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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?