Over 50% of Australians consume news online every day. Why is only 1.28% of ad spend from a large media group directed to these same environments?

Over 50% of Australians consume news online every day. Why is only 1.28% of ad spend from a large media group directed to these same environments?

Digital news environments are some of the most popular, valued and engaged with environments in all markets. But according to a large media group CEO, Only 1.28% of his clients media investment goes to news environments online.

This is a big statement.

This media group in 2023 spent $62.6b USD in total media investment on behalf of clients. It is likely the largest media investment source in the world. And based on this ratio their global spend (all markets) was?just $751m in online news environments.

Based on the CEO's testimony that only 5% went into news environments overall, this would mean a little over $3b globally reaches news adjacent placements.?

This is staggering considering the audience volume for news online, for news on TV, for news in podcasts and audio, and news content on online video. News is a primary driver of engagement for all of these mediums. In every market in the world.

The CEO defended this by generalising that clients viewed news as scandal, division, war and politics. Clients didn't want to be in those environments. They preferred sport and entertainment. He claimed they provided "better measurement" and less risk.


According to 2024 research this is just not true.

News adjacency has NO reputational or brand metric risk even in the areas considered by some as divisive. The areas the global media group CEO claimed were higher efficacy (Sport and Entertainment) are within the same score range in the HarrisX/Stagwell 'Future of News' research. It found that across all ranges of demographics - age, gender, income, voting preference - news adjacency had no flow on effect on reputational brand metrics.

Stagwell Future of News research 2024


What we have here is a global media group CEO asserting that the entire media agency world is removing itself from news based off an incorrect assertion. Is this move really client driven? Is it true marketers have mandated their agencies to avoid news at all cost, or at best throw it a collective 1.2% of the budget? And if so, is it time to challenge this?


In Australia, the media group's investment in news environments would be $22m AUD on digital news environments if the global CEO's claim holds for this market.

In this market, the media group in 2023 spend $1.9b AUD on total media. For Australia, if this ratio holds, it means this group is spending around $22m a year of client advertising investment in news environments online.


The gap between a category that is deemed as highly important to 50% of the population, and the 1.28% seems incongruent.

The global CEO blamed advertisers for this low spend allocation. His claim was that advertisers didn’t want to be near war, division, politics or scandal.

The accuracy of this needs to be teased out. Is this really what marketers believe? For one, do they categorise news so bluntly as scandal and division. Do they view environments covering news as unsavoury and low trust to their audiences?

Trusted and distrusted brands: Source Roy Morgan

Secondly, if they indeed do, wouldn’t the same issue of trust apply to all media environments. X, Amazon, TikTok and Meta are some of the most untrusted brands in Australia, meanwhile only one news media brand has a negative trust score in Australia (Sky News) and only one appears on the least trusted brands list overall (Newscorp). 3 of those distrusted media brands are amongst the fastest growing in terms of ad spend globally.


News in Australia is more than just Newscorp, and consumer trust issues for some Newscorp brands shouldn't impact the entire news industry perception in Australia.

For its readers, Newscorp is a trusted brand and so are its mastheads. Some people who don't consume their products may not trust their brands. Both of these things can be true, and avoiding Newscorp's legitimate news environments (of which there are many) because of the perception issues of people who don't read them seems self-defeating.


News consumption in Australia is massive and news is one of the largest categories for digital engagement. The largest properties reach over 50% of the AU 14+ population online

Top 10 news environments in Australia by monthly users - source IPSOS


51% of all Australians are heavy news users, using news more than once a day.

importance of news access, all Australians. Source: University of Canberra


There is high interest in news across demographics, around or more than 50% in Gen Y and older, 55-57% on medium to high income.

Volume of news access, all Australians. Source: University of Canberra


Scandal, war and politics do not define news consumers interests. People visit news environments for loads of reasons - most of which are highly aligned with the ESG values of many brands.

