What used to be created by an ad agency’s writers and art directors – engagement in the commercial message – is now, according to the networks, the networks’ responsibility.
At least that’s what the networks are claiming at this year’s upfront – each one selling advertisers on how their programs are better at engaging viewers in the commercials.
Listen to the networks and you would think that the commercial itself - how it’s written, art directed, produced, its emotional content – is of little consequence to whether people watch or not.
To agency creative types, this can only be good news. After all, they now have a job where they get paid very well and are accountable for very little.
It also must be great news for companies like Spot Runner. After all, if the emotional element is no longer relevant, then the five hundred dollar commercials that Spot Runner can assemble in five minutes on a computer will likely become more popular.
As will five-second commercials. Or, even better, one-second commercials. The networks are now proclaiming that the shorter the commercial, the less likely people are to fast-forward through it. Difficult to argue that. After all, most of us can’t find the remote in one second; much less push the fast-forward button.
But it’s also difficult to argue that a one-second commercial will do much in the way of establishing an emotional connection with a brand.
The question is, are emotional connections still relevant? And, if not, are agencies still relevant?
The only reason ad agencies exist is to add an emotional hook to a selling proposition. Anyone can analyze a marketing problem. Anyone can strategize. Anyone with just a little information can define a target market. An advertiser does not need an ad agency for that.
What an advertiser does need an ad agency for is to be able to condense all this information down, along with the relatively unimportant claims that clients want said about their products, and add the emotional element that will somehow engage people enough to make them watch. And, hopefully, persuade them to buy.
Tough enough to do in thirty seconds. Impossible to do in one.
So the fact that agencies have apparently abdicated engagement to the networks is indeed quite puzzling. After all, what they are potentially abdicating is their reason for being. You would think that at least one agency would have enough faith in their creative ability to say, “Hold on CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, but this engagement thing, that’s what we do. We’re accountable for it – not you.”
And yet, we have heard little along the lines of such rebuttal.
What we have heard ad agencies talking about is technology rather than creativity. About bottom lines rather than storylines. About digitally engaging people in more places rather than emotionally engaging them in one.
At this year’s upfront, buyers and sellers have been relentlessly debating
how best to invest billions in television. And while television has changed tremendously, it remains nothing more than an opportunity to speak to someone.
Whether that opportunity becomes engaging or not can only be determined later.
Engagement is a shift that happens within a viewer, triggered by some sort of emotional stimulus. Yes, the networks are right in saying that people first have to be exposed to the message to be engaged in it. But exposure and engagement serve two very different functions. And are created by two very different companies.
Or, at least, that used to be the case.
But as agencies buy ad-serving companies (WPP/Real Media) and advertisers buy agencies (Microsoft/Avenue A/Razorfish), we seem to have become an industry that has lost its focus. And, perhaps in the process, taken our eyes off the consumer.
Should we really be so surprised that they, in turn, have taken their eyes off us?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Is Engagement About How Many? Or, How Long?
Now that Nielsen is promising to start delivering their commercial ratings by end of month, commercial engagement, has, not surprisingly, become a hot topic. What's interesting is how engagement means different things to different people - depending on whether they make their living on the intrusive or opt-in side of the screen.
From the linear networks/programmers' perspective, engagement is still about how many. After all, the intrusive marketplace makes its money by selling impressions. Yet, whether a viewer was even in the room when the commercial aired, much less paid any attention to the commercial itself, is of little importance to whether or not the networks make money.
It's different on the opt-in, on-demand side of the screen. Yes, on-demand started by selling impressions as well. After all, that's all anyone knew so that's all anyone did.
But as advertisers have become aware that second-by-second data is available on digital platforms, there's been a mindchange taking place. Rather than how many, advertisers are now starting to become interested in how long a viewer engaged in their message for.
There are two reasons for this.
The most obvious is creative optimization. If advertisers find that viewers are opting-out at a certain point, they can tweak the advertising at that point in an attempt to make it better. Second-by-second data enables this to happen.
The less obvious reason is financial optimization.
Anything that can be measured can be monetized. As second-by-second data is now measurable, time spent with a commercial message will soon be monetized. Which means advertisers will soon be able to pay their creative agencies for their efforts based on how long their commercial engaged the viewer.
It only makes sense that the more time spent with a message the more valuable that message is to the advertiser. So, the more they should be willing to pay their agency that created it.
The opposite will also need to hold true.
The interesting thing is that as time spent increases in importance, impressions will decrease in importance on digital platforms. The fact is, you can't have both on the same platform.
Advertisers will need to choose.
Impressions or time spent? How many or how long?
I know which one I'd take.
