Probably not long ago. It’s a line that crops up in agency presentations, and some of the more excitable trade publications, with alarming regularity. It is one of marketing’s current mantras - the ideas that get passed around the industry and repeated so much that they may as well be true. By now we all know the theory - media channels are fragmenting, TV ads don’t work, the consumer is in control, brands are playing by new rules, etc etc. The upshot being that interrupting consumers in their daily lives via traditional advertising - particularly TV - is old hat, isn’t effective, and can’t compete with all the shiny new social media toys at a marketer’s disposal.
There’s clearly some truth in that. But two things I’ve seen in the past week suggest that the situation is far more subtle than the new marketing dogma suggests.
First up was the news that YouTube might finally be on the path to profit. The video site has tried all manner of social media sorcery in its quest to monetise. So what strategy has it finally conjured up to turn a buck? Simple - banner ads and pre-rolls, the online versions of print and TV ads. It’s slightly embarrassing for YouTube, which has in the past gone out of its way not to disturb its viewers’ enjoyment, but frankly, it needs the cash.
“It’s a positive surprise,” admitted Google chief Eric Schmidt. “As more professional content moves onto the web, people are more willing [to watch an ad].”
But hold on, there’s more. Digital agency Razorfish last week released a survey called Fluent, an in-depth survey of consumers’ attitudes to different media channels. It’s full of useful stats and tips about working in social media. But buried on pages 18 and 19 appear two tables. The first looks at what sources of information people trust when it comes to product purchases. There at number two, behind ‘offline friends’, is the humble TV ad - ahead even of ‘expert online reviews’. The second table was based on asking consumers how authentic a brand sounded in different media. And what came top? Television. Take that new media! Just to rub it in, print and radio came second and third.
Just to be clear, this doesn’t mean a brand should simply ignore social media and keep chucking ads at consumers from all angles. But maybe marketers shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. These two stories suggest that consumers are willing to be interrupted to a limited degree in exchange for free, professional-level content. That brands are seen as trusted and authentic in the most interruptive media. And that media owners are able to make a living by carrying these ads.
Maybe interruption has something going for it after all.
Got a view?
Email David.tiltman@media.asia