Interest in news topics, by gender all Australians. Source: University of Canberra


News is important to Australian society. It’s highly valued to keep people up to date, help them learn, keep them engaged in societal issues and provide practical information that helps them day to day.

importance of news roles, all Australians. Source: University of Canberra


News brands are widely net positive when it comes to trust. Only Sky News has a net negative trust score.

Trust in news brands, all Australians. Source: University of Canberra


Given all this, 1.28% seems slim. The data is conclusive, news is important to a massive chunk of the population.

Yes, there are parts of the news ecosystem that provide ammunition for incorrect claims like those made by this media group CEO.

The news industry can shoot itself in the foot when it engages in tactics that are way out of step with the values of broader society.

A news organisation funding the defamation defence of an alleged war criminal (and losing) is a bad look. The same organisation paying a proven rapist is a bad look. An opinion writer engaging in a years long tear down of a rape victim is a bad look. Climate change denial after dark on pay TV is not a good look.

But they do not represent the work that 99.9% of news organisations and journalists do every single day, and the value that audiences place on this content.

The major contributor to audience news distrust is exposure to FAKE NEWS.?

University of Canberra research has proven this. Fake news confuses readers. Fake news is rampant across platforms that receive the bulk of ad agency media investment. MFA websites have been found to have been inadvertently supported by ad agencies (and their clients). These are the most powerful drivers of news distrust, and they are predominantly funded by advertisers and their agencies.

The cruel irony here is that as a result of this, legitimate news (which is valued and consumed by the majority of the world) is slowly demonetised by those same businesses who helped create the problem.

On behalf of news brands, I urge marketers to contribute to the discussion here.

Is news an environment you’ve chosen to abandon despite the engagement? Are you aware of the 1.28% allocation outlined by this leading media agency group. Does this feel congruent with the audiences? Do marketers and the brands they represent value these environments and the service they provide readers?

Schalk Van Der Sandt

COO at Annalect Australia

7 个月

If "brand safety" is in fact the reason, and it can be so easily disproved, then it's being sold pretty badly. I expect however that that's a really small part of the decisioning. Of greater consideration would be relative performance across a range of other metrics. I don't think anyone disputes the importance of news to society, but forcing a) other advertisers to fund it or b) brands to advertise on it doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is that perhaps advertising is no longer a viable way to fund this critical public good...

Jonas Manthey

Mediaexpert / Freelance / Interim / KI-Solutions / Brandformance / ROI ON POINT - offen, ehrlich und transparent. Ich bringe Licht nach #Mediamordor und k?mpfe gegen die #Mediatemunisierung

7 个月

The main problem might be related to the booking guidelines every Advertiser is setting up. Everything they don't won't is written down there. Sometimes they exclude news already there. Next possibility, discussion about brand safety. When you / your agency can't guarantee 100% brand safety, they just take off the relevant set publisher. Last possibility, lazy agency. They get their money for spending / booking advertisers money. Less publisher = less work = higher revenue

Justin Randles

Media Recruitment

7 个月

Christian Juhl's comments are absurd but he is not the problem, he's just an agent. I blame CMOs. Marketers regularly cancel their ads from news media when some clown makes a stupid decision (ie, hack people's voicemails), which is fine. Yet the same marketers fall over themselves to throw money at Meta, TikTok et al which do immeasurably more harm every day than the News of the World ever did. CMOs need to think harder about the consequences of their media spend.

Ayesha karamat

Freelance Writer | English Literature Student | Nature Enthusiast | Humanist

7 个月

Interesting point, Ben Shepherd. It's hard to believe advertisers aren't seeing the value in digital news platforms when so many people rely on them daily. By the way your leadership experiences are impressive. As a Community Builder at Executives Diary, I’d love to showcase your career journey in our digital diary format. It's an opportunity to inspire others with your insights

Ben O.

Marketing & Media Leader || mMBA Marketing & Brand Management | Exited Founder

7 个月

Is it perhaps it’s just not a good advertising medium?

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Ben Shepherd的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了