TV advertising: moving the deck chairs on the titanic

I have been chatting to a few colleagues about metrics in relation to TV and I was pointed to Marketing in the era of accountability

Which I would have thought should have been free but there you go.

Anyway I had a quick glimpse at the report and it does have some interesting suggestions as one of my colleagues pointed out

It’s also why, in theory, the link between market research and media agencies is a good idea. Fast consumer data, feeding into planners who can take remedial action and adjust campaigns accordingly can work (there’s a research agency in Holland called Daphne, now owned by GFK, that does exactly this).

The report draws

a distinction between effectiveness (doing the right thing) and accountability (being seen to do the right thing). Authors Les Binet, European director at DDB Matrix, and consultant Peter Field argue that, with accountability high on the corporate agenda, marketers are opting for measures that prove to the board that something is happening. 'It is not just a question of marketers measuring the wrong thing,' says Field. 'They are being pushed to do it by this move to accountability.'

Another common failing is holding up a single metric as proof of success. Instead, a suite of measures should be used to judge effectiveness.

And that has been a conversation for the last decade.

Now for the deck chair bit

If some commentators in the marketing industry are to be believed, TV is on its death bed. But, in fact, the IPA study reveals that it remains the most effective medium. TV, which builds emotion better than any other medium, has been the driving force of many of the best campaigns in the IPA's archives, even those with small budgets. For brands looking to build fame, TV remains essential.

If anything, TV is becoming more important than ever. The average rise in market share accounted for by campaigns where TV is the lead medium has increased over the past 20 years. And with greater choice of TV channels allowing more effective targeting, the cost of reaching a given audience via TV has declined. The authors estimate that TV is now 42% more effective than it was in the 80s.

Now that just can't be true - if you define TV as terrestrial/cable broadcast to a limited and fragmented audience. If a mass audience today is 6-8 million in the UK - reach and the cost of reach has only increased.
The economics just don't make sense.

If one talks about a more intelligent approach to advertising wrapped around audio-visual content then I am ready to sit down and have the discussion.

There is more on ROI and Loyalty - but my view is effective communications is about delivering on a number of marketing needs at the same time.

Apple for me is a case in point - built around the end user experience via software hardware and 3D experiences via its stores it delivers multiple benefits - 365 days of the year.

This idea of salami slicing acquisition, from awareness, loyalty, raising ARPU blah blah is simply an increasingly redundant way of looking at the world. And frankly boring. Its an exhausted industrial mindset trying to shoehorn itself into the economics and logic of the networked world.

I think we will always have TV - of course we will - its called audio-visual content the question is how is it made, financed, and distributed and who watches where and when.

I have been a little provocative - but if you look at what the World Rally Championships or the Audi channel that is also advertising - but not in the shape of the usual deck chairs.