In the olden days, before everything became “New Media,” media was defined as an opportunity to see.
In other words, the job of media was to distribute the commercial in such a way so that the most relevant audience would have an opportunity to see the commercial.
Whether anyone actually watched the commercial or not was difficult to ascertain. But exposure to the commercial could be measured. Which is why the best that media could do was to offer an opportunity to see.
I’m wondering if this is still the case with New Media? Or, is the role of New Media to not just offer an opportunity to see, but to also offer an opportunity to spend time with the brand.
The old saying is that what can be measured can be monetized. What can be measured with New Media is time spent with the messaging and/or brand.
Is this important?
Most advertisers I have spoken with say yes, more time spent with the brand is better than less time spent with the brand. The same holds true with the brand’s messaging.
If they run a sixty-second spot, the advertiser would prefer that all sixty seconds are consumed by the viewer. This gives them a better return on their production dollars.
And since we can now measure whether all sixty seconds, or just forty-five, or even as little as twelve seconds are watched, advertisers are starting to re-evaluate the opportunity that media offers.
Reach, while still important, is no longer the end-all and be-all.
Once reached, time spent with the message is quickly becoming of equal importance to the advertiser.
It used to be that share of voice = share of mind = share of market.
I'm wondering if New Media hasn't changed that to share of time = share of mind = share of market.