Curated by Stuart Fogarty stuart@admaticallycom for AFAO'Meara Advertising, Streamabout The Video Agency and Admatic Ireland.
All comments will be posted - promise!
It's a worrying time when the debate about Television being more effective than Digital still labours on. Nastily. I don't know how many traditional TV Campaigns we've managed in our pasts..... If it's not in the thousands, it's certainly in the hundreds and that doesn't necessarily gives us authority, but it does give us experience. Saying that too as the author is both a former Madison Avenuer and Fellow of The Advertising Institute. Agency blue-blood. And how many Digital Video Campaigns have we managed? Thousands too.
But this debate seems to become angry with Traditionalists Versus Digital Evangelists whereas really what matters, is what is the audience doing? Where are the eyeballs going? The TV traditionalists seem to blindly like TV, because that's the way it's always been done without understanding, that the world, their world, has changed 360 degrees.
Clearly too, one is not a substitute for the other, despite traditional TV data produced (and paid for) by TV Broadcasters which is dubious, at best. It's common sense to understand that the TV audience is in decline. With the high penetration of Social Media (Facebook, Twitter) predominant and with their peak usage in evening times, has to mean less TV is being watched. You can't be actively doing both. The increasing high penetration of Ad-free streaming services (Netflix has over 250,000 homes in Ireland alone) which are watched at peak time, has to mean less TV viewing. The cable chord cutters are watching less TV too de facto. The prevalence of second screen viewing, must mean less TV is being watched. The huge growth in YouTube especially amongst the youngers, means they're watching less TV. The decline in published ratings, means less TV is being watched in itself albeit, US broadcasters are now dependent on live sports rather than traditional "shows". The growth of Apps (Tinder for example) at the very least, diminishes the OTS (opportunity to see) of TV. The growth of Mobile activity takes away from TV viewing. Better broadband brings homes more digital viewing opportunities as well. The Ipad and ITunes. And so on it goes on, common sense. The more distractions, especially at key peak time (high advertising expenditure times), the more TV viewing will decline. It struck us in this week especially, what a great example of video effectiveness this was.
In less than two days, this online digital video topped over 100 million views and is now Facebook's most video live video ever. We have no doubt it is already over 200 million views. The Hasbro mask (44.99 usd) sold out (http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/chewbacca-mask-sold-online-womans-video-super-viral/story?id=39292349) And the Media cost? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Except the cost of producing the video. Now what TV Campaign could deliver that audience? None. And at what cost? Certainly millions of dollars if you could achieve it using TV.... which you can't. And the one big reason? Shareability. You can't share a TV Commercial and that's one big downside of traditional TV viewing (despite audience numbers) where Digital has the advantage (as this video shows). Not only can it be shared, but to a like-minded demographic (friends and followers), a marketers dream in fact. Thereby, effectively communicating the message exactly to the target. So when we talk about TV Advertising effectiveness, let's not kid ourselves because we want Clients to keep thinking it....in our own vested interest, or, because we can't keep up with the digital age..... And let's not argue blindly. There's a role for both, absolutely. One is growing, one is declining, but all that means is that the eyeballs are switching. And as marketers or Ad men and girls, that's what should concern us most. Rather than defend a position because it's all we know. What are we afraid of here? It's good news because online video creates new, long form opportunity. No longer are we hampered by that 30 second Commercial length for example which should nurture creativity. Stopping Digital Video is like standing on Dollymount Strand and trying to push out the waves. Let's not do that and let's give the correct answer to Clients. Impartial arbitors of media. Like the peasant's in Lamb's essay, we know not how to roast pork, other than to burn the house down. Streamabout.com
Fairly amazing story coming out of Turner Broadcasting in the US which could/should change the face of traditional broadcasting advertising. They're going to announce that they will be turning their TV network into onebig native advertising platform. Channels include CNN, Cartoon Network, TNT and others (it's a big cable player) but what they're doing is actually to change commercial breaks. Instead of your standard 30 or 60 second commercial, they'll replace it with digital video that will tell a brand story in a native way. Perhaps 2/3 minutes long, instead of say, 5 x 30 second commercials, and put them on TV breaks. Not unlike what they've done on CNN with Subaru creating 'CNN Heroes'. It's actually far better for viewers who get to see long form engaging content, albeit sponsored and branded, rather than just Ads. And it's better for the broadcaster as they'll scoop up that digital video which Streamabout is so familiar with and creates. It's the re-imagining of TV advertising and perhaps spells the end of TV commercials as we know them. Given that they're such a big player, it's hard for other traditional TV broadcasters not to take note. It's also a very right move for a traditional TV broadcaster in the digital age and for once, we applaud TV. Good thinking at Turner.
