SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY

Competitive Clutter is a Fact of Life. Why Not Try to Use It?

By Erwin Ephron

Years ago I proudly showed my analysis of the cost of clutter to Oscar Lubow, then president of the Carl Ally agency and a great advertising mind. Oscar read the title, put down the paper and said “Butt out. You’re a media person and clutter is a creative problem. Great commercials cut through clutter. Period.” I thought about it and had to admit Oscar was right.

“ Right” then, but not now. Today great ads don’t cut through clutter. They don’t get the chance. They are overlooked as we avoid all those bad ads that came first.

COMPETITIVE SEPARATION

The specific piece of the clutter problem that troubles many advertisers is the loss of competitive separation, which in the earlier days of TV was guaranteed. Clients still want it, but the idea of a no fly zone between competing messages is obsolete and attempts to restore it are self-defeating. It simply limits available inventory. And what's the difference if a competitive commercial dings yours now or gets it later? The battle field isn’t the schedule. It’s the mind of the consumer.

In today’s TV, the cost-benefit balance of competitive separation has been tumbled by clutter and rating size. Smaller ratings mean more spots per rating point, so the frequency of appearance of any given brand's commercials is far greater than it was. That’s why people get so tired of seeing them. One hundred TRP's on cable can now require 500 spots and think about how many competing TRP's are scheduled every day.

Since most contending brands target the same consumers on the same channels in the same programs, the choice comes down to running against yourself or running against the competition. And running against the competition will often accomplish more.

MAKING CLUTTER WORK

A Brand needs to recognize that competitive clutter is a fact of today’s TV environment and plan its buys and make its commercials to deal with that reality. And even use it.

Let’s start with the viewer. They don’t read the story-board. They take away pieces of a commercial, transformed by production, twisted by their own personal experience and the viewing situation. With all that’s going on in the room, plus clutter, most commercials are neither viewed attentively nor well-remembered.

For example, there was a recent heavy campaign contrasting a car brand with competitors on different features. At the end of the spot we finally learn the commercial is for Pontiac, but I seem to remember Nissan and Toyota not Pontiac, because I don't associate that name with the cars they’re showing.

That is a major point. Research shows competing commercials reduce recall, but the loss is greater for the less familiar brand. And in the confusion of branded messages, people also ascribe the features advertised to the most familiar players.

PEST CONTROL

A brand can use that confusion. In a cluttered TV environment, the lack of separation might allow leading brand commercials to function as pest control, whose very proximity destroys some of the message value of competing smaller brand commercials.

There’s a scary precedent. During the cold war, the US deployed smaller, less costly “hunter/killer” submarines to shadow the larger Russian subs and neutralize them in the event of war. It might make sense for a leading brand to scatter 15-second brand-name commercials in those programs most heavily used by the category, simply to confuse and limit the competing brand communication.

It also might make sense for brands to test commercials in a competitive environment to see how different messages are affected. This would let us score a spot on both its gain and the competition’s loss, because shifts in brand awareness tend to be zero-sum.

A STRATEGY FOR SMALLER BRANDS

Lack of competitive separation hurts smaller brands the most so what should they be doing? “Go where they are not” is probably the best advice. Smaller brands have fewer units running and less top-of-mind so it is important for them to avoid being stepped on.

Start by examining how the category uses TV. Typically they buy programs that target their best prospects. This leads most to concentrate in the same day parts, genres and programs. So smaller brands should buy slightly off target. Since TV doesn’t target that well, less targeted programs also reach many target prospects.

And there’s no CPM penalty. Off-target programs will often deliver a lower target CPM, because there is less demand and demo-guarantees eliminate any shortfalls. So “off target” the grass may seem a paler green, but fewer big bulls are grazing.

In today’s television competitive separation is gone, but that doesn’t mean competitive advantage went with it. Smart devils can always find opportunity in a paradise lost.

- November 4, 2005 -

^ top of page ^      < back <