Why do advertisers keep paying for seconds produced when they know people have stopped watching?
Think about it.
The agency has come to the advertiser and sold them what they said is a fantastic spot. Production costs are over a half million.
What does an advertiser really know?
The agency says it’s fantastic. “ People won’t be able to take their eyes off it,” they promise.
The advertiser listens. Pays up. Crosses fingers.
And, guess what?
Viewers weren’t quite as enamored as the agency claimed.
Data comes back saying that, on average, viewers watched only 12 seconds out of thirty.
So, here’s the question.
Should the advertiser still have to pay full fare for the 18 seconds that most viewers didn’t find interesting?
Who’s responsible for those 18 seconds, anyways?
Well, surely not the advertiser, right?
While the cost of a commercial is determined by the agency and production company, the worth of the commercial is not.
The worth of a commercial is solely determined by the viewer.
Worth is measured by viewers’ interest in the spot. When a spot stops being interesting to them, they stop watching.
So, shouldn’t the worth of a commercial affect the cost of a commercial?
Shouldn’t advertisers pay their agencies based on how long people watch their commercials for, rather than how long it takes the agency to create the commercials?
Shouldn’t value be based more on effect, rather than effort?
I think all of these are easy questions to answer.
Not unlike, do you keep paying for the ride once you get out of the cab?