The McKinsey Quarterly reported today (June 7, 2005) that teenagers spend 2.4 hours per day, on average, on the Internet. They spend 1.9 hours a day watching television. This alone should give media executives cause for concern, but a more troubling item is that when teens are watching television, they are also multitasking, which means that while they're online, they may have the television on, but they aren't watching it closely. With that in mind, how valuable is that 1.9 hours they do spend watching television to advertisers?

In a pattern similar to that seen in the newspaper industry, network television has seen an increase in advertising revenue while facing a slump in viewership. Between 1994 and 2003 advertising spending grew from a little more than $5 billion to right around $7 billion. During the same time period prime time viewership dropped from 45 million to a little more than 25 million.

One wonders why advertising executives continue to pour money into television. Is it simply a case of inertia or risk aversion? They're sticking with what they know. Or is television advertising still (relatively speaking) that much more effective than other forms of media that the price differential is justified?