Where Does Video Planning Sit?

Joe Mandese, EIC, MediaPost, with Matthew Cirri, SVP, Group Account Director, Havas Media; Adrienne Holthaus, Group Media Director, Exverus; Ryan Meerstein, Managing Partner, Targeted Victory, had a discussion about this topic at Monday’s MediaPost TV and Video Insider Summit in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Joe: Does the industry think about structure as consumers experience it? No better category to show fragmentation of choice than video. If you had to reinvent it would you do media buying/planning the way we do today?

Adrienne: We look at consumption, psychographic statements, figure out unique channels -- an integrative approach. We do believe there is a place for linear when it makes sense. 



Matt: I would approach it in a similar way [to the way it was done in the ’90s], but how you get maximized reach is vastly different today. I work on a lot of CPG brands -- reach is king there. Tools need to get better. We’re getting there. Core tenets of how we started in the ’90s hold true with some tweaks.

Joe: It feels like there’s a little bit of legacy in this. Back then, too many options. The whole way the system works, forced to move into market before budgets are set for the year. You still need to fill in strategically?

Matt: With video optimizations, linear is a part of that. I have a vitamin company, older focused, so linear is a bigger mix. If I had video games, OTT, and addressable, programmatic would be larger piece of that. We go in platform-agnostic in our video planning and then optimize according to audience. 

Joe: There has to be an audio/video message. It’s about reaching the audience, then figuring out the right format. Do we have this backward?

Ryan: We have silos between linear and everything else -- the same data informing each silo and good coordination across creative within those silos. Legacy stays around probably longer than it should. We have a successful proposition, if we get 49% of the market, we are losers. Cycle every two years. Tough to say we’re going to change the model when we know something else has worked in the past.

Joe: Do campaigns, candidates expect that?

Ryan: A lot of donors want to see fancy spots on TV, yes. 

Joe: There’s a huge bias toward conventional TV thinking. Things like Twitch are huge -- if you want to reach young Millennials, that’s where you need to be. Do we have the right cultural mindset about how to use video? 

Adrienne: Clients have requirements for reach/frequency, it’s a challenge because it‘s so fragmented. Tricky to make a unified model.

Joe: Where does it come from? 

Matt: With video optimizations, it’s difficult to see the inflection point. There aren’t any solid rules. The problem now is there are so many data streams out there. The more we’re able to pipe that unified set, the better we’ll be able to optimize channels.

Joe: Front-end logic, optimization done on the back end. Why do we still plan the way we did 20 to 30 years ago?

Matt: Looking on the back end to see how well we did and use that for future optimizations.

Adrienne: You’re looking at something after the fact to inform how you’re going to plan the future. In-flight optimization is not there yet. There's no simple approach to it. 

Joe: Can we reinvent this?

Matt: Once we can make a big jump in data streams ...

Adrienne: ... or unified approach to media buying. Antiquated. Consumers are going to chase good content regardless of the device it’s on. Content is wagging the tail.

Joe: Two different worlds -- coming at it from a consumer orientation and filling in how much weight should go into TV and other options, and one taking a traditional approach. 

Adrienne: The first to come out with a strong, shoppable advertising experience will lead the charge in those areas. If someone’s watching my commercial on an OTT device and making a purchase in that moment, that’s the win-win. One brand is releasing that technology on their platform soon.

Matt: Until we can get our attribution correct, it’s difficult to assign anything beyond cost mechanism to investments. Could be seven other reasons. Once we get more basic pieces done, go drive a cost conversation off the video plan. It would solve a lot of remuneration issues. For DTC, it’s cost per unit sold. 

Joe: DTC does a good job within their own little wall. But then you have Kraft Heinz, now being challenged. Any hope for brands like that?

Adrienne: Challenge is lack of wanting to share data back with those who could really use it. More fluid, could be an opportunity. Building insights, analytics teams in our client direct relationships. Hope it won’t be internalized.

Joe: Will we lose the luster of TV as experience? Seems to be a big tent that falls down. Will the culture shift?

Adrienne: As long as good content is being produced -- there will be a place for that. Upfronts now have digital as a presence. Newfronts for digital came to west coast this year, exciting. 

Ryan: There are brands that couldn’t care less about upfronts. 

Matt: Look at Netflix, capturing national zeitgeist. Content is aggregating people. The best content is going to win. 

Joe: The tide is moving toward consumer-supported media. The average American pays $285 on media subscriptions. 

Matt: More engaging video that’s out there, the good stuff is constrained in terms of supply, but there is a long tail of other premium content out there.

1 comment about "Where Does Video Planning Sit?".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. dorothy higgins from Mediabrands WW, February 25, 2019 at 2:15 p.m.

    IPG Mediabrands has built a proprietary tool which marries our data stack to our genetic optimizer and enables us to select at the program and site level across digital and linear platforms with real world costs. This data-centric approach enables us to bring the digital practice or planner/buyers to the the entire video landscape.  Convergence is here. 

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications