• by Mike Bloxham , Op-Ed Contributor, January 17, 2007

Last week's TV Board saw a fairly lively debate about the names we give to different video-based consumer experiences (notably TV versus online streaming video) and the extent to which we should differentiate, bearing in mind that to the consumer it's all video in the end.

Inevitably, it's a debate that will continue to roll as the video landscape becomes more complex, with ever-more content providers taking advantage of the capacity for ever-more platforms to deliver full sound and vision to ever-more devices at an ever-accelerating pace.

Curiously, it's a debate that could be seen as irrelevant--and of critical importance--at the same time.

On one hand, it could be argued as irrelevant because whatever we may choose to call the various manifestations of video-based content, consumers will choose their own terms of engagement (to use the "E" word in its non-loaded sense) based on variables ranging from their interest in the content, their familiarity and mastery of the device it's displayed on, the location they are in and their need state at the time (in search of information, looking to fill time, in appointment-viewing mode, etc.).

On the other hand, language is important because of the enormous amount of historical weight it carries with it. The very word "television" immediately conjures images of people clustered around TV sets in family rooms, of long-established means of distribution, advertising and subscription models, well-established metrics and measurement practices, etc. All of these are crucial to how we approach the business of television and advertising. In this regard, language is crucial, since, once applied and accepted, it provides common reference points which over time become in-grained, inform our practices and, in turn, our thinking. When we're seeking to address challenges and changes, the semantics can help or hinder our thinking as we seek new approaches.

But last week's discussion set me thinking in a slightly different vein. Very often, talk about the future of TV (and other platforms) and how we reach consumers though media rightly point to seismic changes in the underlying nature of media and how consumers use it. But then we still come back to the question of how to best advertise (old world) in the changing context (new world).

Is the word "advertising" really that helpful in a lot of these conversations? Like "television," the word has been with us forever and defines its own reference points, practices and processes, expectations and so on--all based in a very different time from how consumers interact with and select their media experiences now. It seems to me that it would be helpful to extract ourselves from the language of old-world communication and use "advertising" not as the default option when considering our options, but rather as one of a range of options available.

Now I know that plenty of brands (often referred to as "advertisers") do pursue other options on TV--such as product placement, sponsorship etc.--but a quick look at how the money is spent will show this to be a drop in the ocean compared to conventional ad spending, even if it is growing.

Don't get me wrong, I still think there's life in the 30- second spot for a while yet, but its place in the communications hierarchy is definitely going to change. After all, conventional advertising leverages the intrusion-based model, which is less and less in line with the new world of media in which interactivity of one sort or another, increased choice, new devices like the DVR and other digitally enabled factors enable consumers to shape their media experiences much more in line with their own preferences than ever before. This is only going to continue, with the challenge to brands and media owners being to find ways of involving consumers in their call to action or proposition, rather than merely intruding on the core viewing experience (the program) with an ad that increasingly seems to be seen in the same light as an online pop-up.

It just occurs to me that if we more frequently asked the question "how do we communicate with consumers using TV" rather than "how do we advertise to consumers using TV" in the future, then maybe that small change in the semantics of the discussion might make it easier to come to grips with the challenge of optimizing TV spend in the coming years. We may still end up spending the vast majority of budgets on TV "advertising," but it might be "advertising" that is wildly different from what we produce today.