If research institutes funded by broadcast TV admitted that it has less viewership than YouTube, wouldn’t they lose their sponsors?

One of the weakest types of media research is the one based on interviews. These surveys rely on an absolutely fragile input: human memory. In contrast, studies that evaluate behavior through electronic means deliver far more consistent results, since they don’t depend on the respondent’s feelings or recollections, but on recorded reality.

So-called “behavioral stalker” research models, in which data is collected by continuous observation of groups—almost like a “Big Brother camera” on people—are able to objectively measure time use and attention. In these analyses, it becomes clear that the hours dedicated to the smartphone, to YouTube on the phone, and to other streaming services far outweigh the consumption of broadcast TV.

Furthermore, admitting that broadcast TV is less relevant would be real poison for research institutes funded by it. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. Not by chance, when the possibility of including YouTube in surveys first arose, there was strong pressure from the TV giant on the equally giant research institute. The mere inclusion of this metric would bring complications, since it would reveal to the public the true strength of YouTube.

Have you ever stopped to think that people glued to their smartphones—at work, at leisure, in between classes—are most likely watching some video right now, just a few meters away from you? Are you really sure there are more people around you watching broadcast TV than consuming TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube?

Do the test: step into a classroom, a bar, or a restaurant. Observe people within five meters. How many will be watching videos on their smartphones, and how many will be facing a conventional TV screen?

Now look at yourself: when you get home, or even on the way there, which screen takes up more hours of your day—the phone or the TV? It’s worth doing the math. And when everyone does this calculation, they will realize they spend far more time in front of their smartphone than their TV. This is a crucial point: if reality shows this, how can we still trust this flood of surveys that insist broadcast TV remains, by a wide margin, the leader of our attention?

Condensing our considerations, we have 4 main axes:

1. The gap between perception and realityTraditional audience surveys, especially those commissioned by major broadcast TV players, often measure consumption habits through interviews and recollections. The problem is that this relies on the respondent’s memory and self-image, not objective data. In practice, when people stop to reflect on their own day, they realize they spend much more time in front of the phone than the TV. It’s a perception shock: the feeling of “I still watch a lot of TV” doesn’t match the actual time spent.

2. The conflict of interestAcknowledging this shift is not in the interest of the TV industry itself or the institutes that depend on it. If official research began to show that TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram take up more screen hours than TV, this would reduce the bargaining power of TV with advertisers. Therefore, there is a clear economic motivation to maintain the narrative of TV as the “undisputed leader” of public attention.

3. The criterion of qualified attentionEven if broadcast TV still reaches large audiences at certain times (soap operas, newscasts, sports events), the attention given to it is not as “engaged” as that on the phone. The smartphone concentrates active choices: people click, interact, comment, share. TV, on the other hand, is often passive consumption, turned on as “background sound and image.” In other words, it’s not enough to measure who “has the TV on”—it’s necessary to measure how much that actually captures and holds attention.

4. The generational shiftIf we ask teenagers and young adults to do the same calculation, TV practically disappears from the hours graph. This shows that the change is not just temporary: it is structural and generational. We are talking about a definitive displacement of media centrality, something that may be irreversible.

It is always important to understand how high-impact data is collected and how the institutes conducting these surveys are affected by the very results they publish. If we consider that a survey including players such as YouTube, Spotify, and broadcast TV is funded solely by broadcast TV, does it really make sense to believe, without question, that negative numbers would ever be presented to the paying sector? Wouldn’t such results discourage the client from continuing with that institute?