Posts Tagged ‘TV’

BACK TO EARTH AFTER PLANET IBC

October 16th, 2012

I’m currently sitting in Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, waiting for my flight back to London after a couple of fun days at the IBC Conference, mixing with the tech community. I’ve only ever attended IBC twice before – across twelve or so years – but it never ceases to amaze me by its scale (at least twelve exhibition halls and over fifty thousand attendees) and also its consistency in constantly claiming the death of everything in the wake of the great god Digital. It was only last year that one of IBC’s keynote speakers – ex Channel 4 Chairman Luke Johnson – was predicting the imminent demise of broadcast television.

Except this year felt a little different.

I had been invited to be part of the connected television debate. The motion was that “connected television will make traditional channels irrelevant”. You can guess which side of the debate I was asked to take!

My first instinct was that it was a set-up; surely –given all the evidence – nobody still believes in this death-obsessed replacement narrative any more, do they? Then I remembered it was IBC. Along with my debating team mates – John Honeycutt of Discovery Channels and Nigel Walley of Decipher – I prepared my arguments convinced it was a lost cause; I felt a bit like George Osborne before he presented the Paralympics medals.

But then a strange thing happened. Our session chairman asked for a show of hands before the debate got under way, to establish the benchmark opinion on the topic. To my amazement, far more hands went up to signify the traditional channels will maintain their position, about 3-4 times as many as those who thought the traditional channels would become irrelevant.

In true IBC tradition, we didn’t change many minds; when the post-debate show of hands was called for, almost exactly the same people voted for exactly the same propositions. However, when asked who gave the most convincing arguments, the vast majority voted for our team. I can honestly say, that was the first formal debate I’ve ever won in my life!

It was made easier by our opponents, who seemed to focus their argument on the hypothesis that everything is changing so of course the traditional channels must fall by the wayside, with no firm evidence to support their case, other than “the internet figures are going up all the time”. This is something I have been constantly frustrated by ever since I started to make a career out of defending television – the world of digital, despite being so data-rich, relies so much on this tired and redundant argument; X is growing so it must replace Y.  It has a similar feel to it to that famous paean to wishful thinking – “if we build it, they will come” – that infected so many new media business plans before the first dotcom crash.

Our surprising victory wasn’t an outlying blip, either. In all of the other sessions I attended, there was a tacit realisation that digital innovation will have to work within the existing eco-system, rather than as an alternative. TV didn’t appear to be seen as the great enemy any longer, but as a potential business opportunity that could best be realised by working with the main broadcast players rather than against them. And, as with most eco-systems, the whole will almost certainly be greater than the sum of the parts, and digital can be used to enhance rather than compete with ingrained, valued human experiences.

So, hats off to IBC and here’s to a future where the traditional will co-exist with the new and we can concentrate on growth rather than the battle for world domination. This may be the start of the process leading to such debates finally becoming irrelevant.

THE RELEVANCE OF CHANNEL BRANDS

October 16th, 2012

I have just returned from the IBC Conference, otherwise described as the Planet Klingon – by its own delegates! –  in Amsterdam. It is my third visit in just over a decade, and although on the surface much remains the same (dress codes, conference topics, and several people vaguely resembling Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons!) some things do change below the surface. One such thing is the realisation that TV is not only not going to go away, but that it is integral to the success of many of the products and services on display.

My role at IBC this year was to argue against the proposition that “connected TV will render traditional TV channels irrelevant”.  Part of me was surprised this was still up for debate, but then I remembered the setting. There was a robust debate from John Honeycutt of Discovery, Nigel Walley, Anthony Rose, Saul Berman et al resulting in a strong majority of the audience voting against the motion – i.e. there is a place for ‘traditional’ (I do hate that word – it assumes a rejection of change) channel brands in the future connected world of television.

Mind you, as almost exactly the same proportion had voted the same way in the pre-debate benchmark vote, it means the two teams technically tied. It does, though, demonstrate the seismic change in attitudes to TV’s future role amongst the tech community, totally different to even 3-4 years ago, and that is worth thinking about. Even if we hadn’t managed to shift the balance during the debate in the slightest!

As far as my own personal contribution went, my preparation for the debate gave me a renewed sense of the continuing importance of channel brands in a connected TV world. Branding becomes increasingly important whenever choice and functionality is improved, and the TV viewing environment is no different. But, I can hear you ask, why shouldn’t those brands be Google or Apple or even zeebox?

