Should Advertisers Spend More On Creative To Get More Of An Impact?

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

Especially in these digital days, where audiences are fragmenting and it’s becoming more difficult to amortize the cost of producing creative over a large number of impressions.

Many advertisers think that with today’s technology, the cost of producing creative should be less. I mean, we can edit on Final Cut and shoot on digital cameras that are both smaller and less expensive to operate than film cameras.

All true. Which is probably why advertisers and their procurement officers seem to use it as the basis of their arguments.

But still, it misses the point, doesn’t it?

Original ideas are, and should be, expensive. And, original ideas still need to be birthed in the mind before they take shape in the lens of a camera.

Coming up with an original idea is damn hard. Always has been. Always will be.

What’s more, creative ideas that strike an emotional chord are more effective than creative ideas that don’t. A recent study shows that 75% of behavior, including engagement in a commercial, is driven by subconscious responses.

What’s interesting is that subconscious responses can be most directly influenced by elements we add to commercials that have little to do with the actual strategy. Elements like music, art direction, casting, cinematography, the art of the commercial if you will.

Elements that, if we are to get them right, cost more money rather than less money.

So to answer the question with which we started this piece – Should Advertisers Spend More On Creative To Get More Of An Impact? – the answer would seem to be “yes.”

The question that remains is, how does the agency, in these days of having to constantly justify ROI, credibly ask for more?

Here’s an argument that might work.

If the agency thinks they can, through the expenditure of an extra hundred thousand dollars or so on production, increase the impact, involvement and memorability of, let’s say, a five-million dollar advertising budget, by even as little as ten percent, then they can justifiably argue that they've added a half million dollars in value for a hundred thousand dollars in cost.

And, it seems to me, that those are the type of numbers that even a procurement officer can understand.

Is Longer Better?

Once again this week, Visible Measures listed the ten most viral videos.

The shortest video was one minute in length. The longest video was 7 minutes and thirty seconds in length.

The amount of viral video views was impressive. The most watched piece, for a brand called Muscle Milk, received 3,043,735 viral views. At number ten, with 422,329 viral views, was a spot for Frito Lay. The Muscle Milk piece ran 2 minutes and 40 seconds. The Frito Lay spot ran 3 minutes and 40 seconds.

There wasn’t a fifteen-second spot in the top ten. There wasn’t a thirty-second spot in the top ten. Obviously there wasn’t a pre-roll spot in the top ten. It’s difficult, if not damn near impossible to forward a pre-roll spot.

And yet, still, all we hear is that attention spans are shorter online. That people won’t watch anything over fifteen seconds. Of course, the people that are saying this are those people that sell pre-roll spots.

The fact is, if the content is of interest, people will watch. Visible Measures is proving this week after week. What’s more, if viewers like it, they’ll share it with their friends. Who, will also watch, since the spot was forwarded to them from somebody they trust.

So here’s the question. Would you, as a marketer, rather have 10 million, fifteen second pre-roll impressions? Or, 3,043,735 viral video views?

If impressions are your goal, then the answer is easy.

But are impressions really the goal online? Or, is the goal to increase the amount of time spent with the brand?

If it is the latter, then 10 million impressions at fifteen seconds each would garner 1,500,000 seconds of time spent with the brand.

Now compare that to 3 million impressions of 2 minutes and 40 seconds each – 480,000,000 seconds of time spent with the brand.

Which is why it seems to me that marketers should be focusing on two things. Buying less pre-roll. And creating great content.

Content Versus Control. And The Winner Is?

The recent news out of TiVo is that 83% of those who watch Mad Men in a timeshifted mode, fast-forward through the advertising. The genre’s benchmark is 73%.

South Park viewers showed a similar affinity to fast forwarding through commercials with 66%, compared to a genre average of 55%.

According to Todd Junger, Vice President and General Manager, TiVo Audience Research and Measurement, “The most beloved programs are often subject to the highest degree of timeshifting and commercial avoidance.”

Doesn’t sound particularly promising does it?

It used to be that if you created great programming that brought in viewers you were golden. Not any more.

What’s the answer? To create average programming that attracts fewer viewers? Some will no doubt suggest this.

Then again, why don’t we just find a way to deliver advertising that doesn’t interrupt the viewing of the program?

Because then the critics will say, no one will watch the advertising.

Perhaps.

But if 83% are already skipping the commercials, then it seems to me that no one is currently watching the advertising.

So, where's the downside in trying?