I Believe in Advertising. Now it Has to Believe in Me.

Great points, Stuart. Once advertisers and brands (and the tech companies that make the products and services) can work out how users can choose adverts relevant to them, then we may just see the kind of marketing and ad return that's ben the holy grail of advertisers everywhere. I don't mind ads as long as they're relevant to me.

Great response... exactly some of the points I was thinking.

Great points, Stuart. Once advertisers and brands (and the tech companies that make the products and services) can work out how users can choose adverts relevant to them, then we may just see the kind of marketing and ad return that's ben the holy grail of advertisers everywhere. I don't mind ads as long as they're relevant to me.

Great response... exactly some of the points I was thinking.

Yeah, yeah, mass media is dying. Gone. Dead. Kaput. Or was that the 1969 "Positioning" articles and book by Jack Trout? Or 1993's "One to One Future" by Don Peppers? We've been talking about it for decades.

The Death of Mass Media has been greatly exaggerated, and here's why. Yes, media habits have shifted, but following trend lines to infinity is a mistake. The automobile allowed us to commute 40 miles instead of 4, but no one drives 4,000 to work. Social media has increased our relationships and easy of chatting, but only to a new level. And it certainly doesn't remove human desire to sit back and be entertained.

Here's a question: What size flat-panel TV do you want in your basement? A big one? Interesting.

The reality is humans have three realms of personal space -- story communication from about 10 paces, work-related input at about arm's reach, and intimate space of someone whispering in your ear. It goes way back to the cave days: tales by the fire, tools in the hand, lovers in your arms. TV, computers, and cell phones fit perfectly into each zone. Just because we can now type faster in the work space doesn't remove our desire to watch from a distance.

Students of history will recall the radio was going to kill newspapers and television would kill radio. What really happens is each new media format gets layered over the others, creating a reset, but then all continue. I do agree that concurrent media use is a strong option to make TV work better. The Mullen Brand Bowl was a good example. But before you social media fanboys ;) throw mass media under a bus, check the ratings -- the Super Bowl, Academy Awards, and other big campfire events are at the highest levels ever.

I'd like to think trend lines go on forever. But that's also why I didn't invest in real estate in 2007, or jump out the window when pandemic flu started in Mexico. What goes up must plateau.

Cheers, mate.

Stuart

Loved the very detailed and thoughtful response. Thank ye. My take on Reality comes from the business trade pubs and having some friends in the production side, in my explaining why we have so much. My background is finance/sales. So I appreciate your take and view from the advertising side. Your right about about how business as usual is not working anymore. As we see with every industry creative destruction is a good thing. Sadly until we meld the various golden silos there will still be many imbalances. But each media channel of course has a vested interest to stay stand alone ie: broadcast, OOH, Social, Print, Digital etc.

The audiences being smaller is not exactly the cause of the slide into cheap reality TV shows. Cheap reality TV shows are driven by extremely low production costs, generally sustainable audiences and thusly decent profits for networks. Cable has been able to float the small audience model and gradually build it into a premium audience for higher quality programming, and not just the Showtime and HBOs. Sci Fi did it (refuse new branding moniker) and AMC does it as well.

Media buyers (at least good ones) creative folk (as long as their ego is checked at the door) and media sellers (perhaps not so much) all realize that the ad is never watched at anywhere near 100% reach for each individual placement. It is an imprecise game of tag in which over time you hope to have rounded up significant portions of the intended consumer audience. In your example for beer, you or I might not lead to a sale, bu there is a reason those brands dropped boat loads of money into Television advertising for years, the sales were way higher than Zero. For the first time in years the larger beer producers you mention are seeing significant and consistent declines in sales, which has more to do with consumer market habits changing than the effectiveness or lack thereof of advertising.

In the end though the concept of co-viewing and engaged media experiences is dead on. This is the approach media outlets need to take. I'd like to see engaged social audiences numbers take a much bigger role than the silly passiveness of Nielsen and arbitron. Good stuff as always Stuart.

I agree no viewed Advertising = no Shows. Unless we all pay for content. I use movies as the 'rate'. Are we willing to pay from $5 to $8/hr of TV? Because that is the price for great content. But that is a small part of the picture. With so many choices in so many channels, audiences are smaller. Thus the slide into cheap reality TV shows. Even if everyone viewing watched all the commercials, the small audience can only afford in aggregate what they can pay for.

Lastly the commercials. I always us the basic beer brands that fight it out in the low end of the market, Bud, Miller, Coors. I never buy any of those brands or their multitude of flavors. But when their commercials are funny I watch them over and over and over. So the Brand knows the ad is watched. The Media Buyer, the Creative, and the Media Channel all are happy because the Ad was watched. Yet zero sales.

Very complicated ecosystem indeed.