The Hollywood Reporter reported that 62% of marketers believe traditional television advertising has become less effective in the past 2 years. A quick search revealed that according to TNS Media Intelligence, in Q1 2007, Television advertising accounted for 44.6% of all media spent. That showed a decrease of 2.7% from the previous year. So if I am reading this correctly, roughly 2/3 of marketers thing TV is not doing the job, yet almost 50% of ad dollars is going into the media channel and even with these feelings, the decline from the previous year is significant but small. I know that this is not a direct comparison 1-1 on percentages but when reading between the lines this is what I take out of it. Marketers can be lazy. They stick with what they know, and do not challenge themselves or their brands. I remember meeting with a media director a few years ago who I met at a conference. She had told me that the agency wanted to start offering non-traditional but her clients (Fortune 50 types) were reluctant. "Why do you think that is so?" I asked. Her reply was very revealing. She commented that there was no line item for non-traditional (at the time) and that frankly if the tactic did not merge into their reach/freq spreadsheet, it was a hard sell. My take-away at the time was that they did not understand the power of non-traditional media and what it can do for the brand and as well, were reluctant to break from their set media ideas. Keep in mind that if 62% of marketers are not feeling that TV is effective, what percentage of the public is guiding that decision? When it comes to consumers being influenced by television advertising, the numbers are probably much worse.
In poker, we call this negative expected value. A strategic concept that boils down to the following: -EV = putting your money in when the percentages bare out that the fruit of putting such money in will not allow for winning enough to cover the investment in the long run. Flipping it around, positive expected value (+EV) means getting some money in, albeit with chance, when there is the possibility of a big payoff over the long term. It feels like TV is running in the negative these days. That can be blamed on the sheer amount of it and the often poor creative that we are seeing. There is no medium better at getting your brand out to a large audience at a low cost per touch but...the creative and placement has to work that much harder to get it done.
Fast forward a few years from my conversation and the non-traditional/experiential/guerrilla concepts and rfp's are coming in more than ever. Many companies are interested and experimenting with new forms of media, on-line and off (it is important to look at the TNS #s linked above and see that the segment with the largest growth percentage wise was online). Their is a lot of buzz in the alt world but I would not hazard to guess that it still represents a tiny percentage of overall ad spend. So my real follow-up question to the Hollywood Reporter stat is this. If 62% of marketers believe that traditional television advertising is less effective now, what are they prepared to do about it?