In the March 9, 2012 article that references a new report titled “Why the Internet won’t Kill TV”, we learn that while teens embrace new platforms like Hulu and YouTube, their consumption of TV continues to grow.

Teens currently watch almost four hours of TV a day, up from roughly three hours spent in front of TV in 2004.  In comparison, teens on average watch only three minutes of video a day via computer or smartphone.

4 hours vs. 3 minutes. No reason, in my opinion, for TV executives or advertisers to be pacing the floors at night.

Will TV eventually fall from grace?  I’m sure it will.  “Everything” does.   But the key word here is “eventually.”

The LA Times article goes on to say that even if there were indications of teens watching less TV, it would take at least two decades “before it significantly impacts the size of valuable TV audiences for advertisers.”

Not two days or two months or two years, but TWO DECADES.

At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I would argue that worrying about TV’s eventual demise, at this point in time, makes as much sense as riding your bike to work because you’re worried about the eventual depletion of fossil fuel.

Neither is imminent.

Not anymore!

The Canon 5D Mark II Digital Camera evens the playing field by delivering stunning, film-like images for 85% less. This Hi-Definition camera does it all from producing shallow depth of field to delivering rich, realistic scenes under low lighting conditions.  The camera is so amazing, so film-like, that the Director of Photography for the award winning TV show “House” shot the entire 7^th season on it!

And with the Canon 5D, you can do a lot more with less. Gone are the days of 15 person crews… lugging lights and equipment from scene-to -scene.  A shot that took almost two hours to light for a film shoot, can now be lit to the same exact standards with a two-person crew in less than 45 minutes!

There’s little doubt that the Canon 5D has brought affordable, high-end TV production to the local advertiser.

Here’s hoping it won’t be wasted on the same low-end concepts?

In 2010, Apple spent an estimated $420 million on advertising. Over 90% of that budget was allocated to network television, newspapers, magazines and billboards. Less than 10% went toward digital initiatives.

And when Apple did spend online, it was usually an extension of a TV campaign like the iconic Mac vs. PC ads.

Jobs also believed in controlling the message which files in the face of the current wisdom that consumers should tell the brand story via Facebook and Twitter. Upon his death, Apple barely had a presence on either platform.

Throughout his brilliant career, Jobs created products for the masses. And he wisely chose mediums that targeted the masses. In advertising, as in product development, he relied heavily on his convictions and intuition. He did not rely on “likes” or “tweets.” He took a much more pragmatic approach: tell the story of how an amazing product can change a consumer’s life in the best environment possible. And then he was smart enough to understand that the best environment – then and now – is still traditional media.

78% of companies surveyed said that they planned to spend more on new media like online ads, social networks, search engine marketing, mobile and viral video in 2012 than they did this year.  On average, this represents 14% of their total media spending – up from 10% in 2011.

So, with more spending come better results, right?  Not necessarily.  Compared to a similar study in 2009, marketers in general, are complaining that bigger investments in new media are not always producing the desired results.

“While marketers have substantially increased their use of new media platforms over the past few years, they are beginning to question the effectiveness of some of these vehicles,” Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the ANA said.  “The ANA survey indicates a strong willingness by marketers to integrate innovative new approaches into their marketing mix; however, this enthusiasm is tempered by concerns regarding the ROI of these emerging options.”

Or in other words, anyone who thought that new media was going to quickly transcend old media (i.e. television) was perhaps blinded by all the glitter.

article source / photo source

According to a study done by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), in 2010, 33% of U.S. households owned a smartphone. With that number estimated to skyrocket to 45% by 2012, advertisers are already starting to adopt the use of mobile applications in their TV campaigns.

Brands like Tide® and Old Navy® have recently integrated the music identification application, Shazam® into current TV commercials. It’s simple too, no typing in long URLs or performing lengthy Google searches. The commercials feature songs, so all the consumer has to do is open up the Shazam® application and let it identify the song playing in the ad. From there they will have options to go straight to that brand’s website, purchase product, etc. With the Old Navy® ad you even have the option to buy the outfit the person is wearing in the ad!

This new trend will not only make TV ads more interactive for consumers, but allow advertisers to more accurately measure the performance of the ads while tracking TV conversions.

