Professional content remains the "gold standard" as far as attracting marketing dollars, and that combined with scale makes TV hard to beat. But interesting stats show that supply and viewer consumption are rapidly increasing. We hypothesized that this trend will result in a natural decrease in CPMs and will be a major driver in the shift of TV dollars to online video.
I recommend checking out the comments section of the post for an interesting discussion by the Video Insider community on what really needs to change. Apparently, an increase in supply is only the tip of the iceberg. This writer does not disagree.
Almost universally, the community agrees that an equally important element that should ultimately push online over the edge is its inherent ability to do what TV cannot: audience targeting -- be it behavioral, demo, contextual, self-selection, or any of the other ways to identify marketer prospects --- against the uniquely engaging format of online video. Add in advanced forms of measurement and analytics to prove ROI beyond transactional metrics. Let scale work itself out, and the dollars will come pouring in.
Or will they?
A couple of commenters brought up an interesting point: in an environment of TV spots being TiVoed out and declining ROI and online catching up, TV may still win out. TV is the safe choice, and one that has worked, albeit with declining ROI, for years. "No one ever got fired for buying (insert top rated show)," as the saying goes. So what might need to happen? Phil Guest of Sulake said it very well: "Times are a changing, though, as the next generation of marketers and media execs become the decision makers rather than influencers they are today. The shift that sees digital as the starting point for communications planning is well under way, one day we might wake up and realize it is here."
Is it a generational shift that needs to happen, rather than a shift in supply and technology? What do you think?