<< toomuchtv home
3rd INTERACTIVE TV ADVERTISING SHOW:
KEY THEMES
23 May, 2006
CBI Conference Centre, London
Event Organisers: Junction
"Every target audience includes people who want to engage more with the brand than they are allowed to"
- John Baker (OgilvyOne)
Key themes, summarised by Paul Robinson, toomuchtv
1. Advertisers need to respond to the radically changing media landscape
2. TV advertising is not going away – it just needs to change
3. TV as we know it will be around for the foreseeable future
4. How do you measure – and value – these new forms of advertising?
5. "These are torrid times for media planners”
1. Advertisers need to respond to the radically changing media landscape
The key message coming from speaker after speaker goes like this: most media owners, distributors, marketers and technology providers recognise that a break from the conventional media value chain is underway. We will all choose what aspects of this break to emphasise according to our interests and our understanding; we are articulating our interests and understanding with various shorthand signifiers (rapidly becoming clichés): “x2.0”, “Anything, anywhere, anytime”, “User generated content”, “social media”, “fully-integrated, cross-platform”, etc. There is lots of theory, lots of speculation, lots of astute analysis; there are lots of soundbites, lots of case studies (not just MySpace!) and lots of statistics. One such statistic was produced by the conference Chair, Danny Meadows-Klue:
Big Brother video streams served on day 1, 2005: 30,000.
Big Brother video streams served on day 1, 2006: 800,000.
Even to the most sceptical, this must surely indicate some fundamental changes are afoot.
Advertising is doing its best to keep up with the implications of these changes, and people who are paid to think about advertising all day have provided their own signifiers/slogans/mantras as aids to get the unconverted on board.
Four mantras were in much use throughout the conference:
Advertising needs to move “from interruption to engagement”
Advertising needs to be a “permission-based dialogue”
Advertising needs to be an “immersive” experience
Advertising needs to “put the consumers at the heart”
The main advocates:
Tess Alps (one foot still at PHD, the other freshly planted into Thinkbox) presented the “from interruption to engagement” quotation. She credits Kevin Brown of BBH with the quote (though Alan Moore of SMLXL has been using the expression a lot in his writings on branded content - PR).
Howard Nead (PHD) backed-up this theme, reminding us that some combinations (category of product, consumer mindset, type of media) are more ripe than others for an engagement-based approach.
Sav Evangelou (Wunderman) talks of three levels or rings of “permission” around the target consumer. What advertisers should be striving for is the inner ring: “engagement” or “dialogue”.
Steven Hess (Weapon7) says we’re still having analogue ideas and sticking something digital on top. We’re not engaging, having dialogue, immersing. Says Hess, advertisers need to shift from “interruption” to “permission marketing”.
Dominic Laval (emuse) advocates interactive tv as a route to a more “immersive” experience, while Peter Birch (ITV, working closely with emuse) talks of DALs enabling “deeper brand dialogue”.
John Baker (OgilvyOne) is happy to complain that DALs are still a long way from the ideal (“please wait…”) and wants the opposite of Mass Broadcast: a relationship based on “relaxed conviviality” and “an opportunity to talk as well as listen”.
Nigel Sheldon (Starcom) sees consumers as one of the key drivers affecting the landscape (at least as important as technology, media owners, content providers and advertisers). Advertisers must put consumers at the heart of their thinking if they want to make sense of all this change.
Tom Barker (Microsoft) and Steven Hess presented an example of a campaign for Microsoft’s XBOX360, that was initially envisaged as “just” a layer of engagement through iTV. The result was a campaign driven not only by highly original ideas but also, crucially, by knowing the audience.
