What's the damage if you're a big consumer brand that spends fewer media dollars on TV? Apparently none.
How about zero TV dollars? In this economy, it
might have consumers guessing the worst.
A couple of years ago, Mitsubishi Motors made a stand
advertising on network TV completely -- a major deal for any automaker. What happened? Fewer sales, and eventually the departure of the company's chief marketing officer, who had touted that radical
marketing decision publicly.
Other big marketers will threaten, but many can ill afford to be completely off television -- especially network television, especially if they are really big
consumer brands. As bad as the problems are at General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, they won't be totally leaving the biggest marketing platform behind -- despite erosion, despite problems with audience
metrics, despite content-related problems.
Many niche, young-skewing brands can't afford the high price of television. But as they grow, they'll need big media platforms at some point --
even if they pull back later on. (Nike comes to mind). Eventually TV buys like MTV, Spike, or "Gossip Girl" will be a traditional lure or temptation for those brands.
This economy does
change things. But all that might mean is some cutbacks. Hewlett-Packard, for example, cut its TV advertising by about 34% last year -- but 66% remained. Best Buy pulled back TV spending by 40% -- but
kept 60% on TV.
Hundreds of media and marketing decisions go into media plans. Take media dollars from TV and throw them into staffing, Internet, customer service, mobile, or outdoor, and
FSIs. Do you feel better?
But take them away from TV completely -- after you grabbed big awareness from your big brand? Only for the bold, brave -- or bankrupt