Do you?
From the linear networks/programmers' perspective, engagement is still about how many. After all, the intrusive marketplace makes its money by selling impressions. Yet, whether a viewer was even in the room when the commercial aired, much less paid any attention to the commercial itself, is of little importance to whether or not the networks make money.
It's different on the opt-in, on-demand side of the screen. Yes, on-demand started by selling impressions as well. After all, that's all anyone knew so that's all anyone did.
But as advertisers have become aware that second-by-second data is available on digital platforms, there's been a mindchange taking place. Rather than how many, advertisers are now starting to become interested in how long a viewer engaged in their message for.
There are two reasons for this.
The most obvious is creative optimization. If advertisers find that viewers are opting-out at a certain point, they can tweak the advertising at that point in an attempt to make it better. Second-by-second data enables this to happen.
The less obvious reason is financial optimization.
Anything that can be measured can be monetized. As second-by-second data is now measurable, time spent with a commercial message will soon be monetized. Which means advertisers will soon be able to pay their creative agencies for their efforts based on how long their commercial engaged the viewer.
It only makes sense that the more time spent with a message the more valuable that message is to the advertiser. So, the more they should be willing to pay their agency that created it.
The opposite will also need to hold true.
The interesting thing is that as time spent increases in importance, impressions will decrease in importance on digital platforms. The fact is, you can't have both on the same platform.
Advertisers will need to choose.
Impressions or time spent? How many or how long?
I know which one I'd take.
Do you?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Engagment or Entrapment: Do Networks Know There's A Difference?
Recently, ABC-Disney announced that they would put some of their best programming - "Desperate Housewives," "Grey's Anatomy," "Lost" and "Ugly Betty," on the Cox VOD system one day after it initially airs on broadcast.
If the announcement would have stopped there, it would have been great news. What VOD platforms are lacking is programming worth watching. And these programs would certainly go a long way to helping that.
But in what seems to be a network's indubitable way of doing things, they then succeeded in screwing the pooch.
You see, the one caveat is that Cox will disable the fast-forward capability so that viewers will be forced to watch the commercials.
Do not be surprised to see ABC start selling this platform as offering 100% engagement. It is definitely 100% something. But, it is certainly not engagement.
Along these same lines, last week at the upfront, the CW network unveiled how they were now selling five-second ads. The biggest selling feature of five-second ads? Too fast to fast-forward through.
In other words, another way to guarantee 100% engagement.
When did the definition of engagement become the same as the definition of entrapment?
Entrapment is holding someone against their will. Being held against one's will, usually does not put one in a good frame of mind. Which is, as an advertiser, the mindset I would want viewers to be in when my ad runs in front of them.
Instead of attending to how best to escape, I would prefer viewers to be attentive to what I have to say.
Creating shorter ads or disabling fast-forward functionality only helps to disable the industry's progress in finding out how to make the digital future work.
It's a future where viewers are in control. We need to accept and learn how to work with that. It's what we hear from every cable operator. Every network.
You think for a short, brief moment, that they get it.
And then, this.
If the announcement would have stopped there, it would have been great news. What VOD platforms are lacking is programming worth watching. And these programs would certainly go a long way to helping that.
But in what seems to be a network's indubitable way of doing things, they then succeeded in screwing the pooch.
You see, the one caveat is that Cox will disable the fast-forward capability so that viewers will be forced to watch the commercials.
Do not be surprised to see ABC start selling this platform as offering 100% engagement. It is definitely 100% something. But, it is certainly not engagement.
Along these same lines, last week at the upfront, the CW network unveiled how they were now selling five-second ads. The biggest selling feature of five-second ads? Too fast to fast-forward through.
In other words, another way to guarantee 100% engagement.
When did the definition of engagement become the same as the definition of entrapment?
Entrapment is holding someone against their will. Being held against one's will, usually does not put one in a good frame of mind. Which is, as an advertiser, the mindset I would want viewers to be in when my ad runs in front of them.
Instead of attending to how best to escape, I would prefer viewers to be attentive to what I have to say.
Creating shorter ads or disabling fast-forward functionality only helps to disable the industry's progress in finding out how to make the digital future work.
It's a future where viewers are in control. We need to accept and learn how to work with that. It's what we hear from every cable operator. Every network.
You think for a short, brief moment, that they get it.
And then, this.
Monday, May 14, 2007
A Creative Upfront Anyone?
With this week being the week of the upfront, the networks will all be claiming that their programming offers better commercial engagement than the other guys. It will be interesting to see how the networks try to sell something - engagement - that they really have no control over.