Based on the delegates’ reactions to the campaigns presented at this conference XBOX360 was the most convincing example of putting consumers at the heart, as well as the other key features of the new advertising landscape: permission, dialogue, immersion and engagement.
back to top
2. TV advertising is not going away – it just needs to change
It may be justified that the traditionally most salient of advertising formats – the 30-second linear TV spot ad – tends to be the one most often presented as being at most risk. But the (reported) demise of the conventional spot ad does not equate to the demise of advertising carried by TV. Any media owner, from Channel 4 to AOL, will confirm this. Yes, television is changing and advertising has to change in step with it; the changing landscape might deliver threats (ad skipping, fragmentation, etc). But it also delivers huge opportunities. Like what?
Noel Matthews (Tandberg) asserts the future of advertising brings a combination of on demand and interactivity:
- “Hotspotting” (pause video and click on a placed product for more info)
- Personalised advertising (ad playlists based on user profiles)
- On Demand ad placement
- “Telescoping” (long form ad showcases)
Dominic Laval (emuse) believes there will be increasing ways to receive content through “pull” models (downloaded and streamed) rather than “push” models. Pull means more participatory, more individualised, and therefore (from an advertiser’s point of view) highly targeted. Combine this with clever applications of branded content, and advertisers have a powerful means of delivering their messages. Laval pricks the ears of delegates by pointing out that the number one downloaded video content on i-tunes the day before the conference was a Nike ad – but also points to the salutary fact that this wouldn’t have happened without a strong linear ad campaign to build a foundation.
Tyler Slocum (DirecTV) says in future we’ll have more DVR-based advertising; again, targeting is key.
Nick Milligan (Sky Media) points to the continuing increase in the number of homes that are multichannel as further good news for advertisers, for the simple reason that this means a higher percentage of TV viewers are watching non-BBC channels. Milligan also asserts that the fast-forwarding of ads in DVR-homes is overrated. Like Tyler Slocum, Milligan points out the opportunities of long-form, full-screen, HD advertising available on demand, and reminds us that measurement is getting better (in particular via Skyview). Milligan challenges the assertion that CPM is increasing and suggests instead the opposite is true.
Rob Leach (BSkyB) also points out the advantages of Skyview, emphasising the overlap between the Skyview panel and a TNS panel, leading to new targeting opportunities (Skyview becomes an ad planning tool). Rob also points to the growth in DALs vs Direct Response i-ads (Howard Nead from PHD also highlights this fact).
Peter Birch (ITV) points to evidence that i-ads are effective and work harder for the cost than linear ads in terms of propensity to purchase, brand awareness and positive brand affinity (he suggests we visit Thinkbox for stats).
Nigel Sheldon (Starcom), Merlin Inkley (Channel 4) and Reinhold van Ackeren (Ericsson) point to the importance of advertising on video platforms beyond those currently accepted as “television”. Sheldon points to Rocketboom (currently web only but suited to an IPTV platform) as a model for the future and insists that advertising - albeit used more intelligently and with the viewer at the heart - will remain a “critical driver”. Inkley makes a convincing case for the mobile platform as having huge potential for carrying effective advertising: portable, ubiquitous, easy data capture, true multi-media Return Path, and capable of receiving content via broadcast, stream or download – plus short codes can easily be placed across all media and platforms. Inkley suggests a likely model will be choice for viewers: choose to pay for content or choose to get content for free in return for pre-roll advertising. Reinhold Van Ackeren takes this one step further and suggests advertising could pay for free mobile services (Ericsson are conducting research across global markets into potential advertising models for mobiles).
back to top
3. TV as we know it will be around for the foreseeable future
“Television” (linear, scheduled programmes produced by professionals and packaged by well-known brands) is becoming less relevant than it was in the past. This has been true for a few years and the trend away from television (lower share than in previous years) is expected to continue.