I attempted to answer that in four parts.

First of all, brands have to stand for something relevant to the choice process and channel brands have proven to be a very defined and relevant short-cut to programme choice for decades. Viewers understand the difference between an E4 late night drama and an ITV Sunday evening one, a Discovery documentary and a Nat Geo competitor. People use channel brands all the time, as several on demand aggregators have found to their cost.

Secondly, channel brands offer a guarantee of quality (after all, the essence of what a brand should stand for); for most viewers,  it is important that a programme has had a peak-time, ‘proper’ channel transmission; a bit like theatrical release is important to the DVD market (and ‘straight to DVD’ tells you all you need to know).

Thirdly, we should never underestimate the importance of now! What is on the telly now is significantly more important than what’s on my planner or on demand, which is why the latter are often used a safety net and the schedules remain first port of call. Social media and channel programming strategies are making now more important all the time, and while the schedules take precedence, the channels that create that content will always thrive.

Finally, I talked about the context of viewing; most of which is still shared with other people. This is always missed out by those advocating an individualised, targeted, solitary viewing future, and it means that the aggregators’ main USP – personalisation  – will only benefit those living alone or preferring to watch alone (most don’t). Shared viewing is more about compromise than the personalised, something the channel brands are uniquely able to provide with their much-derided ‘general entertainment’ tag.

I also looked to a future where channel brands can increase their revenue base through opportunities such as merchandising, live events, PPV, micro-payments, data value and a whole bunch more. They can be much more than just a navigational aid in TV’s connected future.

They will need to adapt in order to thrive, but when even the IBC Crowd are pronouncing their faith in the ‘traditional’ TV channels, it is time to reaffirm their relevance, past present and future.

 

THE RIPPLE AND THE DRILL

October 16th, 2012

I’ve learned that if you stick around long enough, fashions will always come back. My 13 year old son is taking a keen interest in my late 1990s wardrobe and record collection, which is a worrying sign in itself. Meanwhile, maybe it’s just coincidence, but I’m starting to see echoes of two phrases that infested the dozens of ‘new media’ business plans I had to wade through in my channel development role during that first dotcom boom; “if we build it, they will come” and “killer apps”.

The former was a line taken from Kevin Costner’s overblown 1990s philosophiser ‘Field of Dreams’ and if the quote appeared in any of the aforesaid business plans, they would go straight into the bin. I was much more interested in those adhering to another 1990s movie catchphrase, “show me the money!” I wonder whether some of the more recent digital disappointments, such as the Facebook share price, contain an element of that late 1990s wish fulfilment.

‘Killer apps’ is a much more interesting proposition. Back then it referred to the stand-out benefits that would drive consumer take-up. I always felt it was a bit conceptual, until real apps came along, and in a sense embodied it. The app is a killer app, or if it isn’t the app doesn’t get downloaded

Although apps are coming(quite slowly) to the main TV screen, I’ve long argued that their main influence will be on the companion screens that are now becoming a significant viewing accessory/distractor (pretty much in equal measure according the latest Thinkbox research (link – get TB approval). They provide an efficient way to access ancillary content and TV viewers are responding accordingly (1.5 million downloads of the BBC Olympics app alone).

Which is where I introduce Deloitte’s TV:Why? Report, (link – get Deloitte approval) which was unveiled at the Edinburgh TV Festival last week. It is, as always, full of well-argued, evidence-based insights into TV’s emerging role in the digital landscape. It analyses issues such as TV’s role in household entertainment, the future for connected TVs and the reasons behind  the resilience of TV advertising. The hot topic of the moment, though, and one the Deloitte report covers well, is the evolution of multi-screening. This is the landscape where the ‘killer apps’ affect (and are affected by) what is viewed via the main TV screen.

The fascinating headline from the report is that multi-screening is more about talking than interacting. Deloitte’s research suggests that most viewers will use companion screens to talk about the TV they are watching, rising to 4 out of every 5 teens and 3 out of every 4 under-24s. It is an extension of what TV viewers have always done; talk about the programmes and ads they are watching.

Meanwhile, there is far less enthusiasm for interacting with programmes. Only 4% of people strongly disagree with the statement “I can’t be bothered to interact with programmes” and only one in eight disagrees at all (compared to two out of three who agree). This has massive implications for how connected TVs are marketed and helps to explain why take-up and connectivity has been so slow.

