What? How can that be? The daytime NBCUniversal syndication show can’t be have the same “quality” as the highly touted AMC Network drama, can it? It can if you’re talking about context, “an element that programmatic misses in TV," Campanelli also said.
And while “programmatic” is the word you almost always need to include in your media/marketing conversations these days, still many other wonder about its definition. Many executives have voiced this concern before -- that for the most part, programmatic is really just more media automation.
Proponents would say programmatic will continue to grow to help executives, not replace them.
But what the rise of programmatic seems to have done is push aside another media term seemingly lost in the shuffle: addressability, the ability to send/change, at moment’s notice, a targeted and timely TV commercial to a ready and waiting TV home, who will hopefully not even come close to fast-forwarding through its message.
At the same panel, Amanda Richman president of investment and activation at Starcom, said programmatic TV is, in part, really just a tool to deliver addressability and audience targeting.
We still have a long way of reaching the ultimate goal -- at least when it comes to traditional TV delivery.
That said, some are getting closer to this goal. Google Fiber service in Kansas City is testing a service where advertisers can target audiences based on location and viewing history. Customers will have the choice to opt out of being shown ads based on their viewing history.
Customers will also still have a choice between a 23-year-old reality-based, crazy conversation, daytime show and a period TV drama about the advertising industry.
I agree with the assessment on Springer versus Mad Men. Too many years advertisers have demeaned daytime audiences as being low end, not upscale and therefore not for their products. Those days are over and have been for a long time.
How many people do we all know that want to find out if "you are the father" on Maury that have a higher education and make more money than that so called low end audience?
Advertisers have become smart. They realize that audiences watching Mad Men generally tend to watch dramas on DVR. Therefore bypassing commercials. Most daytime shows are watched live with limited opportunities to pass over commercials. So the messaging is lost in drama content. In addition daytime shows offer a highly integrated audience that really wants to find out if "you are the father" thereby offering a direct response element to ads place on those shows. Leading then to better response to commercial content.
Again the game has changed. Big time.
Actually, if you look at the data you will see that daytime fare still plays to a predominantly low brow audience, unlike "Mad Men" and many other primetime dramas. That said, there is ample evidence that the average daytime TV viewer---perhaps because of his/her low brow status, particularly when it comes to education and income,---is considerably more receptive to advertising, hence to TV commercials, than the average nighttime viewer. While it is not true that the latter never see commercials, as some wrongly contend, it is clear that a higher proportion of primetime viewers zap commercials and have a generally negative attitude towards them----as we have documented many times in our annual, "TV Dimensions". Therefore Rick has a valid point. By shunning daytime due to concerns about the low quality of its program content and other ego-driven issues, advertisers are making their campaigns work harder to get their messages across. A sensible mix of low CPM, ad receptive, low brow platforms with more prestigious, high CPM ",quality", primetime fare, where there is more resistance towards commercials, may be a better answer for many brands.
@Rick..."How many people do we all know that want to find out if "you are the father" on Maury that have a higher education and make more money than that so called low end audience?"....um, none.