If the audience-measurement institutes funded by broadcast television admitted that TV had less viewership than YouTube, wouldn’t they lose their clients?

One of the most flawed types of media research is that based on interviews. These surveys rely on an extremely fragile input: human memory. In contrast, those that analyze behavior through electronic means provide far more consistent results because they do not depend on the respondent’s perception or recollection but on objectively recorded reality.

So-called “behavior-stalker” studies — in which data are collected through continuous observation of groups, almost like a Big Brother camera following people — can objectively measure how time and attention are spent. Such analyses make it clear that the hours devoted to smartphones, YouTube on mobile devices, and other streaming services far exceed consumption of broadcast TV.

Moreover, admitting that broadcast television is less relevant would be toxic for research institutes funded precisely by that industry. There is a clear conflict of interest here. Unsurprisingly, when the possibility of including YouTube in audience surveys emerged, powerful pressure was exerted by the television giants on the equally powerful research firms. Simply adding this metric would cause problems, as it would reveal the true strength of YouTube to the public.

Have you ever stopped to think that the people glued to their smartphones — at work, during leisure, or between classes — are most likely watching a 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?

Try this: walk into a classroom, a bar, or a restaurant and observe people within five meters. How many are watching videos on their smartphones, and how many are staring at a traditional TV?

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

Summing up, we can outline four main points:

1. The gap between perception and reality

Traditional audience surveys, especially those commissioned by major broadcast networks, often measure media habits through interviews and self-reporting. The problem is that this relies on memory and self-image, not objective data. In practice, when people reflect on their daily routines, they realize they spend far more time on their phones than watching TV. This reveals a perception gap: the feeling of “I still watch a lot of TV” doesn’t match the actual time spent.

2. The conflict of interest

Acknowledging this shift is not in the interest of the TV industry or the institutes that depend on it. If official surveys began to show that TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram occupy more screen time than television, it would weaken TV’s bargaining power with advertisers. There is a clear economic motive behind maintaining the narrative of television as the “undisputed leader” of audience attention.

3. The criterion of qualified attention

Even if broadcast TV still reaches large audiences at certain moments (soap operas, news programs, sports events), the attention it receives is not as engaged as that given to mobile devices. Smartphones involve active choices: people click, interact, comment, and share. TV consumption, by contrast, is often passive — just “background noise and images.” In other words, it’s not enough to measure how many people “have the TV on”; we must measure how much it truly captures and holds attention.

4. The generational shift

If we ask teenagers and young adults to perform the same calculation, television almost disappears from their daily screen-time charts. This shows the change is not temporary but structural and generational. We are witnessing a definitive shift in the media landscape — one that may well be irreversible.