May
18
TV’s Effectiveness – Up or Down?
Filed Under Advertising, Digital Signage, TV, digital ooh
Nigel Hollis over at Millward Brown (who I originaly met through a debate on in-store DOOH and is also an advocate of the “Path-2-Purchase” philosophy I’ve been flogging) has a good article looking at TV’s effectiveness. He asks the question of whether TV is becoming more effective or less.
His basic premise is based on a few things, including studies done by my friend Joel over at the ARF.
Joel Rubinson, Chief Research Officer at the ARF, led an analysis of 388 case histories from seven different research agencies and found that TV is not only as effective as ever, it is possibly increasing in sales effectiveness. The findings (click here to view) clearly highlight TV’s leading role in building brand awareness. However, data from IRI’s BehaviorScan, where test markets are compared to matched controls, suggests that the sales response to increased TV weight has improved over the last 10 years. Commenting on the report’s findings in BrandWeek, Joel Rubinson said, “(People) want to zone out and watch TV and relax and let the communications wash over them. It’s an extension of the brand experience.” Joel concluded that TV is still an effective advertising platform.
In essence though, through the article, Nigel kind of answers his own question.
Of course, reach is the real difference between 1985 and now. TV’s reach is still unparalleled, but no one program will reach as many people today as its 1985 equivalent. To achieve those old levels of reach today, you must stitch together a much more intricate and costly media plan. But that does not mean the brand-building effectiveness of the medium has declined. Au contraire mon brave, the evidence suggests otherwise.
Maybe I’m a goofball but any time you have to pay more and work harder to get the same thing, your effectiveness has declined.
In any case, he has a good overview of the old media stand-by that argues that, for mega-spend brands, that can afford it, TV is still a great conversation starter for brands that can/will translate into sales – which I completely agree with.
For smaller Brands, however, or those who can’t or don’t want to spend the mega-millions, I’ve heard quite different thoughts on this. In speaking to the CEO of Lavalife earlier this year, she said that because of media fragmentation, the increasing cost of media and the decrease in reach, TV just wasn’t performing the way she needed it to anymore. She wanted newer, more effective solutions that allowed her to target – and not carpet-bomb, to deliver more effective results. Lavalife spends 10’s of millions a year on advertising and is very direct response oriented, so I take it to heart when she speculates it’s time to get out of a lot of TV.
Another interesting one to point to is Coke’s Vitamin water, which has grown to be a category leader without spending a dime in traditional mass! (until recently) (Let me tell you, their competitors are flummoxed) which argues that if you use other, less costly mediums really well, you can achieve striking success but it does mean you have to “work” at it, which is distasteful to some.
Nigel also argues that, hey, maybe…just maybe, the amount of consumer testing done on TV ads these days is really what’s keeping TV up and raising its effectiveness versus yesteryear:
Of course, I can think of another explanation for why TV’s effectiveness is increasing. Perhaps all that nasty pre-testing is actually paying off after all…but no, that would be an even sillier idea wouldn’t it?
Happy Monday
Print This Post
Email This Post
Get posts delivered to you by e-mail
Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Follow Me on Twitter Feeds
-
