorate reverted to their earlier instincts, shrugging off the impressions that the televised debates had earlier made on them.

However a poll undertaken for this report showed that television's role in the election was arguably more significant than superficial8. Television was not only a major source of information for voters but it also shaped voting intentions, with its impact often strongest among the younger people

Television dominated as a source of information: three quarters of respondents used TV to learn more about the election9. National newspapers were the second most popular source, used by half the population; social networks and blogs were used by just 9 percent of those polled (see Figure 1).

The impact of televised debates has, in other countries and other times, been significant – enough, arguably, to settle an election in favour of an underdog.Television was considered by two fifths of respondents as the news source that presented election issues most fairly10.

In joint second, on a mere 7 percent, were national newspapers, national radio and discussions with friends and family. Television was also the dominant influence on voting intention. Of those polled for the report, two fifths regarded TV as having had "the greatest influence on [their] ultimate voting intention". National newspapers were most influential among just 11 percent.

Among those who had watched television to learn more about the election and considering the TV formats covering the election, the Prime Ministerial debates were considered as most likely to have had "an influence on [their] voting decision", with the impact strongest amongst the youngest voters and women.

Focusing on respondents who had watched the debate – about 45 percent of the overall sample – over half stated that the debates had had "an impact on the way [they] chose to vote". The debates' impact was strongest on a proportional basis among younger voters (see Figure 2).

... over half stated that the debates had had "an impact on the way [they] chose to vote".

Among those who said the debate had an impact on the way they chose to vote, the most common resulting impact was to re-affirm or confirm support for a particular party11. But of those impacted by the debates, 12 percent said they had changed their vote as a result, and 7 percent decided to vote when previously they had planned to abstain12 (see Figure 3). These individuals represent a small proportion (2.8 percent and 1.6 percent respectively) of the entire sample; on a national scale, this might only make a difference in marginal seats where a small incremental swing made the difference between one party winning or losing.

However, it is unlikely that television significantly changed the election result. The longer-term trend of a gradual decline in support for Labour since its landslide victory in 1997 and the massive swing required for a Conservative majority made a hung Parliament the most likely outcome.

Television's biggest impact was to offer, in the form of the debates, a relatively unfiltered view of the leaders to the general public. Newspapers, by contrast, typically apply a degree of editorial to their coverage

As for social media's impact on television, while Web 2.0 featured, it was not Web 2.0's election in that there were no major events in the election that were precipitated by either social networks or social media. Rather Web 2.0 served mostly to amplify and complement news events created on other media13, typically television.

It was television that captured the biggest scoops during the election; these events were then discussed online via platforms including YouTube which proved to be an excellent medium for further distributing the election's most memorable moments from the campaign14. The only major story relating to content originating on social media referenced tweets posted back in 200915 rather than during the election campaign itself.

And in stark numbers, Web 2.0's impact paled relative to television's. The debates generated an aggregate of 22 million views over...