The switch from traditional media, especially TV, to Digital is well underway as we know. Common sense.....because rather than be told differently, we all know that we are spending more time online. Whether that's web browsing, youtube or Social Media, we see it all around us and especially if you've young kids where their 'devices' are all that matters, rather than say, traditional TV. How many of us now, get our news online for free rather than physically buying a newspaper? How many of us watch Ad-free Netflix or Amazon more than before? If traditional media is not being consumed as much, less people are watching the Ads. In the case of TV, less people are watching the Ad breaks and when they are, they're watching via fast forward on record or, with their laptop open (second screen). So the Ads are getting less and less attention not just, less and less viewers. So we know it's happening. A really interesting piece from Social Week Blog, now supports that with numbers. Flurry (owned by Yahoo!) show mobile is watched in the US (and that'll be no different to other countries with high mobile penetration) for 2 hours, 57 minutes. Traditional TV is behind at 2 hours, 48 minutes. 18-24's according to Nielsen, watch 18 hours a week of TV. Only. A decline of nearly 4 hours viewing in a year. Yet 41% of them are active on Snapchat and undoubtedly, Facebook (with 4 Billion video views a day). And these are a key demographic for brands. As Social Week points out, it has momentum in the switch away notably, from TV. And if that audience is moving to online (and it is), then that's where the Ad money will go. Although the Ad budgets are shifting, far more slowly than the audience is moving. The fact is that advertisers need to sit up and take notice and be conscious of the advice of their Agency who may, through a lack of skill sets in this changing world, want to maintain the status quo. It's easier to keep doing what you've always done. "Beliefs are hard to change" says the Social week blog and they are.....but the growth in online digital video (Video Ads) which Streamabout alone have experienced, illustrates that change is coming. Quickly. But perhaps, not at the pace it deserves. You can read the Social Week Blog here; http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/08/the-end-of-advertising/
I got this BusinessInsider/Comscore story about BuzzFeed today from a friend, by email. When I opened it, I fell off my chair. Which is why he sent it. The most stunning thing I've read yet, that just symbolises the online revolution that has and is, taking place. It's proof positive now, of the takeover and the switchover from TV to online. Just look at the monthly reach of BuzzFeed in this graph for 18-34's.
Shocking stuff for TV Stations.... BuzzFeed now reaches 50% of US millennials (18-34's) a month according to Comscore/BusinessInsider and this is terrifying reading for TV. BuzzFeeds monthly reach outstrips CBS, Fox and NBC. In fact it's winning in all ages and spelling the end of TV in terms of audience decline, audience attention but notably in terms of advertising money. And be assured, exactly this same model is being replicated in every country including Ireland. The same thing is happening everywhere. Put simply, advertising money chases audience and as BuzzFeed climbs it will take those big brand lucrative TV dollars with it. Whilst the TV stations will go into financial decline through that same lost advertising. They simply cannot hold their audiences no longer.
Look too above, at the BuzzFeed video views and Subscriber growth!!! Pretty impressive!!!
50% of the views are from mobile. And those video views are peaking for BuzzFeed in the evening. That's right, smack dab in the middle of prime time TV. The expensive advertising bit.
And that signals a strong probability that the younger 18-34's are having a look at BuzzFeed....during the evening ad breaks! Not what an advertiser wants to hear. And as The BusinessInsider story says, advertisers want to reach consumers with messages that have sight, sound and motion. Those advantages don't just apply to TV anymore. I've never seen reliable data like this, that clearly shows the media pulling power of digital and all of this happening in the lucrative TV space - once regarded as the bastion of all things advertising. And then we've only spoken here about the impact BuzzFeed has had - nevermind the others! This ladies and gentlemen, is the end..... Or the start...... It depends on where you're sitting. But one thing it sure is, the world has just changed. Totally.
Digital to overtake TV Ad spend in ALL US spending in 2016. And that's not me saying it, it's respected researchers 'Forrester' as appearing in the Ad Industry "bible", Ad Age. Wow. They estimate it will hit 103 Billion Dollars in 2019 - 36% of all Ad spend whereas 86 Billion will be spent on TV Advertising. And why? Because digital works - with fundamental proof that's lacking in traditional Advertising. Interesting too, 'Search' (SEO) budgets are starting to be capped. In other words, brands have spent whatever they're going to, on Search. Because once you've optimised Search, no further money is needed. Mobile too will drive the spending switch as will Social Ads and of course, online digital video. Editing your TV Commercial just isn't as effective as native video. So the long awaited budget switch is on. Traditional Advertising is fast becoming unbalanced towards digital. And TV Advertising,is well.......