The primacy of talk over interaction reflects the shared, communal nature of TV viewing, whereas interaction is often a personalised activity. It suggests the main impact of TV advertising is likely to be the ripple of discussion rather than the drilling down into deeper interactive experiences.

This ripple vs. drill analogy interests me, because

 

 

DELOITTE TV:WHY? REPORT

October 16th, 2012

“I can’t imagine life without television”

Only 9% of sample disagreed strongly – compared to 22% who agreed strongly.

Total agree is around 55% – total disagree around 20%

About 2x % 16-18s strongly agree compared to 55+s

 

“Watching TV is a good way of bringing the family together”

Total agree around 55% – compared to total disagree c. 12%

More than twice the % of 55+s disagree cf teenagers (16%)

Sharing in the physical space/analogue world

 

“Watching TV with others is much more enjoyable than watching alone”

C 50% agree vs 18% disagree

Young much more likely to agree

 

TV Got Worse?

For each of past 21 years UK public been polled (Deloitte?). Each year 30-40% say TV programming ‘got worse’ and only 10% say it has improved

How ties in with the importance of now?

Deloitte – 52 hours first run programming on PSBs alone every day! Estimate we don;t watch 99.95% (1460 hours p.a. vs 3million produced!)

Younger agree “the quality of TV programmes nowadays is better than ever before” but equal agree/disagree at older end of spectrum

 

Second Screening – Like TV Dinners

2 connected devices per UK citizen – laptops, smartphones, tablets. Early adopters 4 per adult

Mainly about TV – especially 121 communication and wider social networking. About TV > instead of TV. Ripple > Drill (expand analogy)

 

Frequency of communication with others via internet about the programme being watched – e.g. messaging, email, Facebook, Twitter;

-       Half of 16-24s do frequently or occasionally

-       Only 22% never use web to talk about programmes

About 2/3 agree slightly or strongly with statement “I can’t be bothered to interact with programmes”. Not much variation by age – where are the ‘killer apps’?

 

TV LOSES SEX APPEAL

October 16th, 2012

Before their careers took off, both Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn were told they were simply not sexy enough to make it in Hollywood. Being sexy is obviously in the eye of the beholder, which is just as well for TV.

I have just returned home from a media conference where I heard yet again from a senior media strategist with a global advertiser how TV is simply ‘not sexy enough’ as a media channel and is being kicked out of the marital bedroom in favour of those hot young things at Google, Facebook and Apple. In fact, to make it even worse, it is totally TV’s fault for not only letting itself go but also, at the same time, failing to put the effort into the relationship.  “You don’t call, you don’t write, you don’t visit me every day with a stunning new creative solution…” . OK, I paraphrased things slightly, but not by much.

This last point grated somewhat; I’ve seen too many recent examples of broadcasters offering increasingly creative solutions to advertisers across Europe and North America to accept that is the case, but it did point to a major disconnect between the ambitions of the advertiser and the attitude and/or resources of the media owner. And it is not an isolated incident – I have seen similar presentations from a range of global advertisers who, between them, account for a huge proportion of media expenditure.

The presentation was subject to a great deal of polite but insistent questioning from the audience, following which I grasped three fundamental  challenges that a frumpy old medium like TV will need to address if it is pass the Marilyn and Audrey test, rather than be perceived to be the Anne Widdecombe/John Sergeant (take your pick) of communications planning.

The first of these is an ability to offer 360 degree solutions, encompassing all aspects of the media owner’s business. Having worked with a couple of the online giants recently, I think there is merit in this. Their sales teams (many of them from a TV background, ironically enough) can offer direct input from a range of disciplines within the group; sales, marketing, creative, editorial, strategic and technological. Compare this, say, to the tortuous processes advertisers need to go through just to get an advertiser-funded programme on air, with the programme production teams often offering a less than joined up approach to the whole process. There has to be a lesson there for the broadcasters. The TV sales people who have ‘gone digital’ certainly appear to relish the opportunities to not only think, but sell outside the box.

The second challenge is even more daunting. When pressed, the advertiser in question agreed that they have directly approached a wide range of media players to discuss potential partnerships, including production companies, Hollywood studios and platform operators. Although there were some TV broadcasters on the list, these were all global brands; highly localised or regionalised players were not being invited to the party. This would naturally exclude brands such as ABC, NBC, ITV, Channel 4, TF1, RTL and ProSiebenSat1 from the invitation list – all major players within their markets and all of whom would be expected to lead the way in offering creative solutions to the advertisers within those markets.