The only ones truly in control of engagement these days are the viewers. When the commercial they started watching in a time-shifted program stops being engaging, they can fast-forward through the commercial.
But when they do so, who's responsible? The networks? Or, the agency that created the commercial?
Arguably, it's the latter. What's surprising is that agencies haven't come forward to claim such.
As length of commercial view can now be measured second-by-second on digital platforms, you would think that agencies that pride themselves on doing engaging work would be the first to say, "We're responsible for engagement, not the programmer".
Imagine a creative upfront with different agency heads standing up in front of the gathered advertisers saying something like, "And as the second-by-second data shows, on average, viewers watch 80% of the commercials that we create."
Obviously, this would be much more attractive than the agency that can only claim a 20% time spent rate with the commercials they create.
Which agencies would win out?
Tough to say. But those that are good at telling stories would no doubt do better than those that aren't.
Not that there won't be stories told at this week's upfront. We'll hear plenty about how this network is better at engagement than that one.
But they'll all be fairy tales, to be sure. Networks are about as responsible for engagement as creative agencies are for impressions. Any true engagement upfront will have to be led by the likes of Crispin, Goodby and Wieden.
Not NBC, ABC and CBS.
The only ones truly in control of engagement these days are the viewers. When the commercial they started watching in a time-shifted program stops being engaging, they can fast-forward through the commercial.
But when they do so, who's responsible? The networks? Or, the agency that created the commercial?
Arguably, it's the latter. What's surprising is that agencies haven't come forward to claim such.
As length of commercial view can now be measured second-by-second on digital platforms, you would think that agencies that pride themselves on doing engaging work would be the first to say, "We're responsible for engagement, not the programmer".
Imagine a creative upfront with different agency heads standing up in front of the gathered advertisers saying something like, "And as the second-by-second data shows, on average, viewers watch 80% of the commercials that we create."
Obviously, this would be much more attractive than the agency that can only claim a 20% time spent rate with the commercials they create.
Which agencies would win out?
Tough to say. But those that are good at telling stories would no doubt do better than those that aren't.
Not that there won't be stories told at this week's upfront. We'll hear plenty about how this network is better at engagement than that one.
But they'll all be fairy tales, to be sure. Networks are about as responsible for engagement as creative agencies are for impressions. Any true engagement upfront will have to be led by the likes of Crispin, Goodby and Wieden.
Not NBC, ABC and CBS.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Big News From The Cable Show
The Cable Show was held this week in Las Vegas. The big news is that network executives are willing to let some of their best content air on VOD 24 hours after it airs on broadcast. The only caveat - commercials will be included and the fast-forward button will be disabled. In other words, no skipping of commercials.
And to think that they were so close to getting it right.
As most everyone knows, the problem with VOD is that the content, outside of movies and kids programming, is not interesting enough to attract large audiences. The fact that the networks are willing to put great content on VOD only 24 hours after it runs on broadcast starts to address that. But then they had to go muck it up by saying viewers won't be able to fast-forward through the commercials.
Their argument went something like this. Because they are making it convenient for viewers to access their favorite shows when they want on VOD, viewers won't mind sitting through the commercials. In fact, they made is sound as if viewers would be honored to sit through the commercials. Almost as if the networks were doing the viewers a favor.
Please. What viewers want is complete control. Not partial control. And they will gravitate to the platforms that give them the control they are looking for.
The network execs believe that they have only two options. Both options are based on a mass media mindset. The first is to force viewers to watch commercials. The second option is to charge them extra to watch programs without commercials. In other words, either advertisers pay for the programming by running ads or viewers pay for the programming by buying it on a pay per view option.
What the network execs are missing is that there is a third option - a non-mass media option. Which is to have the advertisers pay for the programming by running ads, but not to have the ads be intrusive to the programming. Let viewers opt-in to the ads that interest them, just like they opt-in to the programs that interest them.
Will viewers opt-in to ads? Current studies are proving they will. One study on a cable VOD platform in the midwest has the opt-in rate running at around 18%. Most network execs would take that number. Advertisers definitely would.
Why?
Simply because advertisers know that when they run commercials on broadcast TV today, at best only 10% of the viewing audience is interested in any one particular product at any one particular time. The unfortunate thing about the system is that it requires advertisers to pay for 100% of that viewing audience to get the interested 10%.
90% waste is not a good number no matter how you look at it.
An 18% opt-in rate with no waste will prove extremely attractive to advertisers.
Less can become more. And on VOD, less needs to become more.
The objective is not to exchange one mass media - broadcast - for another mass media - VOD. Video-on-Demand will never be a mass media. Therefore, it should not be sold like one.
