• by March 10, 2008

I TiVo "Pros vs. Joes" on Spike TV, a physical reality game show that features male amateur contestants (the "Joes") matched against current or former professional athletes (the "Pros"). In each episode the Joes compete in sporting events related to the expertise of the pro they are facing. Last week, I watched an episode from the first season where the Joes were faced with stopping Herschel Walker in full pads. For those of you too young or not inclined to remember, in 1982 Herschel Walker was the best player in college football and led his Georgia Bulldogs to the national championship. He was also a world-class sprinter, a member of the 1992 U.S. Winter Olympic team, and one of the great physical specimens of our time. During the show, one of the Joes tackled the former Heisman Trophy winner two out of three times. Let me say that again. A 30-year-old average Joe who could not have weighed 160 pounds soaking wet tackled the man chosen by ESPN as the third greatest college football player of all time not once, but twice.

Twenty minutes later, that same Joe surrendered twenty three goals to Brandi Chastain on the soccer field. And yes, it was that Brandi Chastain, the one who whipped off her jersey in celebration after scoring the winning goal in the 1999 Women's World Cup. Which begged the question my oldest son asked: "Does that make Brandi Chastain a better athlete than Herschel Walker?" If you had laid eyes on Herschel Walker during the episode you would have know it was a rhetorical question, and that's not really the point of the show. But it does get to the heart of this commentary.

At the AAAAs Media Conference last week we heard that some agencies have grown weary of the advertising opportunities in the video on-demand (VOD) environment. Among VOD's articulated shortcomings:

· INTERUPTIVE: The VOD advertising environment is interruptive by nature.

· INTERACTIVE: Most VOD opportunities lack deep, interactive capability.

· TACTICAL: The VOD environment lacks the ability for advertisers to act tactically.

· ADDRESSABLE: Dynamic, addressable ad insertion, while often discussed, has been mostly unavailable.

· SEGMENTATION: Market segmentation by zip code, demographic profile or behavior-based tags is an undelivered promise.

· METRICS: Online style metrics are not available.

The implication was no less vexing: until the problems are fixed, advertising dollars will not flow freely. The long list of concerns was not exactly a ringing endorsement for the satellite and cable operators' advertising future. But I found it more alarming that the message came from the digital, internet and advanced television groups within the agencies and NOT the traditional television people.

VOD is television. It may be the red-headed stepchild in the television family, but make no mistake about it -- it is still television. Why do agencies treat it differently? More importantly, if they make such a stink about the shortcomings in VOD, why are these same people not screaming bloody murder about local broadcast television? I am all for smart, articulate voices with digital experience entering the fray, but attacking VOD for not being Internet advertising is not very insightful. Ad-supported VOD is a set-top-box-based technology, and as such should be evaluated against other local television advertising opportunities.

The interesting thing about VOD is that when local broadcast television is evaluated on the same issues, VOD fares pretty well:

· INTERUPTIVE: Is the broadcast television advertising environment interruptive by nature? (Before I watched "The Biggest Loser" I had no idea how interruptive advertising could be.)

· INTERACTIVE: Does broadcast television offer deep, interactive capability? I think not.

· TACTICAL: Does the local broadcast television environment offer advertisers the ability to act tactically? While some might argue, I think I could make a case that strong tactical operations are not typically what you think of when you hear "broadcast television."

· ADDRESSABLE: Is dynamic, addressable ad insertion for broadcast television even on the horizon?

· SEGMENTATION: Is market segmentation by zip code, demographic profile or behavior-based tags around the corner?

· METRICS: Are online style metrics available for broadcast television advertising? (Grab your diaries. folks, and answer honestly if local broadcast television ratings are "online style.")

Yet, despite the fact that local broadcast television is poorly positioned to address any of the "shortcomings" listed above, the agencies that came up with the grievances will undoubtedly purchase billions of dollars in local broadcast television this year. Despite the irony, there is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that VOD is not right for your clients. But implying that VOD is worthless unless it incorporates the benefits of the Internet with all the advantages of television is naïve at best and disingenuous at worst.

I was faced with a similar situation while watching television last week. "Pros vs. Joes"was the perfect opportunity to enjoy the humiliation of a man humbled 23 times by a middle-aged soccer mom or laud the man who took down my childhood hero. Anyone can criticize a person or a good idea. It takes real insight to see the potential in something that may not be perfect. Put VOD in perspective and appreciate it for what it is -- a very promising, sometimes clunky work in progress.