The University of Notre Dame found that traditional television ads are much less effective than advertisers believed. Advertisers still plan to spend $139 billion on linear TV ads this year, while they expect $33 billion for streaming and connected TV.
Researchers used viewing data from LG smart TVs and linked it to purchases on a food delivery app. They studied millions of people who opted in over four months and looked at broadcast networks such as NBC and ABC. The study found that older measurement methods give too high estimates of ad effects and that timing and buyer history help explain who responds to TV ads.
Difficult words
- advertiser — A company or person who pays for adsAdvertisers
- linear — A TV service with scheduled broadcast programs
- streaming — Watching video over the internet at any time
- measurement — A method to check and report results
- opt in — To agree to join or take partopted in
- broadcast — A TV or radio signal sent to many people
Tip: hover, focus or tap highlighted words in the article to see quick definitions while you read or listen.
Discussion questions
- Do you watch more linear TV or streaming services? Why?
- Have you ever bought something after seeing a TV ad? What did you buy?
- Do you think companies should use smart TV data to study ads? Why or why not?
Related articles
AI expands sexual and reproductive health access in Latin America
Research groups in Peru and Argentina use AI tools to give sexual and reproductive health information to young and marginalised people. Experts praise potential but warn of bias and call for better data, rules and oversight.
Latin American groups build AI to study gender violence
Groups in Latin America create open, local AI tools to study gender inequalities and violence. Projects like AymurAI search court documents, protect sensitive data on local servers and help governments and civil society with evidence.
UNESCO report finds gaps in education data
A UNESCO report published on 27 April finds important gaps in education data from poorer countries. It reviewed primary and secondary data in 120 countries but under‑represented low‑income nations and found no science assessment data in low‑income countries.