Integrating mobile apps into your TV advertisements works well all around – the consumer gets to interact with the ad while the advertisers are able to more easily direct traffic to brands’ websites. Shazam® is just the beginning; as this advertising tactic grows, the variety of applications available for integration will most likely grow as well.

As most of us know, TV is great for its emotional appeal and its immersive environment allows audiences to be completely drawn into what they are watching. That engagement carries over to advertisements, and allows consumers to create the personal significance required for brand building and equity.

This doesn’t mean that online advertising isn’t effective, but online ads are more effective once the consumer has seen them on TV first. The study determined that television ads across the spectrum of familiarity evoked 38x more emotional engagement than the same brands seen online. Even when the online ad was placed in a relevant environment, for example, an automotive ad placed on an automotive page, engagement was still 30x higher with TV.

However, brand resonance of online ads almost tripled after a brand was viewed on TV first, as opposed to an online ad never associated with a TV ad.

The two media have incredible power when used together: TV for establishing the brand message, and internet for reinforcing that message.

 

 According to Chief Marketing Officer and General Management executive, Randall Beard and a late 2010 study conducted by Nielsen/ Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing Research Study, 48% of consumers said they were more engaged by watching 3D programming. It would seem only reasonable to expect that this heightened level of engagement will carry over to commercials produced in 3D.

 Beard states that 3D ads have the potential to have more of an impact on your audience than 2D for a variety of reasons:

 1. 3D is automatically more immersive, making it probable that ads will be more effective.

2. 3D’s current technology requires the use of special glasses, which means if a person is watching TV in 3D they are invested in what they are watching, making them less prone to distractions and more apt to retain the messages in your ad.

3. Neural research shows that TV is #1 when it comes to communicating emotions, when compared to PC or Mobile platforms. The 3D feature would only amplify any emotion or action driven ad.

 With only a couple of 3D ads produced so far, the attention grabbing novelty is still ripe for advertisers. However, like every new technology, it will take 3D some time to completely penetrate the market. So don’t rush off to buy your 3D glasses just yet, but sure keep it in mind. It just might be the next big thing.

//

80% of TV Viewing is still in Standard Definition.

Although 56% of homes in the U.S. now have a HDTV, only 20% of TV viewing is being done in high definition, according to the Nielsen Company. 

Few Ads are in HD.

TV networks may be moving quickly on developing HD programming, but advertisers are far behind. A new study from Extreme Reach, says just 13% of all TV commercials that ran in 2010 were produced in high definition.

People do more than watch TV while watching TV.

A study of over 8,000 people from Nielsen and Yahoo recently discovered that 86% of mobile Internet users play around on their devices (smartphones, iPads, etc.) while watching the tube. It seems that Googling random facts, checking their Facebook news feed and checking their Twitter account were atop the list of activities to do while watching TV. A bit of good news for advertisers: 20% confessed to search for more information about a commercial they recently saw.

WRONG.

Ace Metrix, a national company that tracks effectiveness of TV advertising, paints a much different picture. “We studied every nationally televised ad for the first 11 months in 2010 and found that celebrity ads performed either below average or merely equaled it,” said Ace Metrix CEO, Peter Daboll. “We found with rare exception, celebrity endorsements were largely ineffective and failed to yield the benefits popular wisdom promises.

So why are today’s consumers not as easily impressed by celebrity hucksters as they once were? The study conducted by Ace Metrix reports that today’s consumer is informed, time-compressed, difficult to impress, and is only influenced by ads that provide relevant information. They are more likely to be influenced by someone in their social network than a contrived celebrity connection. Simply put, they don’t want products pushed at them, even from a celebrity.

The study also points out that most celebrity ads lack the two key ingredients that consumers want most: relevance and information.

It’s also important to note that consumers polled in this study overwhelmingly cited being “confused” about what product the celebrity was endorsing as a reason for celebrity TV commercial ineffectiveness.

It appears consumers prefer commercials that clearly extol product benefits which could have a relevant connection to their lives; opposed to commercials from insincere celebrities that do little more than insult their intelligence with convoluted messages.

Imagine that, going back to where we were so many years ago, when TV advertising actually did more than amuse and entertain.

Celebrities or not, the new era of TV advertising, may not be that new after all.