This does not equate to the death of television. Nick Milligan says he is convinced TV will remain the first choice for media consumption (sit-back, high quality, sociable, etc). Noel Matthews concedes that “more platforms fragments the target audience”, but asserts that “TV will retain the largest share of a fragmented media market”. Nigel Sheldon says "TV will be as powerful in the future, but viewers will decide how". Jamie Galloway, whose work for the Central Office of Information has embraced new platforms and new thinking, nevertheless insists “the COI is not going to abandon traditional TV”. Tess Alps brings a tone of calm reasoning. She suggests we avoid talking in radical terms: IPTV/VOD certainly have a role to play, but the television of the future will be a hybrid of on demand/interactive and linear: “TV is not going away”.
back to top
4. How do you measure – and value – these new forms of advertising?
The conference speakers all represented the view that interactive advertising (however we define it) is a good thing (interactive broadcasters, creative agencies, digital marketers, media owners and interactive technology providers are unlikely to say that interactive advertising is ineffective). But what's an interactive brand immersion worth in the real world?
The conference chair, Danny Meadows-Klue, returned to the questions of value and measurement repeatedly, but substantial answers remained elusive.
Several specific iTV campaigns were explored in depth (for Waitrose, Land Rover, the COI, Canon and the XBOX360) and in all cases the results were considered overwhelmingly positive in terms of cut-through, propensity to purchase, positive brand affinity, etc. Many statistics were presented to back-up the overwhelmingly (some might say unbelievably) positive claims.
Bjarne Thelin presented an overview of the ways that BARB is trying to improve its recording of interactions, but made no reference to increasing the panel size. Rob Leach and Nick Milligan both presented information about Skyview, which records every button press in more 20,000 homes at any given time. Even better, the Skyview panel overlaps with the Taylor Nelson World panel, meaning usage can be combined with profile. It's the measurement tool that interactive producers have been crying out for for years.
But… while it's extremely useful to know how many of what kind of person used what sort of interactive service in what ways for how long, we still need some system for putting some sort of value on these interactive viewers. Rob Leach says a lot of work is being done in this area but concedes there is no definitive answer. Waitrose's Stephen Gaunt is happy to provide statistics about the usage and impact of their i-ad campaign, but when asked how to measure how much this is worth he concedes a "small leap of faith" is required. John Baker and Howard Nead were asked about measurement but neither provided a straightforward response. Tom Barker was asked how Microsoft and Weapon7 put a value on the XBOX360 campaign; Tom replied that they didn't really try – they just wanted to make sure they covered costs.
The general consensus was that measurement will undoubtedly improve as iTV matures (and as TV is increasingly connected to the Internet). "Value", on the other hand, is becoming increasingly complex. If a 30-second linear spot ad is worth xPM, how much is it worth if the viewer can extend the length? Is one viewer for 120 seconds worth more than three viewers at 40 seconds each? Does the value of a DAL lie in its duration, or in the level of interactivity it provokes? What’s the relationship between the value of a lead and the way potential leads are incentivised?
Evidently how much to charge and how much to pay are currently determined by whatever levels are mutually sustainable by seller and buyer; certainly the buyers are accepting the campaign stats and claiming to be extremely happy with the return on their investment.
back to top
5. "These are torrid times for media planners”
So said Jamie Galloway, and he wasn’t alone. Dominic Laval and Sav Evangelou were among those who specifically drew attention to how complicated things are becoming for media planning (Evangelou pointed out that traditionally there has been tension between above-the-line and digital, and that this tension must be overcome).
Indeed “torrid times for media planners” may be seen as the conclusion of the day’s thoughts. Audiences are fragmenting while devices/platforms are both proliferating and converging.
Until recently it was radical to plan an interactive platform within the media mix. Now several interactive platforms are required, with the different platforms feeding each other and cumulatively converging into one seamless campaign that engages and “has a dialogue with” highly targeted (more valuable?) audiences (sorry, "participants").
How do we apply conventional planning strategies when campaign strands might (or might not) merge? How do we apply conventional planning strategies when each part of the media mix is undergoing re-definition (“content”, “platform”, “brand”, “exposure”, “product”, “media owner”, "producer", “consumer”). Who will be selling what to whom? To what extent can a viral effect be considered “planned”? Torrid times, indeed.
back to top
© 2006 Paul Robinson
With thanks to Mark Johnstone / Junction
<< toomuchtv home
|