The Internet: Bigger than cable

The Internet: Bigger than cable
: The Internet is now bigger than cable, according to eMarketer (via MediaPost and LostRemote).

…eMarketer now estimates U.S. household Internet penetration is about 67.9 percent. That compares with a 65.8 percent U.S. household penetration level for cable, according to an eMarketer analysis of Nielsen Media Research and U.S. Census data.

More significantly, Ramsey noted that while cable TV penetration has essentially been flat at about 66 percent of U.S. households, online penetration continues to expand….

  • http://www.pubfiction.blogdns.net/blog/KingsHeid/ tja

    Ah, but where to put those dollars?
    And how to advertise without being offensive and intrusive?
    Every internet site is a channel in itself, so there are millions as opposed to tens. But they are not speedy, streaming channels, like cable, and each page will likely sit unchanged on your terminal until you go somewhere else. And then when you get there, and some large commercial obtrudes, you quickly go somewhere else, quieter.
    Lot of money to be made and dispensed by whoever finds an acceptable modus for internet commercials.

  • http://www.pacificafund.com/blog Tim Oren

    Jeff – just as a point of reference, what’s the current household penetration of daily (paid) newspapers? And what’s the share of free distribution community papers? I’m guessing you know those by heart…

  • Charlie Sierra

    Whenever I see the word “should”, I shudder.
    Please don’t make me shudder. vbg.
    FoxNews pulls bigger numbers than CNN, but fails to collect more ad dollars. Is that as it “should” be?
    TV is not an interactive platform and therefore the modus-operandi of the “interuption” industry works quite well.
    On the NET, us poor little users stuck out in fly-over country with our modest capabilities to control our browsers (for only the time being, I’m afraid) are quite happy to avoid the “interuptions”.
    Given the fallout from the Fall TV season demos I fully expect to annoyed in the future.
    Thus, I’d say the current ad numbers are as they should be.

  • http://www.gapingvoid.com hugh macleod

    “The internet is not TV.”
    People say they believe that, but a lot of people are lying.

  • Tim

    Cable and the Internet are different. The Net is a data pipeline coming into your house that you can use for a million different things, while cable is at most 100-300 channels that you watch. The impact of cable on a viewer is still much greater than the Internet, so media buyers should NOT spend more money on Internet advertising.
    The Internet needs to evolve even more — I don’t think I’ve clicked on a single ad or paid attention to a single commercial mention in the past 3 years.
    But your larger point is well-taken. I just want to see the networks bite the dust.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Tim:
    Here are penetration figures for verious media:
    http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/penetration/

  • http://www.pacificafund.com/blog Tim Oren

    Thanks, figured there had to be some famous place…

  • http://www.bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Cable subscriptions have been flat for a while, not because the Internet is stealing eyeballs but because satellite is. When you add the satellite numbers into the picture, you see what’s really been going on, why Comcast wants Disney, and the key to understanding life on this planet in the 21st Century.
    It’s also the case that people spend more time watching tv than surfing the web, and a whole lot of them poor suckers with tv sets don’t have TiVo.
    So don’t get too excited, yet.
    I connect to the Internet through cable, but watch TV through satellite. I wonder where I show up in the data.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Hell, this poor sucker has a tv that doesn’t have cable or satellite, and my antenna doesn’t bring in most channels too well. But I do have cable internet. I still hate ads though, except for that Hewlett Packard flash pong ad from a few years back, that was cool.

  • http://www.bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    The comparison of homes with cable TV vs. Internet access of any kind is totally misleading. If we want an apples-to-apples comparison, let’s look at homes with TV (over 90%) and homes with Internet (67%), or compare homes with either cable or satellite TV (over 75%, probably) to those with “broadband” Internet (cable or DSL), which is probably around 30%.
    And if we want to talk about ads, we have to factor in how many have TiVo and Pop-up stoppers and other ad suppressors.
    Some genius should put a site together for people who *want* to look at ads because they’re in a shopping mode or crazy or something, then they could stop trying to stuff crap ads down your throat when you’d rather not be bothered. It amazes me how rude advertisers can be, and how clueless they are about how consumers react to intrusive marketing.

  • http://www.teevee.org/ Jason Snell

    Very misleading. In 2001 15% of American homes had satellite TV. Add that in and it’s 80 percent for cable/satellite TV. So Jes Santoro needs to come down a bit. :-)