I got a DVR five or six years ago. I wasn’t exactly an early adopter, but I must say I love it. I record everything, often watching a program a mere 20 minutes after it starts to avoid the commercials. I know I’m not alone.
Don’t get me wrong. Good advertising I really like. But so much of it is bad – or stupid. The DVR lets me watch commercial-free if I want to.
Among DVR owners in Nielsen markets (37%), Nielsen recently reported that 40-50% of commercials are watched during playback, up from earlier estimates of 30-40%. (Source: MediaDailyNews, 8/5/10)
I’m not sure what to believe about this: Commercial viewership up among DVR owners? Really? Or did Nielsen change how they’re measuring things? One hypothesis I had was that more recent DVR adopters could be less sophisticated/less comfortable using the fast forward/jump feature on their remote controls. But Nielsen says that DVR playback is happening more among younger and higher-income viewers, so I can’t imagine my hypothesis is true.
While DVR viewership isn’t universal, these “facts” got me asking a few questions:
- Who’s not watching ads – consistently? Do they have any identifiable characteristics that we can plan around?
- What are the best, most effective ways to reach these ad-skippers in other media and/or via other ways on TV (e.g., product placement, sponsorships, etc.)?
- What defines “stopping power” in a TV ad today, and how is it measured, particularly among DVR viewers? I would think that the first and last ads in a pod would have the highest viewership, yet is this reflected in the numbers agencies are getting to calculate impressions? Related to this, for researchers/account planners, is there a method out there for testing ads in a program-embedded clutter and letting people skip as they would at home, to get at stopping power and ad effectiveness? Plus, can ads be tested at fast-forward speed to assess their stopping power?
- What impact is all this having on brand awareness or brand image? Have any tracking studies been done among ad-skippers vs. those who fast-forward through ads vs. ad-watchers to see what impact ad viewing behavior has on these critical brand measures?
As I write these questions from my logical left brain, I have to remind myself that how we take in information isn’t very well understood. I might not “know” the latest musical phenom, but I always seem to have heard the tune before I learn the artist’s name or see their face – and this is without kids at home. What goes on around us seems to sink in and have an impact.
I don’t know the answers to the questions above, and maybe I’ll dig around to learn a bit more. Yet it’s clear that whether TV ads are skipped or seen, consumers continue to form impressions of brands. And since no matter how hard we try, not everything that impacts them will be known or measurable, I feel more strongly than ever that having consistent brand values which shine in all we do – and being present where our target lives – is the best foundation for the relationships we want to have with them.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but with mobile marketing being so “hot” these days, why hasn’t an ad delivery network teamed with a mobile carrier to offer a newer, less costly phone-service option?
We have monthly phone plans, unlimited data plans, and pre-paid phones, but what about a service that says if you agree to view two ads a day on your mobile, you’ll get X off your monthly carrier changes, and five ads a day you’ll get Y off your charges? Or extra minutes? Or free text credits?
Certainly, marketers love the platform because people are literally attached to their phones at the hip. And, if like TV programming viewed on the Web, a person couldn’t get their messages unless they saw the 10-15-second ad first, theoretically, they would be more attentive to the ad. At least this form of mobile advertising is more opt-in than any other. The consumer makes an agreement with their cell phone provider and by extension the ad network: I’ll agree to watch you ads if you lower my bill.
Are we so entrenched in the cable TV model that we’re not thinking outside the box? I think there could be an opportunity here. What do you think?
A new study from the ANA Alliance for Family Entertainment reports that the type of show in which an ad is placed can impact the effectiveness of that advertising.
A couple of key points from “Are Family-Friendly Shows a Better Environment for Ads?” (Ad Age 11/4/09):
“Running an ad in a show that matches its tone and provides appropriate context can boost ad effectiveness by an average of more than 30%.”
“The collective ad-spending might of the Alliance for Family Entertainment is enough to raise the eyebrows of any media outlet. Should [this] research help guide marketers’ spending decisions, then certainly, TV networks and other media might take notice.”