Twitter and Facebook are ramping up their proposition as TV's "second screen" social media in order to get some of those TV Ad budgets...but they've a good bit to go. They're not getting traction. 16% of online Americans use second screens when watching TV prime time says Nielsen. Only half of them then use their Social networks to talk about TV shows - so that's all pretty low numbers. A big jump perhaps, but still in its infancy and becoming a struggle. Consequently, Social Media isn't yet the way to use product promotion in relation to TV advertising. And this game might be up for Twitter/Facebook, or at least, be a much longer term play than they anticipate. The problem here is that Social Media is an alternative to TV not an add-on. Relating them together under the "second screen" proposition, isn't effective.... rather than, what they should be doing, is driving Twitter/Facebook as being different and offering other choices to TV. But Twitter/Facebook want to get their hands on TV advertising spend now to show revenue potential because of share price issues...they'll be waiting. The fact is that traditional TV broadcasting is dying, nothing surer, as audiences get fed up with scheduling of content at times that don't suit them and see better alternative content through either online broadcasts (Hulu, Love Film, Netflix) or online video (YouTube, Vimeo). TV audiences are in terminal decline and TV stations are compensating that loss of viewers by increasing their rates to compensate. So advertisers are paying more for lower views and that simply won't stand. They are diametrically opposed. So in time, advertising budgets on TV will switch to online. They've been slow to thus far, but like big ships, they take time and they will. Basic inertia, largely on the part of their Media Agencies, coupled with a generational belief in the power of TV advertising, means it will take time. A lack too of new digital media understanding and confusion about formats, still gives digital media a "fog" over it. But that will clear. Already there is an understanding amongst large brands, the traditional TV advocates, that they "need to do more online", but they're just not clear about what. Social Media second screen offerings from Twitter and Facebookare not it. Social Media alternatives to TV, such as broadcasting their own content, are it. In other words, they should be taking TV on and not be part of it. Twitter TV? Facebook TV? online newspaper TV? What Twitter/Facebook are currently doing is seeking short term revenues, whilst at the same time, being deflected from where they should be long term. They should be content providers onto huge platforms which they already have with massive subscribers. Traditional TV is over as broadcasters and the TV stations need to realise that their long term play is as content providers into Social media platforms. And not, as Nielsen shows, the other way around.
TV is actually on a tipping point. A lot of us take the view that traditional TV is dying at a rapid pace but Saturday's story in the illustrious 'Financial Times' will only hasten things. It's a paper well read, by CEO's and Marketing Directors. The story is based around new Advertising spend data which shows, that after three consecutive decades of growth, it has finally peaked this year and now starting to decline - the tipping point. TV should capture 40% of the global 532 billion usd ad market in 2013 and then start falling. That data came from none other than Publicis ZenithOptimedia, reliable a source as you'll find. That 40% share will now go into steep decline. This is of course due to the rise of digital. The explosion of digital across multi-screens, was going to hit TV hardest always and in particular, the reluctance (ongoing reluctance) of TV stations to get involved with digital, has further accelerated their demise. A new breed of marketers too, has brought an opportunity to change and online video is also now a far sexier media buy, than traditional TV. For example, YouTube is surging + 50% with 66 billion usd in revenue this year. Google is also powering ahead on their GDN network. It is good news for digital providers and another breakthrough in their fight with TV stations who went to lengths initially, to try and put them out of business. But like a lot of businesses that simply refuse to accept digital as even an option, they lose out. And TV is digital's biggest scalp.
Very, very, interesting article from BusinessInsider entitled 'The Death of TV. TV is dying and here are the stats that prove it'. It follows from research by 'Citi Research' and this is a landmark, elaborate, piece of work. You'll get the whole story here http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11 US Pay TV (cable) is having its worst year ever. This links with another blog I wrote on November 8th (which follows in my posts), where Nielsen reports that tablets and mobile will be more advertising important than TV in 2016. It also follows which all of us in the business already know.....TV is dying on its feet (Streamabout is active in online video so we understand the TV market). Audience ratings "have collapsed" and with all the major TV providers losing subscribers (about 5 million subscribers cancelling). The number of cable subscribers will drop below 40 million for the first time ever. It's something a lot of us knew, but didn't have the data to support it. Time Warner Cable lost 306,000 cable subs and 24,000 Internet users. The CEO of a cable company, Charter Comms, expressed surprise that a staggering "1.3m of his 5.5m customers (a quarter) didn't want TV", they wanted broadband only packages - meaning they're switching online alright, but not to watch TV. Even ratings for major sporting events are in decline. Like Baseball...
Like Basketball..
So this is a real example of the shift to Internet where consumers are watching video and not, TV. They're watching shows and movies notably on mobile and probably as part of a broadband/Wifi 'deal' from a Telco. Or from the proliferation of free Wifi at a variety of stores or indeed, from city hotspots. But they're not watching traditional TV programmes, as they air live.
