3 ms·

Live TV is different from TV - just like LiveStreaming is different from Streaming ... let's just get that out of the way. Young marketers, like myself, if the

Live TV is different from TV - just like LiveStreaming is different from Streaming ... let's just get that out of the way. Young marketers, like myself, if they are good professionals should be media agnostic, and just choose the best media channels for the target audience they are aiming to reach, depending of course of the objectives of the campaign. Again, depending on the target, the consumer journey makes their attention shift to alot of media touchpoints - the reality is that the media landscape still includes outdoor 8x6, newspappers, etc. Yet you can't dismiss that what we call ivideo is a cost effective medium. It doesn't depend on huge agency groups deals, with massive minimum investment requirements influenced by rapel. And lately it has become even more expensive... it's not that the audience isn't there - it's the cost of the GRPs. tl;dr - TV is just another medium. The most expensive one, and marketers sometimes question it's cost effectiveness and shift investment to online video.

zzalpha 9y ago
TV is just another medium. The most expensive one, and marketers sometimes question it's cost effectiveness and shift investment to online video. And then shift it back again. The stories are legion of advertisers transitioning to online advertising and back again when they discover it's less effective. Combine that with increasing awareness of impression fraud, and the difficulty of controlling where media is placed (resulting in brands appearing on... Questionable sites), and it seems the internet advertising hype is deflating a bit. And rightly so. As you say, it's a weapon in the arsenal, not a wholesale replacement for traditional TV advertising.
- libertine 9y ago
  Usually the shifts come when some mediums stop being saturated - Apple uses outdoor media in specific areas for example (something traditional for high end products, like Rolex, Aston Martin, etc). I think that one of the main problems of TV is the cost of production is increasing, and they don't want to kill their margins. Even the live content is dropping it's quality - that's why sports are still kings of audiences. Ad fraud, viewability and brand safety are defintly hot questions atm, but tools are already being set in place to help it (I don't think there's a definite solution) - some brands blew it out of proportion though, other brands are using this to drop down the costs. But yeah, it's just another weapon - TV is definatly the heavy artillery.
autokad 9y ago
"tl;dr - TV is just another medium. The most expensive one" I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Facebook costs .27 per click, google addwords are 1$ and up. an add for the big bang theory is around 250-500k$ for 8-20 million views. I feel like some companies actually spend too much on online advertisement. I also feel like the sudden pull of advertisements on youtube was more about people starting to question the ROI.
- libertine 9y ago
  In terms of media objectives, I wouldn't compare a CPC campaign on Facebook to TV - where you are paying for a specific action, and, accordind to Nielsen, there's no correlation between Brand Awareness and Ad Recall vs Clicks. Tv is used usualy for it's powerfull Reach (like you said, it concentrates alot of eyeballs at once), and since it's video is amazing to build awareness. One spot in the break of BBT may not be enough, because of the Frequency that the message will be displayed to the audience - that one shot spot (Frequency 1) of 250-500k may be good if you have a 100 million budget, else there are more effective ways to reach this audience with a propper TV planning. But if you want to Reach people on Facebook you can optimize it for Reach and Frequency - but you must have a great creative to gather and retain attention (you'll pay on CPM). The problem is just what you've said: ROI. Alot of brands don't measure it properly. For some brands online is a gold mine, for others, it's a dump.

zzalpha 9y ago

TV is just another medium. The most expensive one, and marketers sometimes question it's cost effectiveness and shift investment to online video. And then shift it back again. The stories are legion of advertisers transitioning to online advertising and back again when they discover it's less effective. Combine that with increasing awareness of impression fraud, and the difficulty of controlling where media is placed (resulting in brands appearing on... Questionable sites), and it seems the internet advertising hype is deflating a bit. And rightly so. As you say, it's a weapon in the arsenal, not a wholesale replacement for traditional TV advertising.

libertine 9y ago
Usually the shifts come when some mediums stop being saturated - Apple uses outdoor media in specific areas for example (something traditional for high end products, like Rolex, Aston Martin, etc). I think that one of the main problems of TV is the cost of production is increasing, and they don't want to kill their margins. Even the live content is dropping it's quality - that's why sports are still kings of audiences. Ad fraud, viewability and brand safety are defintly hot questions atm, but tools are already being set in place to help it (I don't think there's a definite solution) - some brands blew it out of proportion though, other brands are using this to drop down the costs. But yeah, it's just another weapon - TV is definatly the heavy artillery.

autokad 9y ago

"tl;dr - TV is just another medium. The most expensive one" I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Facebook costs .27 per click, google addwords are 1$ and up. an add for the big bang theory is around 250-500k$ for 8-20 million views. I feel like some companies actually spend too much on online advertisement. I also feel like the sudden pull of advertisements on youtube was more about people starting to question the ROI.

libertine 9y ago
In terms of media objectives, I wouldn't compare a CPC campaign on Facebook to TV - where you are paying for a specific action, and, accordind to Nielsen, there's no correlation between Brand Awareness and Ad Recall vs Clicks. Tv is used usualy for it's powerfull Reach (like you said, it concentrates alot of eyeballs at once), and since it's video is amazing to build awareness. One spot in the break of BBT may not be enough, because of the Frequency that the message will be displayed to the audience - that one shot spot (Frequency 1) of 250-500k may be good if you have a 100 million budget, else there are more effective ways to reach this audience with a propper TV planning. But if you want to Reach people on Facebook you can optimize it for Reach and Frequency - but you must have a great creative to gather and retain attention (you'll pay on CPM). The problem is just what you've said: ROI. Alot of brands don't measure it properly. For some brands online is a gold mine, for others, it's a dump.