TV Matters, Or Does It
Youtube’s most recent upfront reignited the debate around the relevance of TV and the much-maligned 30-second spot. Ritson counterbalanced the hyperbole with:
“I think most marketers these days agree that the reports of the death of linear TV have been wildly exaggerated. But nonetheless, we have to accept that a lot of people are watching a lot less linear TV than perhaps they once did,” said Ritson.
“That’s a major problem, especially for big brands who have for decades depended on linear TV to build their brands at the top of the funnel through its enormous reach. And that’s exactly where YouTube plays a wonderful role. As a supplement to linear TV, especially on connected televisions, YouTube provides a brilliant way to restore that reach, particularly among the younger demographics that have proven so difficult in recent years to reach out to.”
While Ritson is right, there are two problems with this.
First, the idea of a “top of the funnel” is antiquated. We are in need of the continuous creation of mental, physical and digital availability for our brands across all stages of the funnel. All buyers buy infrequently. The funnel is a broken metaphor. More to come on that.
Digital mediums – Youtube – plays a critical role in generating that availability. The issue is efficiency, effectiveness and reach. That is where the debate starts. So even if we are watching TV less – much less in my case – does that smaller viewing audience more efficiently and effectively create availability? I can’t recall a single ad or brand I’ve seen on Youtube but can recall brands I’ve seen on TV. Samples of one make for terrible evidence.
Second, drawing two mediums into a compare and delete debate is futile. The reality is all marketers of any quality will be working the media mix for outcomes. It’s not either, or – but rather where to allocate the spend across a mix. As more of us consume formats that move – TV, video, social the real losers will be static media. Not just in terms of the reach and efficiency of that media but also the complexity and cost in making that media work.
What is true is that we must adjust all marketing to reflect the attention span of audiences – short formats for intercepting the “feed” and much longer formats for engagement.
“Six second bumpers and 15-second spots. A smart mix can build a great story … languishing behind is the 30 and its cousin, the 45-second spot, which generate the lowest ROI across all screens … 30-seconds is too complex to automate, too simple to convince. It’s too short if I’ve chosen to engage with it, and it’s far too long if I’m forced to watch it. Consumers tend to skip the platform if they’re faced with the forced 30-second spot. Hence skippable format and the burst of the six second bumper. It’s long enough to grab my attention and over before I have the chance to object.”
The best performing ads, created by only 15 per cent of advertisers, were longer than three minutes, per Hunt.
So, go long, go short – but don’t get trapped in the middle.
Reads & Feeds
- We know creativity matters; doing it well is another thing. Creativity is one of the hardest things to nail as a B2B marketer. Agencies that understand B2B and are willing to work within B2B budgets are near impossible to find. A great read on the lack of creativity in most B2B marketing and a terrific interview with the DocuSign CMO on how they nailed it with Hard Hat.
- 60:40 Rule debunked by Prof Byron Sharp. Well said and argued.
Using Asana
I get asked a lot about how to use Asana effectively in marketing.
There are heaps of tips I’ll post here over the coming week but these tubes are a great starting place.
- New goal-setting feature (so happy to see this!)
- How to use tags
- Mistakes to avoid
- Good overview video
- Another kind of Asana
The endless diatribe about whether marketing is a science or art is entertaining but ignores the point that marketing is also about the process. It’s a set of processes that when done right unleash effectiveness.
Also, take a look at Simple for more advanced marketing resource management. And Asana and Simple work well together.
Real Marketing vs. Fake Marketing
One newspaper, two different messages. No news there though.
On the one hand, we read a column with the media pundits crying that it’s no time to abandon your brand; consumers are consuming more media than ever; engage your customers… So, we end-up with advice like this:
“But we know that Australians are spending in retail, grocery, pharmacies and online as such FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods), pharmacy, local/state and federal government, health advice and online retail should be very active in media spend now,” said Mr O’Brien, chairman of Atomic 212, Australia’s biggest independent media agency.
This won’t make much sense to the well trained, commercial marketer. They don’t need to be active when consumers are facing limited availability in channels; high demand; pressure from the retail duopoly (= low margins); and constrained manufacturing and distribution. It’s just further evidence of how out of touch most on the Agency side are with marketing as a profession. That’s not saying they aren’t awesome at their element of the communications discipline.
And I keep hearing the same old, same old being pedalled:
“History shows companies that keep investing in their brand in down times cannot only build market share but are also best positioned to come back fast when better times return.”
Really? I’d love to see the evidence of this for the majority of brands in the market and not the minority with the balance sheets to pull it off. Yes, consistent investment in Brand matters. But not at the expense of the balance sheet and not with the same message pre-crisis.
Moreover, there are plenty of examples of companies navigating out of a crisis specific to them. BP, Ford, Exxon come to mind. It’s a different territory managing a crisis of such scale and profound impact as Covid-19. This will result in massive change. Not a return to a new normal such as that we saw post GFC.
On the other, a column, written by my favourite marketing opinionator – Mark Ritson – pointing out rightly that communications are just a fragment of what marketing is, and that marketing needs to get back to its core functions in a time of crisis. Actually, all the time. Nail pricing. Refine product and propositions. Rethink packaging. Drive to new channels.
Mark is right. The media pundits are wrong in absolute terms, but right if that fits with your strategy.
“In reality, brands should be occupied with a bigger mission: selling stuff. The pandemic is a massive societal threat.”
The example of Uber Eats developing new propositions and rethinking how it engages with local restaurants is spot on the money. So much better than running platitudes about being here to help. The real work for Marketers right now is the real work around the other Ps.
We’re all flying blind
Research into CMO’s views tends to humour me more than enlighten. It mostly tends to be out, based on what I am hearing, by some order of magnitude.
The latest from the CMO Council falls nicely into both the humour and out by an order of magnitude category. Here are a few snippets:
- 84 per cent of global marketers expect the pandemic will multiply business disruption globally. OK, so what are the rest thinking – there either in self-isolation on a mountaintop or in denial?
- 90 per cent expect to make changes to their marketing plans. Again, what is the remaining 10% thinking?
- 66 per cent said they don’t have enough real-time visibility and insight into the pandemic’s impact across both the demand and supply chains. That should be like, 100%.
- 69 per cent are not satisfied with the quality, timeliness and usefulness of decision support data. Again, should be 100%. It’s not that the functions providing the data are failing, it’s just they are living with VUCA as well.
- Marketers feel they’re addressing customer consternation and concern extremely well (36 per cent) or moderately well (56 per cent). “Feeling” isn’t a fact. What do customers think? The many marketers I’ve spoken to are struggling with how to communicate in a relevant and authentic way, and to scale communications when all the resources they depend on are shutting down.
- Two out of three said they’re safeguarding employees and support staff extremely well, and 27 per cent moderately well. I’m hearing real concern amongst marketers for their people. Not in terms of whether they are communicating well or not, but rather, whether there will be jobs at the end of this.
- Nearly 60 per cent expressed moderate confidence in their company’s contingency, containment and recovery plans, while 31 per cent are extremely confident. I’m seeing this skew massively by sector. In banking, high confidence – they are built to weather crisis like this. In travel and hospitality, much less so. In non-essential retail, 100% aren’t. The industry matters greatly. Homogenizing data produces a false result.
- Nearly half of marketers are bracing for marketing spending cuts. Another 26 per cent don’t know what’s going to happen. Bracing for cuts is right up there with “hope as a strategy”. The best marketers I am talking to are taking a leadership stance in reshaping and remodelling budgets to reflect demand models and architecting a strategy for the next three months, and alternate strategies for beyond that. The budget should be a by-product of strategy.
Your thoughts?
To view an infographic on the data, click here.
