not dead yet
Todays’ New York Times had an article on how households with DVRs still watch a large number of commercials. Postulates the Times,
“…perhaps because they like ads, don’t mind them or simply can’t be bothered.”
While the article goes on to talk about the impact this study could have on the cost of commercial spots (since television advertisers currently don’t pay for time-shifted viewing), it’s interesting that the Times reporters have yet to tap into what I think is the real reason behind people continuing to watch commercials when they don’t have to: advertising is a shared experience.
Like Thursday night’s episode of “Grey’s Anatomy,” or who received the most votes on “American Idol,” or which bachelor was eliminated during “I Love New York,” what is shown on television is a part of the national popular culture. Your neighbors and peers expect that you’ve seen much of what they’ve seen on television. That’s why there’s as much watercooler talk about Simon and Paula as there is debate about whether those Geico “Cavemen” commercials are annoying or brilliant. Even if viewers find many commercials intrusive and tedious, they continue to watch for those few ads that will generate an emotional reaction – whether it be laughter, empathy, amazement, etc.
DVR penetration will continue to grow, and how Americans watch TV in the future will be vastly different than how we do it now. But for the short term, DVRs provide program-viewing convenience for those few with time-constrained lives. Until the majority of consumers decide that being “in the know” on a few popular television shows is less important than watching endless hours of commercial-less television, advertisers don’t have much of an adversary.
agency ideal
If I had the capital, a copywriter, an ad director, and someone with account services experience, I would start my own agency. In my agency, there would be no separation between creative, media, and account departments. Professionals who worked on the same brands would sit near, if not with each other. There would be intellectual curiousity across the disciplines: the creatives might have an idea, then the media person educates them on how that idea could be best executed, then the account person chimes in with the brand’s objectives, then the entire team goes to the client with the buttoned-up proposal. There would be little to no needless animosity between departments that were meant to work together for the sake of their brands. I wouldn’t hire anyone who viewed other departments negatively. As a group, we would keep our focus on the consumer and how best to educate, entertain, and enrich them with what might be the most abhorrent aspect of modern life – the intrusive ad.
the bottom line
Media agencies seem to fall into two categories: the Bean Counters and the Qualitative Loves. The latter are few and far between. They’re the agencies that are all about consumers – how much consumers love their client’s brands, how interesting and diverse their media plans are, how in tune they are with their target’s needs and desires. The Bean Counters know who you are: CPMs are the starting measure of “planned” success, while ROI is the confirmation of that success. If the bucks aren’t rolling in, the media plan is a failure. Can you guess which type of agency I prefer?
Here’s the main problem with an agency of Bean Counters: they will never, despite any demands they make of their media planners, be able to sell in anything but National TV plans. And why? Because the efficiency of the only mass vehicle the country currently has automatically means higher ROI as compared to other, less mass media. Not to mention that most clients have few reliable means to measure the effectiveness of non-TV vehicles. Agencies that broadcast ROI as their primary focus are painting themselves into a National TV corner. It’s the consumer – our target, and what should be our main concern – who gets ignored when an agency’s sole measure of success is the bottom line.