The other fundamental, is that more and more households, now have less "TV's" as we know them but rather, connected boxes like Apple TV or even via their Xbox or an internet set-top box. They want fast Internet access speeds with online content. Nielsen, the doyenne of TV research, are even reporting this decline.
So if people have less "TV's", they'll watch less TV as it's aired. They now have a global choice of frankly, better content. Mobile video is on the other hand, booming, with about 40% of all YouTube videos being watched on mobile. Staggering. And again, as you'll know, YouTube video is not TV programming in the main. Tablets too, are being viewed more during the key TV primetime, so each device has its moment across the day. But if tablets are being used during primetime, advertising effectiveness is diluting.
Of course too, as I've blogged about so many times, Advertising money is not following this shift. Yet. Old habits die hard - the US TV Ad revenue is 64 Billion Dollars whilst mobile is a mere 3.4 Billion. It certainly raises questions about TV Agency buyers who are supposed to buy on the basis of data, rather than cosy "back margin" volume deals. Most US Advertising money goes on traditional TV by a mile. Yet TV prices are increasing reports Morgan Stanley....as indeed, bizarrely, are cable subscriptions!! Questions should be asked.
The former Time Warner boss, Glenn Britt, nailed it I think, when he said that "the cable business had spent too many years complacently dismissing the competition" and that is such a well worn lesson. They have also been actively producing spurious data in vain attempts to try to keep convincing clients that TV is ploughing ahead, when it's not. It happened in the music business, it happened in the retail video rental business, it happened in the bookseller business and now it's in the TV business. For me, this is the crux of the matter leading to this downfall. Rather than dismissing online, they should be embracing it. Slowly, but surely, the game is up.
Stunning, possibly earthquaking, report today from Nielsen, the general bastion of all things TV. A survey undertaken in July/August of this year amongst key advertising buyers, is really causing a stir of seismic proportions. Especially because it comes from such a trusted source - Nielsen. What they're forecasting is that Tablets and Phones will be more important than TV for Advertising. More important in only 3 years. That's being wrapped in a concluding notion that consequently, 'multi screens' advertising has, and will, become more important for advertisers. Which in some ways is a half-way house and promoting way of doing both - for now. What's causing the stir, is that the survey was conducted with The Associationof National Advertisers (ANA), with almost 99% (a score as high I've never seen) of wait for it, clients, media sellers and Agencies, reporting that Tablets/Phones will be more important than TV in 2016. Indeed, most of those surveyed (86%) rank the mobile phone as more important for advertising than TV today. That's advertising importance and yet still, advertisers spend more on traditional TV by miles. 64 billion Dollars goes on traditional TV advertising in the US and mobile only gets 3.4 billion. So decisions are still being made, badly. You'll get all the charts here http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/online/tablets-and-mobile-phones-not-tv-forecast-to-be-most-important-screens-for-advertising-37906/
The Nielsen link is here http://nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2013/ana-and-nielsen-study-reveals-multi-screen-advertising-to-rise.html And what we've got here is the start of a dramatic shift. Traditional media companies, advertisers and agencies recognising the importance of digital advertising in a comparable way to TV advertising. That hasn't happened before in officialdom. And the credibility of the survey, must now be without question unlike perhaps, others that have gone before. Or so it has been argued but not any more. This could change everything.
The problem with celebrity endorsement in advertising is that you're banking on human frailty. It's a real quick way to get credibility and cachet for your brand but a super fast way to lose it. Once celebs get accused of something, they're tainted goods. I was involved in a campaign for Suzuki cars for example, featuring Ronaldo at a cost of 1 million stg. Then he was accused of rape, just as the campaign launched and we spent the week editing him out and re-shooting it. But, in some ways, the damage is done once you start announcing it. Tiger Woods moments also cost him dearly but cost his sponsors too, like Nike, who had so much aligned themselves to him. Michael Jackson child abuse charges caused problems for Pepsi - clearly. And yet at the time, no one was more sponsorable than Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson - both clean, home living boys it was thought. And so too Lance Armstrong. Clean living, cancer survivor, good looking champion of 7 Tour De France. The All-American boy but now we know differently. Although I watched the Oprah interview and I have to say, I saw redemption although few did. A new honesty that will help him re-build his brand, I think. Worse still, his featuring in a Nike commercial actually gets Lance to say "What am I on?" ....."I'm on my bike". Yep, sure, almost defying the rumours. Which of course now, makes it worse and makes it viral again to Nike's chagrin. And that's the problem. People. We all make mistakes, we all do things we shouldn't and when a brand puts its future in the hands of those human frailties, it takes a chance. A really high profile chance that it probably should never take. Nope, probably never. If you're going to enter these endorsement stakes, spread the risk - by sponsoring a team rather than a person. There's safety in numbers.
