|
Did you get that faint
SOS from the Cannes International Advertising Festival last month? It read “Mayday!
Our audience has gone from watching commercials to making them. . .”
I couldn’t help thinking that’s the smoke above, what about the
fire below? Shouldn’t we worry less about consumers creating advertising
and worry more about them ignoring and avoiding it?
Can you blame them? Marketers
say consumers are in charge and carefully limit them to answering surveys.
Yet make no mistake, today’s consumer is in
physical control. They willfully decide which media they’ll watch, read,
listen to or click and they certainly control which ads they’ll attend
to. Consumer-centric is not about who creates advertising; it’s about
who has the power to ignore it.
Commercial indifference makes the industry’s
excitement about the new buy-sell based on Nielsen commercial ratings seem
like a hollow celebration.
We’re still counting people who claim to view the set, not viewers who
actually watch commercials.
THE JURASSIC AGE OF MEDIA
Think back.
In the Jurassic Age of Media, when computers lived in chilly rooms and consumers
welcomed ads, media content gave us access to the public mind. Nothing sinister,
just Advertising.
The handshake deal was “Here’s your program,
watch my ad.”
Then the meteor shower of technology hit. It splintered
big media into abundant choice and the economic pressures of smaller audiences
increased commercial
clutter. Soon consumers, fed up with the 12-commercial pod and advertising
everywhere, stopped respecting ads. And that’s where we are today. Searching
for ways to re-open the consumer’s mind to advertising.
Leading the hunt
are at least a dozen familiar faces on the white horse of engagement. But engagement
isn’t the lost model of advertising, acceptance
is. Consumers once accepted ads in trade for content. “Engagement” has
a far higher price. It requires consumers accept the advertising and also that
the ads be engaging; interesting, useful, fun.
Engagement is not a media problem. Media get paid for attracting
audience. The simple model is “media deliver consumers, ads produce response.” That
hasn’t changed.
But media are also responsible for the quality of what
is delivered which has decayed sharply over time. The raw analogy is a Fresh
Seafood Shop delivering indifferent
fish. Specifically, media are accountable for delivering targeted, attentive
consumers. And that is where new media measurements should focus: the quality
and attentiveness of consumers delivered to the advertising. These are the
media variables that facilitate advertising engagement and encourage consumer
response.
And although we are able to measure the combined effect of media
and creative by looking at response, the evidence shows they are better measured
separately.
An engaging ad can be crippled by an inattentive audience, just as an attentive
audience can be wasted on a hapless ad. To manage advertising, we need to
know the individual contributions of media (in facilitating) and advertising
(in
achieving), response.
Why are we so disorientated by something that seems obvious?
My late partner, Dick Raboy had a sign on his office wall that read, “The
Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.” This certainly applies
to research,
where he who spends the money decides what we get to know.
Audience data no
longer tells us what we need to know to plan and buy media intelligently. Viewer,
reader and listener counts substantially overstate the
number of people who actually see or hear the advertising. Yet we don’t
get to work with the real numbers.
The reason is only the media spend substantial
sums for on-purpose audience research, so only the media decide how to spend
them. They fund the search
for bigger audiences (like those away-from-home and on-campus and the new Nielsen
A2M2 hunt for Video viewers wherever you are). They do research to demonstrate
that PVR’s have a negligible effect on commercial viewing. They are not
interested in examining the severe limitations of demo-targeting, the problems
of mainstream commercial avoidance with the remote or simple inattention. Would
you be?
Agencies, working at procurement negotiated rates and harassed
by the ever-changing
new media are hard-pressed to pay for Nielsen, Arbitron and MRI.
Advertisers,
who pay for it all, are oddly disengaged. They gave at the office. They say
their contribution to audience research is in the CPM’s they
pay. But that funding model steals their right to vote.
The unprecedented and
surprising level of consumer control of media, thanks to blogs, Podcasting
and online video, was the talk of the industry at this
year's Cannes Festival. But I think the Cannes SOS is an over-reaction. I don’t
think our audiences will go from watching commercials to making them.
I doubt
that most are watching them now.

- July 14, 2006 -
|