A recent Wired.com report (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/tv/) showed that TV ad spend is still tops and while online spend might be increasing, there is little reason to think the death of TV advertising is imminent.
There is no doubt that technology is leading a change in media consumption and the 2 separate disciplines of online and broadcast will merge over time but for now, TV is still king.
Our experience, echoed by the industry as a whole, is that TV still leads the way in building brands and driving response. I have lost count of the number of times a potential client has been surprised at the low entry cost to TV and this is just one of many myths that surround television advertising. Here’s some more…..
‘TV doesn’t work as well as it used to’
Granted, consumption has changed and the myriad of channels and shows has created disparate viewing patterns but TV still works. A recent Thinkbox study showed ad campaigns were 35% more effective with TV. That’s why all the big brands still use it to drive sales.
‘TV takes too long to drive results’
We accept that TV has a long tail and yes, the brand value of a campaign is far reaching but our clients see immediate results from TV. Our econometric modelling system demonstrates that when TV campaigns air, websites, phone centres and brand search terms all increase in line with the volume of the TV campaign.
‘TV is too expensive’
In 2010 we launched a new brand with a £20,000 investment in local ITV. In 2011 that client is likely to spend £1m+ on national television. On a cost per 000 basis TV can compete with the best of them. Further, you don’t need multiple thousands of ££££ to test TV. A local campaign is a good way to dip a toe and assess the response.
‘We don’t know what TV did exactly’
But we can find out! Econometrics or robust analysis systems can ensure that we can provide as much data and evidence on the effect of TV advertising as possible. For one client we KNOW the cost per account that a TV campaign has created. For others we can state how many impacts are required to drive a new registration or how many web hits a client might achieve per 000 impacts. There are many models and there is always one to suit every client.
‘Young people spend all their time on the internet’
Its true, the internet has changed the life (not just the media consumption) of the elusive 16-24 market. This generation is a 2 screen consumer. They will be on the laptop at the same time as watching their favourite programme. Ever seen Twitter or facebook go wild about a show? My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding was the most talked about subject on both Twitter and Facebook when the first show of the new series aired in early 2011. Thinkbox claim that 15-24 year olds spend 44% of their media consumption time in front of the TV
‘No one sees the ads anymore as they skip through them’
I thank thinkbox for the following work…..
We watch 41% more TV ads at normal speed than in 1999. 87% of TV viewing is still live with only 13% ‘time-shifted’.
And here’s is the best stat of all…..
Even fast forwarded ads have real value, with about 65% of the recall of ads watched at normal speed.
TV isn’t dead, it’s just changing. The reach and coverage achievable through a TV campaign is far greater than other media. It is engaging, creative and multi sensory. We might be going through a revolution in consumption but agencies will always be up to speed with the changes.
Call us to talk about how TV advertising can help your business
Zone Outdoor, our outdoor specialist partners, recently undertook an out of home proximity study to identify the affect proximity campaigns have on footfall.
The study looked at proximity at 2 levels; footfall for local retail, town centre campaigns and vehicular which focused on out of two retail.
It covered a range of areas from motors to furniture retailers, fashion to fast food.
The initial findings backed up some age old statistics we already pretty much knew; People are willing to travel the furthest for cars(23 miles) and furniture (15 miles) whilst they wont travel for fast food (3 miles), banking (4 miles) and groceries(5 miles).
These figures can almost double when looking outside of London and in more rural areas….probably because there is less choice!
There aren’t any Eureka moments in this but it is valuable in supporting our claims that local outdoor does drive footfall and ultimately sales.
Looking more closely the study identified the distance of a message to the ability to transfer this into a sale. Following on from the first stage findings, there is a very clear link between the price a person would pay and the distance they would travel. Food and drink (bakeries etc.) need to be within 50 metres to create footfall perfumes and make-up still drove footfall from 150m. Perhaps it is not price but desirability that drives footfall? It is logical that people will be more prepared to shop around for clothes rather than fast food.
In addition to these findings there were clear differences in the purchasing process for ‘planned’ purchases versus ‘impulse’. It doesn’t come as any surprise that men are more responsive to ‘impulse’ purchase products whilst fashion comes into this impulse category for females….a very definitive planned purchase for men!
Clearly, the messaging is also important. Whilst there are optimum distances for the full range of products, the strength of the offering will play a huge part in the likely responses and that isn’t really covered in this report. Further the tactics of the campaign will have a huge impact on the response a proximity campaign is likely to achieve.
The study proved our hypotheses and showed that proximity does have an influence on driving footfall and demonstrates how consumers purchasing habits differ. Whilst it doesn’t consider all the other options such as creative, offers etc. it is good to be able to prove what media planners have known for a long time. Proximity works.
With the Launch of the News of The Worlds New men’s supplement Jam coinciding with Loaded hitting a 17 year low circulation, the men’s magazine sector is in the middle of a shake up
News International launched Jam with the tag that ‘if it is not put in our hands it is not in the DNA of men to buy a magazine’. That isn’t strictly true but the massive decline seen in the men’s magazine sector does indicate why they might make this claim.
There is a distinct change in the market. The Lads mag sector saw declines form the mid 90’s but the launch of Zoo and Nuts heaved it back to respectable levels only for these 2 weeklies to see month on month declines that continue to this day. Zoo loses around 20% year on year and the latest figures from Nuts show circulation declines of around 17%
Its fair to say that men don’t want to be seen as the beer swilling, breast obsessed lads of the 90’s. Instead, the success of Men’s Health (constant circulation growth reaching a current high of 245,754) and Men’s Fitness alongside the success of other ‘health’ titles such as Triathlon World demonstrates the desires of the new age man.
Shortlist and Sport have been game changers and soak up the mass market with their free distributed titles but this hasn’t stopped Esquire and QG holding onto their circulation which remains heavy ABC1 focused.
It would appear that the way forward is either via free titles or luxury, niche offerings that are more engaging and relevant to the today’s man. Port is a new launch with a cover price of £6 and is highly targeted towards AB men. A quiet launch was undertaken but the publishers will be pleased by its early success.
It will be interesting to see how the bigger publishers react to the changing landscape and just how long they persist with the declining titles. Bauer are set to launch Gaz7etta shortly and it will be interesting to see if this can be a sustainable addition to the group.