I have no doubt the broadcasters have the resources to rise to this challenge, but it might mean a more open-minded and collaborative approach between the organisations representing TV – whether that be Thinkbox, EGTA or the TV Bureau of Canada. If the individual TV companies cannot get an invite to the party, maybe they should work together to enable the case for TV to be made to the global communications planners and strategists that now sit in head offices across the USA and Europe. If nothing else, it would get them on the guest list and the sheer novelty of seeing the whole TV industry work together in such a way would send out a very powerful signal.

Of course, it would probably never happen!

The third challenge is an even more fundamental one. Throughout the presentation (and the many other similar presentations I have seen given by global comms strategists of major advertisers), I felt the enthusiasm was invested in what the technology could do rather than the creative excellence behind what was being communicated. This meant that some of the examples given involved clever use of technology and a successful performance amongst those reached BUT many of the creative ideas appeared tired and forced, and the reach levels of the campaigns were less than impressive.

We are now two decades into the digital revolution, and yet this ‘TV is not sexy enough’ mindset appears to me to be both retrograde and lazy. It works on an assumption of TV’s role in the digital media landscape which is at least ten years out of date. It assumes the media channel can be separated and placed in a silo. It also demonstrates a discouraging ignorance of what exactly is going on in TV right now, and some of the highly creative solutions it can provide (generally, WITH other media channels rather than as an alternative to them!).

So, my question to the big, global advertisers is this. Has TV really lost its sex appeal, or are you just looking for a younger model? Because we all know how those relationships usually end, don’t we?

HAS US PRIME TIME LOST ITS SHINE?

October 16th, 2012

According to a recent academic paper by a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, there has been an increasing collective interest in death and dying within American society, and it has been growing consistently for several decades. It certainly seems to have permeated the US media industry, and particularly its industry press, which has been chirruping recently about the dramatic falls in viewing the US networks have been experiencing in the last month or so, and the signal it sends that Americans are (finally!) drifting away from their television sets for good.

The New York Times reported under the headline ‘Prime-time Ratings Bring Speculation of a Shift in Viewing Habits’ that the combined network audiences were down by double digit levels year on year, with the comment “I think we are at a tipping point in how people are going to watch shows”. The LA Times breathlessly reported that “the prime-time television ratings drop took centrer stage at the Digital Content NewFront presentations in New York, with former ABC Entertainment Chairman Lloyd Braun seizing on the numbers as an opportunity to talk about changing viewing habits — and the rise of digital media”. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?

A single month of poor figures and the prophets of doom and gloom immediately assemble to pick over network television’s carcass. Except, there is no body to scavenge and the numbers being touted suffer from some basic misinterpretations!

Thanks to my good friend, Dr. Horst Stipp of the Advertising Research Foundation, I have managed to get hold of some Nielsen figures, which put a different light on the numbers.

The first thing to note is that the numbers relate to the 4 week period ending 12th April. Now, first of all, a four week period is hardly enough time to suggest the death of the dominant digital media channel, but sadly that is the short-termist nature of the world we live in. However, it wasn’t just any 4 week period; it was a period which contained both the Easter and spring breaks this year, but not in 2011. TV viewing suffers during those two periods, as anybody who has tried to get out of a major US city during Easter weekend will tell you. So, for a start, the analysis compares apples and pears.

The analysis is also incomplete. It only takes into account viewing to the main commercial networks (across one of their traditionally weaker audience periods) and, like most markets with a vibrant multi-channel offering, their share of viewing has been declining consistently, for something like 24 consecutive months. It also only includes live and same day viewing; so much of the timeshift viewing that has long been a feature of US TV viewing is taken out of the equation.

If we were to base the analysis on a longer time-span and a like-for-like comparison of all television viewing, Nielsen data shows a much more settled picture. For example, across the whole of the first quarter, total viewing is up and viewing amongst the all-important 18-49 demographic – the cord cutters and Netflix addicts (supposedly) – was actually up 2% on 2011.  In fact, across the whole TV season, from September 2011 to April 2012, both all individuals and 18-49 TV viewing levels were up on slightly on the previous year – and that, remember, is coming off a very high base.

There is a depressing familiarity to the speed with which this ‘TV is dying’ narrative continues to re-emerge. It only takes a few weeks’ data to set it off again, it is woefully ignorant of the context (e.g. the importance of Easter in the comparison) and it is based on wishful thinking, reminiscent of a time when “if we build it, they will come” was a staple phrase in most digital business plans.

