Commentary
Evaluating TV's Enhanced Role In A Full-Funnel Environment
- by Artie Bulgrin , Op-Ed Contributor, November 18, 2019
The lines are blurring between TV’s role as a high-reach, long-term brand builder and a short-term targeted sales activation platform due to the growth of addressable TV households. According to
the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB), 54% of U.S. TV homes can receive targeted TV advertising, and as a result, addressable …
4 comments about "Evaluating TV's Enhanced Role In A Full-Funnel Environment".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Good article and interesting updated findings, Artie. Many years ago I got a peek at the results of a huge nuumber of telephone based 24-hour commercial reecall studies done for an advertiser with 15-20 packaged goods brands. Subsequent research verified my observationsw.The point that struck home was that proven message recall scores were only 20% above the norm among brand users---as opposed non-brand users. I interpreted this as an indication that most commercials served as an affirmation of the consumer's own brand selection--reinforcing that decision---in effect. However, it was clear in this rather extensive data set that many non- brand users were also effectively reached by messages from other brands.
While I continue to see merit in the kinds of targeting that "addressable TV " advocates keep promising, I believe firmly that the way to get at this is not simply by "reaching" product category users but trying to do that in the context of how the ad is hopes to get its message across and the mindset---or sets---it is appealing to. Some ads promise specific benefits ranging from superior efficacy to a lower price or ease of use, handy or extra safe packaging, products that are good for your health, the environment, products that are the last word in technology, or the height of fashion, etc.etc. These mindset appeals are hinted at by demographics but are not the domain of any single sex, age or income group. They spill across demos and can not be so easily defined as all adults aged 18-49 with incomes over $50,000.Which is why so many TV advertisers see no need to go beyond obvious targeting metrics---like men or women or very young vs very old---which they can do now via traditional media buys, but otherwise allow their ads to single out their own audiences within the larger numbers of folks that are exposed.
These are good points Ed. There are clearly specific roles for emotonal and rationale messaging through the funnel - to build long-term brand equity with emotion and also to nudge short-term sales with motivation. Our data is simply telling us that marketers should not assume that addressability based on product relevance is a magic panacea for engagement with TV advertising. Good ads can impact all consumers. So while addressability is a great advancement for efficiency in targeting, marketers should leverage that capability for a balanced approach - including reaching light and non-buyers in the category which are key to growing market share.
Thank you for sharing the insights, Artie. If it's okay with you, I was wondering how many observations where included in your controlled lab studies. Is it possible significant differences weren't found possibly due to studying a small number of observations? I was also wondering if findings may be different in real-world scenarios, vis-a-vis the lab scenarios. Lastly, to what extent did the studies take into account buffering in the digital environment that may not exist in the TV environment? While there may be a lag time in running addressable commercials in TV, I'm not sure how that compares to targeted ads in digital, because the lag will depend on the tech, and buffering/load time of commercials will affect whether or not a percentage of viewers will tune out during the ad or even end the session/channel switch before the commercial has a chance to initiate. Thank you very much. One final point--I was wondering to what extent non-targeted ads in your experiments were successful at targeting. Even though they are not designed to target in the same manner, they still have a degree of success targeting the consumer segment. Look forward to hearing from you.
Craig, here are some answers to your questions: 1) In terms of observations, I can tell you that the sample sizes we use in our studies exceed the acedemic recommendations for controlled experiments such as these. Furthermore, I should emphasize that these findings are the result of several studies done over time that have consistently replicated results - giving us a high level of confidence in the findings. 2) It is true that real-world scenarios can change conditions. These conclusions are based on what happens when consumers are known to be exposed to different categories of ads based on varying levels of consumer relevance and in-market status. Across these studies we also tested different conditions including repeated addressable ads and addressable ads within limited interruption formats. Again, the fact that the results have been replicated over time gives us great confidence. 3) We did not test the impact of buffering. 4) Finally, the success of non-targeted ads is probably the most important conclusion. Consumers generally do not ignore ads from non-relevant categories nor do they favor targeted ads from relevant categories.