TV Remains Most Effective Ad Medium
- by Wayne Friedman , June 9, 2015
Just in time for the TV upfront market comes a new study that shows TV continues to be “most effective advertising medium.” A new study by marketing-analytics company MarketShare, backed by Turner Broadcasting and media agency Horizon Media TV, says TV has maintained its effectiveness at driving advertiser key performance indicators (KPIs) over the last five years.
While other media effectiveness has dropped by 10.3% for online media on average, and 22.5% for offline media (excluding TV), TV has only slipped 1.5%. This research was compiled looking at 2012-2014 versus that of 2009-2011.
All media witnessed an overall 11.5% decline during this period, which the study attributed to fractionalization of media, due to new channels/platforms in the new digital world.
advertisement
advertisement
In looking at similar spending levels, MarketShare says performance lift from television is seven times of paid search and three times of online for various industries, such as automotive, consumer products companies, retail, telecommunication, and financial services.
The study points to one telecommunications media plan noting if the advertiser had reduced its television budget by 20% and re-allocated those funds into online display, the advertiser would have experienced a 7% decrease in sales.
“We funded this analysis due to advertiser concern that TV effectiveness in driving ROI had decreased,” states Howard Shimmel, chief research officer, Turner Broadcasting.
Adds Eric Blankfein, chief of WHERE at Horizon Media: “Horizon’s proprietary suite of planning tools and analytics has uncovered many of these hypotheses, and we are glad to see them drawn out through this detailed analysis served to confirm our perspectives. It answers many of the questions our clients bring to us every day.”
It's good to see that major TV interests are beginning a counterattack against the barrage of "TV is dead" proclamations we have been innundated with recently. The problem with all of these ad effectiveness studies---whether they are funded by magazines or digital interests---and, hence show their medium in the best light----or the other way around---by TV players, hence showing that TV "wins" hands down-----is coming to grips with the various datasets utilized, the assumptions made, and the yardsticks used to judge "effectiveness".
Having reviewed many of these ROI-type studies, I have found that they tend to lack credibility when it comes to isolating the "impact" relative to cost and reach for each media component. The reason is simple. Most consumers are exposed to ad campaigns across numnerous platforms---various TV dayparts and program genres, broadcast TV and cable, magazines, digital media, etc. ---and campaigns develop their outcomes---sales -----due to other variables such as spending levels, brand image, changing consumer sentiments, competition from other products as well as rival brands, etc. All of these are intertwined in complex ways. Also in question is whether the product is a new one or and established brand with a core of loyal users, product category "elasticity"---brand loyal or not brand loyal----whether we are talking about the beginning of an ad campaign or a point where it is about to run its course and "wear out", etc.
I think that it would do the sponsors of this study some real benefit if a better explanation could be provided than I saw in the actual release, indicating how it goes about "determining" the effectiveness of advertising in one medium versus another or, within a medium like TV, how it distinguishes between the effects of exposures in late night, prime time or daytime TV and between cable and broadcast TV. Believe me, I know how difficult this request will be to fulfill, but without it, a lot of people will simply dismiss this study---as they have with others like it---as too confusing or as blatent propaganda. The latter may be an unfair verdict. Let's see.