Effectiveness Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

March 2nd, 2012

It’s only since I began regularly blogging on media matters that I have also started to ask odd questions whenever I’m confronted with a straightforward headline. I should have been satisfied with the report from the USA’s Association of National Advertisers (ANA), announcing research amongst major advertisers showing a renewed faith in television. To quote Bill Duggan of the ANA; “This survey confirms that the death of television has been greatly exaggerated. Our findings shine a spotlight on the bullish attitude that advertisers have towards the medium, including passion for new TV and video platforms.”
It confirms something I’ve always felt about USA media, ever since I went on a media ‘fact-finding’ trip to New York in 1989 and returned disappointed – in many ways, they have always been a year or so behind us. Such a headline from UK advertisers’ body ISBA would hardly raise a yawn these days, it has become so taken for granted.
But something in the article intrigued me. The report stated that, compared to 2010, the number of advertisers judging TV ads to be more effective tripled. That seems like a massive jump to me in such a short space of time and I double checked to make sure there hadn’t been some game-changing event that had taken place in the USA without my knowledge. Not really.
So, how to explain such a leap in confidence in a medium which has probably been battered and bruised even more in the States than it has here in Limey-land? I’ve come up with three possible answers;

1.   Television really IS getting more effective over there. There is a good case that it is, but the technologies that are cited by the ANA, such as new video platforms and addressable advertising, are nowhere near mainstream enough yet to have made a noticeable difference.

 

2.   American advertisers are finally getting the tools to measure and correctly attribute TV’s contribution to effectiveness. If true, this would persuade me to re-calculate our lead over the USA to two years or more. It’s often surprised me, though, how less well-established 360 degree effectiveness evaluation is Stateside.

 

3.   It’s more of an emotional thing – they just feel more confident about praising TV. I think we sometimes forget just how ingrained the ‘TV is dead’ narrative became following the emergence of Web 2.0 until just a couple of years ago. I believe the UK industry only really began to reject it as too simplistic around 2009, which would mean (if my time-lag theory is correct) the tables would begin to turn in the US in 2010 – the low base year from which TV’s perceived effectiveness has tripled.

 

Of course, as always, it is probably a combination of all three, but if I had to select one of those alternatives as my main influence, it would have to be third. On the one hand, so much of what we do is based on emotion and ‘herd’ behaviour, why not advertisers’ sense of excitement (or ennui) in TV’s place in the media landscape? But it must also be based on an increased understanding of how effectiveness works and how to attribute TV’s contribution, especially given the sterling work recently from the IPA, ARF, PWC, Deloittes and Thinkbox. So, maybe it is the second answer as well. That seems more like it – left brain and right brain working together.
Either way, come on USA – catch up! (And how often do we get to say that?)

Is TV Viewing Beginning to Plateau?

January 13th, 2012

MEDIATEL
BLOG

IS
TV VIEWING BEGINING TO PLATEAU?

One of the most notable media phenomena of the twenty
first century so far has been the inexorable rise of television viewing.
Despite all of the disruptions that TV was expected to suffer – as a result of DTRs,
search, online viewing, social media, wireless broadband, smartphones,
connected TVs and the rest – the net result has been a consistent rise in
viewing to TV (and, especially, TV commercials), both via the TV screen and via
other devices.

Average hours of viewing to TV, as measured by BARB
(therefore excluding viewing on other devices) have increased every year so far
this century. The average individual now watches more than four hours of TV
every day and total TV viewing has increased by ten per cent on levels a decade
ago. Commercial viewing has risen even further and the amount of viewing to TV
commercials, at normal speed, has
risen by almost a quarter in the last five years alone.

Just how long can this continue? The latest data suggests
TV viewing may be close to reaching a plateau and the new forms of viewing –
such as via internet or mobile phones – are also experiencing a slowdown in
their rate of adoption.

In the first nine months of this year, total TV viewing
levels are up less than one per cent on last year, suggesting 2011 could show
the flattest year on year viewing performance since the 1990s. Commercial
viewing is up five per cent, although this has largely been driven by digital
switchover, which is almost complete. Although even the current figures are
well ahead of any of the predictions from ten years ago, all the signs are that
TV viewing has reached saturation point, or is not far from it.

Even the new forms of viewing, which have risen exponentially in line with total viewing, are
beginning to see some slowdown. The latest BARB Bulletin shows claimed viewing
via internet and via mobile phones. The numbers of people engaging with both is
increasing, but the underlying numbers look less impressive than we might have
expected.