I am not in media research. But I spent more than 10 years working in ad agencies. What surprises me is that this is “new news” or that media outlets would be just waking up to these facts.
In part, my job as an account planner was to work closely with the media planner – and there were times when the two of us sat with the buyer to refine a buy. We were always looking for great synergy between our ad spends and the people we were trying to reach. From the sound of it, this collaborative approach may be on the verge of a resurgence.
A cautionary note for Marketing ROI and Math Marketing advocates: All TRPs are not the same. Those that enhance loyalty or positive brand associations – things hard to calculate – count for more than just immediate sales returns.
I recently came across the following quote from Carla Hendra, CEO of Ogilvy & Mather North America: “CMOs are under increasing pressure to deliver business results and to demonstrate the contribution that marketing makes to their organization. The days of guess work and soft metrics are over — Math Marketing is the future.”
A couple of reactions to the quote:
First, not everything is measurable. Love isn’t, apathy isn’t – just to name two.
Second, trends can’t always be predicted, and needs can’t always be anticipated, based upon what currently exists and is measurable.
I have no issue with being accountable. But I do have an issue with fear (in the guise of accountability) killing creativity. That would be a little like agency creatives only developing ads to beat the norms in copy testing; this has only ever produced average or slightly above average ads. I’m convinced that the original Apple “1984″ ad would not have tested well to norms.
I would really dislike seeing CMOs turn into “CFOs in new clothes.” I do understand the digital environment affords marketers more avenues for reaching micro-targets, and I think it and its arsenal of new tools is a wonderful thing. My primary concern is that the more CMOs are into the numbers, the greater the risk they won’t see the complexity of the people they’re trying to reach.
Early in my career, while working at Foote, Cone & Belding, I was called to jury duty in downtown Los Angeles. The case took several days and I got to know some of my fellow jurors. One – I can still see him to this day – was an African American man, about 60 years of age, who very tall and thin, and had spent his working career as a highway-sign laminator (and eventually supervisor) for the state. He had six grown children, all of whom he’d put through college; he himself hadn’t finished high school. To this day, he remains one of the wisest men I’ve ever met. Demographically, he was easy to categorize: older, less-well educated, African American male. Yet, even at 24, I knew that I had learned a life-long lesson from him: if I’d only seen him demographically, from my ivory tower, I would have missed the richness of his life and what I could learn from him.
Ultimately, what we learn when in relationships (yes, even with customers), makes for stronger relationships. My hope is that Math Marketing doesn’t leave the consumer too far removed from the equation.
Your thoughts?
We all know that ad spending is down this year. A recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers said advertising expenditures worldwide would total $467 billion by 2013. Sounds like a big number, but it’s actually about 2.5% lower than 2008’s $479.3 billion. Alone, this could change the ad market.
And there’s a shift in where those ad dollars are being spent. We’ve been hearing for a long time about the demise of the newspaper industry as people shift to getting their news from other sources. But there’s also the shift from ads in broadcast TV to cable TV, from radio to online, etc. The table below highlights those projected spending changes.
But for me, the biggest impact on the TV ad will come with the increased usage of DVRs. Some facts from “Advertising in the DVR Age” by DVR Research Institute:
- 83% of marketers surveyed said that over the next three years DVRs will negatively impact the effectiveness of TV advertising
- 77% of agency executives see DVR usage as the greatest challenge to the current ad model
- DVR penetration stands at 26%, up from 17% two years ago
- Ad skipping currently is only 5-6%, but is forecast to jump to 16-18% in two years; in primetime, this may be as high as 25-33%
Things to watch for:
- More product placement in programming (Coke in American Idol, SoyJoy in The Closer)
- More cause marketing (brands, like Nike, supporting individuals and their causes, like Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong)
- Changing the length of ad pods (shorter commercial breaks, such as “Fringe will be back in 60 seconds”)
- More program-related content embedded in advertising pods (interviews with stars regarding their role in program; e.g., the “Inside Look” and “Behind the Scenes” segment embeds in BBC America’s Mistresses’ commercial pods)
