IN SUMMARY: I’m sick of “experts” telling us that we need to spend more on digital while ignoring TV. As Nielsen has shown time and time again TV is still a great way to reach consumers and is the number one channel to gain awareness of new products.
Marketers tend to be gullible. How else can you explain the fact that digital ads are set to overtake TV advertising? Don’t get me wrong, My consulting is more in the digital area but I also know that digital advertising is ripe with fraud and that there are major issues with using programmatic advertising.
Despite this, marketers, it seems, have been drinking an extra large Kool-Aid when it comes to allocating money to digital. So while consumers continue using ad blockers and ignore online ads the solution is, of course, to flood digital with even more money. Stupid is as stupid does.
Marketing is best when it’s integrated
Integrated marketing continues to elude most brands. You should never, ever, use just one channel and you should know more about your target audience than they know about themselves. Where do they shop? What can WE offer to move them from prospect to customer? What’s the experience, at POP, for our product and brand?
These are all questions that should be well known to every brand manager.
The real problem in advertising
What I see as the REAL problem is the ineffective understanding of effective reach & frequency. New research from the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB) shows that live TV is still king, with the majority of viewers watching their favorite programs live, rather than time–shifting, or watching them after they’ve already aired.
In addition, a study also found that time-shift TV was used more frequently for watching TV programs and movies, and not as frequently for watching sports and news. The technology didn’t change the consumers’ behavior towards watching advertisements when they watched the original TV channels live, suggesting that consumers didn’t use the technology to strategically avoid advertisements.
Do your TV spots sell?
I think that Geico’s airing of old, funny spots is pure genius but they don’t make me want to drop my current insurer and go with Geico. I’m quite happy with my current insurer. So what’s the point of airing these old spots? It must have “tested” well with audiences but again that doesn’t mean a damn thing if they didn’t lead to more customers.
TV spots can inform, educate and entertain audiences but if they don’t help sell your products they are worthless. Forget the measurement of “buzz” it doesn’t mean a darn thing if you want more customers.
Please don’t listen to people who tell you that you need to allocate more money to any one channel. They’re wrong because only YOU understand your customers and your audience.