Let’s take viewing to TV via the internet. In total, 36.2% of the UK population have watched some TV this way during November 2011,
up from 34.4% at the same time last year – an increase of five per cent. Mobile
phone access to TV content has been tried by 7% of individuals in November this
year, up by two fifths on the 5% last year.

So, theoretically, these new forms of viewing should keep
TV viewing levels on the rise, even as BARB-reported viewing begins to level
off or even decline. However, if we look beyond the headline numbers, internet
and mobile TV viewing levels are less impressive than they first appear. That
is because the numbers of regular users are not neccessarily rising in
proportion.

Normally, when a new technology is adopted, the increase
in total penetration is soon overtaken by the increases in the numbers of loyal
or regular users, as the activity takes hold. In the case of TV viewing by
internet, the increase in weekly and monthly users is rising no faster than
total penetration. T   mhe number of
weekly users has only risen by three per cent across the year. For TV viewing
by mobile phone, the number of regular users is outstripping total users – just
– but given smartphone penetration is well over fifty per cent by now, total
user penetration of just 7% (and less than 3% using weekly) is not terribly
impressive.

Given that digital switchover is almost complete, pay TV
is almost at saturation point and most of the new technologies that have
affected TV viewing are already well-established by now, perhaps it shouldn’t
be a surprise that TV viewing is also reaching saturation levels. There are
only so many hours in the day for us to engage in any media activity, and TV’s
ability to eat up an average four hours per day of our time has been
astonishing.  Still, all good things come
to an end and in the current age of austerity, maybe a plateau is not such a
bad thing anyway!

In or out- the most important media segmentation

November 18th, 2011

 

A couple of years ago, I had a friendly spat with David McEvoy from J C Decaux over the fact I hadn’t included outdoor in my analysis of time spent with media, during my presentation at the launch of Touchpoints 3. My point was that all other measures were about time actively spent consuming a particular medium (i.e. claimed usage), whereas for outdoor it was time spent out of home (i.e. opportunity to see), producing an unfair comparison.

The conversation did set me thinking, though. There does appear to be a strong relationship between television and outdoor; when used together, they seem to aid advertising effectiveness, by working in a highly complementary way. Certainly, the IPA Databank suggests they work well together, and well over half of the prize winning case studies feature TV as a lead medium and outdoor as a significant support channel. The fact that one dominates our time in the home and the other is eponymous with the time we spend out of home suggests to me that the most basic media segmentation, and the one that is perhaps most relevant to the media consumer, is in or out; whether we are sitting in the relative calm and comfort of our own living rooms, or we are out and about in the big, wide world, getting on with our lives and managing to cut a path through all of the noise and distractions.

Whether we segment by mindset, context or location – all of which are proven to be influential in how we process and respond to marketing communications – the question of whether we are in or out of our homes is the most fundamental driver. Think about it; when we are in our own homes, we are more likely to be relaxed, switched off, with our closest family or friends in a familiar environment where we don’t need to think too much but we have more time to engage with what interests and attracts us. When we are out of home, whether commuting, studying, working, shopping or socialising, then we are more focussed, task-oriented, and surrounded by stimuli, much of it unfamiliar, all competing for our attention. We are also, ninety per cent of the time at least, closer to purchase (as offline retail still accounts for 91% of retail spend.

But let’s also consider the other 9% of retail expenditure. Until the rise of online, another part of the segmentation would have been that when we were at home we would have been unable to respond easily to what we experienced from the comfort of our living rooms. That is no longer the case, we can respond to anything at any time, although the nature of response does differ, depending on where we are and the mindset we are in at the time; we tend to respond to things we are personally interested in from our sofas in the evenings, whereas it is much more likely to be more functional items (e.g. car insurance) that we respond to online at different times of the day.

That said, the majority of our purchases are still offline, which means they can often only be completed when we are out of home. It is this relationship; the ability of our in-home experiences to engage us and create the desire or positive associations with the brand, and then out of home experiences to nudge us along, grab our attention or lead us to a purchase opportunity where I think the magic of in-and-out marketing communications resides.

When we are at home, television dominates our media time. According to the latest Touchpoints data, it is responsible for half of all our media time BUT between six pm and eleven pm – when most of us are settled at home with our loved ones –  it takes a massive seventy five per cent of our media time. Meanwhile, although technological developments like mobile TV will make it more of an out of home medium, it will never compete with outdoor for the out-of-home audience. It doesn’t matter – each media channel is doing what it does best in those two very different environments.

