Commentary

I'm Always Going To Need My TV Ad Buy -- Right?

  • by March 2, 2015
In the throes of planning upcoming campaigns, any major marketer may well utter the following phrase about his or her media mix: “I’m always going to need my TV. It gives me invaluable reach.”

Sure, TV still gives you reach. But this argument will become less persuasive as we enter the final frontier of the digital media disruption, where precision targeting becomes paramount, and must-see prime-time TV programming become a thing of the past.

We’re in the golden age of television, but also witnessing the “beginning of the end of the beginning” of the new television marketplace, with the pre-eminence of TV on the edge, and new multiscreen TV viewership increasing. More and more, the best of all possible worlds includes linear TV’s reach combined with streaming’s precision. Marketers will continue to buy TV spots, but via a greatly expanded palette of choices, given all the new targeting and measurement practices that have emerged.

Yes, there are still folks agitating in favor of traditional TV and its future. But I feel as if they’re making my argument for me, and denying — overly and excessively denying, in fact — what we in digital media have been arguing for the past 20 years: That the fragmentation of how we consume video content is inevitable, pronounced and becoming ever greater.

We’ve seen the birth and growth of two brand-new media: first the Internet, and now mobile media consumption. During the same period, we’ve also witnessed major changes in print and radio consumption.

Meanwhile, the new world of computing wearables — smart watches, yes, but also smart devices of all shapes and sizes — will provide us with unprecedented and useful information and interconnectivity. Some call it the Internet of Everything.

All of which leads me to my original point. Yes, television provides undeniable reach. But TV networks, still enjoying strong viewership, are doing so over an increasingly fragmented ecosystem of screens.  Nielsen’s recent The Total Audience Report, detailing viewership in 2014’s third quarter, pegged TV viewership at 282.7 million, down slightly from last year. Meanwhile, video consumption on smartphones hit 125.7 million in that quarter, up by 25%. The fact is, TV is being watched by a lot of people, but those folks are doing it on the device of their choice.

The February 2015 launch of the streaming network Sling TV is further evidence that younger viewers in particular are finding second and third screens increasingly attractive for vibrant new content. And who knows what new TV ecosystems will emerge over the next 12 to 18 months?

So while brands may need to support their product launches with TV, the share and audience numbers are substantially less if the campaign relies only on network TV and cable. There unquestionably will be a hole in that particular marketing plan, a hole that can be filled by considering other screens.

As digitization of traditional linear television grows, as well as connected TV and video-on-demand, it’s only a matter of time before we can effectively and efficiently marry the old and new ways to buy video advertising. TV will always be the “first screen,” but a new approach is already here, as the ad tech economy furiously evolves courtesy of data, measurement, analytics and ad-serving enhancements. These are providing a precision in reporting that previously was unthinkable. 

The lesson is simple: Know how your audience is consuming media in 2015 and beyond, and budget accordingly. With TV, brand marketers can have their cake and eat it, too — just with some different ingredients.

3 comments about "I'm Always Going To Need My TV Ad Buy -- Right?".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 3, 2015 at 3:35 p.m.

    Here are a few additional findings from the Nielsen report, cited above. Taking all adults as a base, Nielsen noted that their average weekly consumption of "traditional TV" ( live TV ) averaged 32.8 hours while time-shifted viewing totaled 3.3 hours. So that's 36 hours per week with "linear TV". Turning to videos seen via the Internet, Nielsen found that the average adult spent 1.3 hours per week on this activity and, only 12 seconds---or .2 hours--- watching videos on a smart phone. In other words, a growing number of people may be using alternative means ( digital ) to consume video content but they spend very little time on such platforms compared to what they devote to good old "linear TV". Until digital can turn out the countless hours of program content-----be it good or bad----that traditional TV supplies---and find ways to enhance the viewing experience ( larger screens, for smart phones ), the demise of linear TV will continue to be a very long and drawn out process---if it ever happens.

  2. Jim Meskauskas from Media Darwin, Inc., March 3, 2015 at 3:40 p.m.

    All good points, Mr. Ware. You are right that the butter is basically being spread over a lot more bread.

    I think that what makes regular TV still so valuable is it's ability to deliver a) quality content that people still want to consume, b) quality consumption experience of that content, c) the state of mind one is in when having that content consumption experience, and d) what that state does to a person's experience with a brand that choses to advertise in the medium.

    For a): yes, I watched the Power Rangers film short starting Ven Der Beek via my smartphone. But most content in the form of video on a smartphone isn't that. It's watching ice bucket challenges or debates about whether the dress was blue and black, or white and gold. Duration of the video experience isn't lending itself -- yet -- to a lot of quality content.

    For b) as the smartphone gets bigger, the quality of the consumption experience will get better. But the point at which it is as good as TV? When the smartphone is as big as the TV. I'm watching Vikings on my iPad because my wife doesn't want to watch it. But I'd rather be watching it on my flatscreen.

    For c): The duration of the video content consumption experience does something with to one's state of mind. We digerati frequently proclaim the wonders of the lean-forward experience, but in doing so, underemphasize the power of passive content consumption experience. Which, in turn, puts us in a suggestive state. More so than 3 minutes of watching a baby weasel ride on the back of a bird. This matters to brands.

    For d): see c). The act of branding -- and this exercise is being changed by how and where our attentions are allocated now -- is a limbic system reach. Persuasion and influence suggests a rational enterprise, but humans just really aren't that rational.

    You are right to point out: linear TV alone isn't going to get the job done by itself any more.

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 3, 2015 at 5:17 p.m.

    In the interests of accuracy, I should correct my report, above, regarding smart phone video viewing. The figure is 12 minutes per week, not 12 seconds. I don't want to understate the magnitude of this rapidly expanding activity.

Next story loading loading..