This is a question that Joe Marchese raised in his column yesterday.
Marchese goes on to explain why consumers will soon be able to buy their way out of watching commercials, a topic I touched on last week.
But what I found to be the more curious question from Joe’s column is what exactly is a viewer’s time worth? And, more importantly, isn’t capturing a good share of a viewer’s time what advertisers are paying, or, should be paying, their creative agencies for?
We all know that time spent with a commercial is a precursor to the persuasive message having a chance to work. You can’t sell someone who isn’t listening.
We can now measure the how much time viewers spend with a commercial.
So what is that viewer’s time spent worth to an advertiser?
A hell of a lot, if you ask me.
Which means that they should be willing to pay their agencies well when it is determined that they did indeed create time spent. And, less well when they don't create time spent.
If time spent is, as I refer to it, the currency of creative, then the creative agency’s job isn’t to create commercials.
It is to create time spent.
It’s a new business model.