We know that people are more receptive, responsive and emotionally engaged when they are watching TV at home, and that this leads to stronger and more positive memory associations with the brand. Equally, we know that when people are out and about, a great deal does get processed, but much of it is beyond our conscious awareness. For the best demonstrations of this latter phenomenon, it is worth watching Derren Brown, especially his brilliant demonstrations of how to influence advertising copywriters to come up with a particular piece of creative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChvIHoag-R8) or the equally impressive way he influences a woman to select one particular toy out of the many thousands stocked at toy megastore Hamleys (http://www.indyarocks.com/videos/Derren-Brown-Subliminally-Makes-Girl-Pick-Giraffe-795409). Even though the ‘victims’ of these stunts had no idea they were being influenced by the tiny details that they had processed during their guided journeys with the arch manipulator, those details were enough to influence their behaviour so much that Derren could predict what they would eventually do, despite the thousands of alternative behaviours or choices they could have exhibited!

My point is that, for many of those out of home experiences to break through, they need to make sense, pretty much immediately. They need to awaken associations that are already firmly established in our minds and carry a meaning beyond what we can take in during the few seconds in which we may be exposed to the communication. They need to do this whilst we are often concentrating on something else entirely; crossing a busy main road, completing the crossword on a crowded train, scanning the aisles during a frantic shopping expedition or taking that all-important business call as we make our way from one meeting to another. The fact that outdoor will become increasingly audio-visual should cement this relationship between TV and outdoor even further.

So, like most media combinations, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and different media channels perform different functions within the communications process. With television and outdoor working together, the brand gets to be integral to the two major elements of people’s lives; whether they are in or out.

What are we reaching for?

September 12th, 2011

A Thinkbox blog by David Brennan for Brand Republic

March 1 2010

 

I attended the Mediatel ‘Future of Online’ seminar recently, where much was made of the launch of UKOM, the online industry’s attempt to get a measure of exposure and reach with the aim of attracting more brand display revenues. It has been a tortured process.

Now, this may seem strange, given that TV achieves levels of reach that other media channels can only dream about, but I think we need to think beyond exposure and reach in terms of planning integrated media campaigns.

Yes, I know that commercial TV delivers nearly three quarters of the UK population every day and well over 90% every week, across the vast majority of target demographics, but comparisons with other media based on such data disguise the real impact each medium creates. This camouflage comes from the media measurement systems themselves.

All of the main metrics – reach, frequency, impacts, impressions, ratings – are based on the concept of opportunity to see/listen/read, and yet the difference between opportunity and delivery will vary hugely depending on the media measurement vehicle.

TV measures the audience in the room whilst the set is on, minute by minute, so that we can be confident that all of those featured in the measurement will have had some exposure, even if they had their backs to the screen – especially as BARB carries out coincidental checks to make sure who is reported to be in the room at any moment in time is in fact present.

Press readership, meanwhile, is based on anybody who has spent at least two minutes reading or looking at any printed copy in the past 12 months, whether or not they even opened the page on which the ad appears; consequently, actual exposure to the ad itself requires a much greater leap of faith.

My understanding is that online ‘reach’ will fall somewhere between these two extremes. My point is that, when these reach numbers are placed in a media plan, they are generally considered to be equivalent in value and impact.

Results from a really interesting study by the Television Bureau of Canada helps to put some of this disparity, or false equivalence, into perspective. They observed people watching TV, reading newspapers, listening to radio and interacting online in as natural a context as possible. They used a wide range of biometric and cognitive measures, including eye tracking, in order to determine how long each ad was ‘processed’. On average, the TV advertising generated more than three times the engagement of radio ads (and, possibly connected with this finding, almost three times the next day adjusted recall levels). TV ads achieved 40% more next day recall and 80% more engagement than online video (via pre-rolls). TV delivered five times the next day recall and twelve times the visual attention of online display in general. Against press, meanwhile, TV achieved more than five times the total advertising engagement.

The problem with the media measurement vehicles is that they cannot account for these differences in engagement, attention or recall, and so if an overall reach figure is achieved from a mix of media channels, it will treat them all as equal. There is nothing quite like a spreadsheet for providing the appearance of consistency and equivalence, however what happens in the lives of the consumers they reach, and the brands advertising in those media, will provide a very different story.