Advertisers are chumps
Advertisers continue to pay more for less: TV’s upfront sales look to be up this year. They are no longer limited by the scarcity of broadcast yet they are too lazy or clueless to go put together the less expensive, more targeted, and more efficient alternatives in other media.
: LATER: The Times today says that some of this added revenue is coming from online packages and so good on them for that. But still, advertisers need to start thinking past the scarcity economy. They should want to: it will lower their prices and give them better targeting, less waste.
Tags: ads
June 20th, 2007 at 7:51 am
As a Broker/Owner of two real estate companies, I have my fair share of giving away money to advertise my company and our property listings. Your post is right on target. I have compared many ways to advertise, whether TV or worse yet, newspaper. $300-500 for a few lines of text (no photos, thrills, etc..) and is located on page 8, third column and miniature font. As a Networker Engineer with IBM and ATT for 6 years in the past, I knew that online is the way to go.
Also, with TIVO and other DVRs, I have enjoyed watching my shows quickly (and sometimes actually play commercials that were worth watching).
June 20th, 2007 at 10:34 am
You’re partly correct — especially regarding the “lazy” and “clueless” part. Though I’d suggest inertia and fear is are bigger drivers. However, your assertion of more efficient is highly debatable. The fact is that online advertising would be growing a lot faster if more efficient planning, targeting and buying mechanisms were in place — especially in the realm where the admittedly splintering television platform still rules: brand advertising with great reach. Spend a day at a media-planning/buying firm and you’ll see what I mean.
- Max
June 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Speaking as an ‘advertising person’ (a.k.a. ‘bottom-feeder’)… um… ‘Flash…this just IN…’
June 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I directly challenge you, Jeff, as well as Max, Marc and Tansley, to provide me even one specific example of a national advertiser, national brand or even a line extension of a national brand, that shifted significant ad spending (let’s say more than 25% of all budgeted ad dollars) from linear TV to online in the last year and achieved increased sales as a result. I don’t believe you can, but I will humbly eat crow if you can come up with just one.
From an economic standpoint, the more scarce any specific commodity is, the more it will cost on a per unit basis. In this case, networks are being forced to accept supply decreases in the form of commercial minute ratings. If clients choose to spend the same money after that fact, of course the cost will rise.
And they are choosing due to this unassailable fact: advertisers pay up for TV ads because they move product. End of story.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
As a long time Buzzmachine reader who has, coincidentally, spent some time representing one of the “exploded” networks in the Upfronts, let me say that it always gives me the warm fuzzies when you print/pixel guys insult your agency and client customers, calling them lazy and clueless chumps. That sort of endearing epithet helped me pay my mortgage for over 30 years. So thanks and keep up the good work.
We agree that there is no scarcity of media opportunities, but for over 50 years thousands of chumps have spent billions of dollars in the Upfront because, as Paw noted, it moves product. There’s no scarcity of ways to get to Chicago, but the “lazy” and “clueless” prefer a plane to walking.
There will come a time when online media opportunities will approach the attractiveness of today’s TV availabilities, but name-calling and insults won’t hasten that day.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Ad-supported media in any form is corrupt and corrupting and deserves to die.
Unfortunately, old habits die hard.
Version 2 of “Advancing Evolution: The dis-intermediation of Media” is in production now, but here is version 1:
http://mymindshare.com/b/secure/disintermediation.php
June 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
For Paw:
I don’t track those kind of statistics. I work in newspaper advertising, where the handwriting has not only been on the wall for several years, but is now dripping BLOOD. I can give you a couple of examples that do show a shift in advertising, however - and not necessarily to ONLINE: nowadays, a lot of the DVD movies I rent have advertising plugs at the beginning for TELEVISION shows. If that isn’t pathetic, I don’t know what is. As for online, I’m seeing a whole lot more pharmaceutical ads online in the past month or two than I’ve seen before. Pharmaceutical companies are not stupid, at least insofar as making money goes. As for how much they’re spending/making on it, why not give Pfizer or Merck a call and chat them up on it? I’m sure they’ll be happy to cough up the stats for you…
For Duneview:
Unless you’ve had to deal with advertisers directly, you really have no clue as to what kind of people to which we’re referring. My comment wasn’t a blanket inference: there are plenty of advertisers who are smart, savvy, and know their demographics. There are also plenty of chumps out there, some of whom should not even be running businesses. You get all kinds in this business…often regretably…
For Jim Bursch: I really can’t see much difference between your website an an adpaper - if there IS one, I’m sure I’ll figure it out fairly soon. I’ve registered on your mymindshare site, but I’m not quite sure what to do with it now, since I’m one of that most loathesome of creatures, an advertising designer… Is this anything like RYZE?