Video-on-Demand is the viewers' network. As such, on VOD, broadcasters need to play by the viewers' rules.
Yes, the networks came half way. And granted, half a mindchange is better than none.
It's the next half that will be the hardest.
And to think that they were so close to getting it right.
As most everyone knows, the problem with VOD is that the content, outside of movies and kids programming, is not interesting enough to attract large audiences. The fact that the networks are willing to put great content on VOD only 24 hours after it runs on broadcast starts to address that. But then they had to go muck it up by saying viewers won't be able to fast-forward through the commercials.
Their argument went something like this. Because they are making it convenient for viewers to access their favorite shows when they want on VOD, viewers won't mind sitting through the commercials. In fact, they made is sound as if viewers would be honored to sit through the commercials. Almost as if the networks were doing the viewers a favor.
Please. What viewers want is complete control. Not partial control. And they will gravitate to the platforms that give them the control they are looking for.
The network execs believe that they have only two options. Both options are based on a mass media mindset. The first is to force viewers to watch commercials. The second option is to charge them extra to watch programs without commercials. In other words, either advertisers pay for the programming by running ads or viewers pay for the programming by buying it on a pay per view option.
What the network execs are missing is that there is a third option - a non-mass media option. Which is to have the advertisers pay for the programming by running ads, but not to have the ads be intrusive to the programming. Let viewers opt-in to the ads that interest them, just like they opt-in to the programs that interest them.
Will viewers opt-in to ads? Current studies are proving they will. One study on a cable VOD platform in the midwest has the opt-in rate running at around 18%. Most network execs would take that number. Advertisers definitely would.
Why?
Simply because advertisers know that when they run commercials on broadcast TV today, at best only 10% of the viewing audience is interested in any one particular product at any one particular time. The unfortunate thing about the system is that it requires advertisers to pay for 100% of that viewing audience to get the interested 10%.
90% waste is not a good number no matter how you look at it.
An 18% opt-in rate with no waste will prove extremely attractive to advertisers.
Less can become more. And on VOD, less needs to become more.
The objective is not to exchange one mass media - broadcast - for another mass media - VOD. Video-on-Demand will never be a mass media. Therefore, it should not be sold like one.
Video-on-Demand is the viewers' network. As such, on VOD, broadcasters need to play by the viewers' rules.
Yes, the networks came half way. And granted, half a mindchange is better than none.
It's the next half that will be the hardest.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Why TiVo Isn't The Problem
According to Stuart Elliot in today's New York Times, the holy grail on Madison Avenue is to make ads that are TiVo-proof - so compelling and interesting that viewers won't skip by them.
In other words, it is the responsibility of the creative agencies to "fix" a problem that is not entirely of their making.
If the industry is to evolve a digital mindchange is needed. A mindchange that acknowledges that it's the intrusive nature of advertising that people are avoiding, not the advertising itself. Interruptions are the problem, not commercials. Yes, these interruptions happen to be commercials, but the reason they're being skipped has little to do with the quality of the commercial and everything to do with the fact that they are intrusive.
Arguing that better quality commercials will reduce skipping is akin to arguing that invading Iraq will reduce terrorism. Both arguments serve to provide an answer without truly understanding the problem.
What needs to be done?
The delivery platforms need to be redesigned so that commercials can be accessed by viewers when they want, not pushed on viewers when advertisers want. In the digital future, the intent to watch will be driven by the viewer, not the advertiser.
Then, and only then, will the quality of the commercial have any bearing on the involvement of the viewer. Today's digital technology - DVR's and VOD - allow viewers to opt-in to programs when they want. The same now needs to be done with advertising.
In other words, it is the responsibility of the creative agencies to "fix" a problem that is not entirely of their making.
If the industry is to evolve a digital mindchange is needed. A mindchange that acknowledges that it's the intrusive nature of advertising that people are avoiding, not the advertising itself. Interruptions are the problem, not commercials. Yes, these interruptions happen to be commercials, but the reason they're being skipped has little to do with the quality of the commercial and everything to do with the fact that they are intrusive.
Arguing that better quality commercials will reduce skipping is akin to arguing that invading Iraq will reduce terrorism. Both arguments serve to provide an answer without truly understanding the problem.
What needs to be done?
The delivery platforms need to be redesigned so that commercials can be accessed by viewers when they want, not pushed on viewers when advertisers want. In the digital future, the intent to watch will be driven by the viewer, not the advertiser.
Then, and only then, will the quality of the commercial have any bearing on the involvement of the viewer. Today's digital technology - DVR's and VOD - allow viewers to opt-in to programs when they want. The same now needs to be done with advertising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
