The Association of Commercial Television

AKTV HOSTED THE CEO AND TOP EXEC’S SUMMIT IN PRAGUE test

As a part of its membership in the professional organization egta, the Association of Television and Radio Companies from Europe and beyond, the Association of Commercial Television was granted the opportunity to host egta’s 2019 professional CEO & Top Exec’s Summit – the annual, 2-day egta-member meeting, where media companies share their experience, inspiration and contacts. This year’s meeting took place on June 6-7 and included more than 220 participants from 33 countries. 

Amongst the 35 speakers, who were representatives of egta members but also advertisers, media or research agencies, were Ivan Yamshchikov, AI Evangelist from the Max Planc Institute, Stéphane Berubé – L´Oréal’s CMO for Western Europe, and Kim Younes – from the French media group M6 Publicité and Chris Goldson – from the British commercial leader ITV. The Czech media houses were represented by Jan Vlček from TV Nova/CME, Martina Říhová from Active Group and the client’s point of view was brought by Petr Janeba from Škoda Auto ČR.

“The subheading of this year’s summit was “Building Bridges,” which is a big and up-to-date topic and not only for our television industry. This era has been changing rapidly; technologies are developing very fast and have crucial impact on consumer behavior. We, the media, thus have to adjust not only to the changing viewer habits but also to the demand and expectations from advertisers. Events like egta CEO Summit give us a valuable perspective on what and how our foreign colleagues deal with and, at the same time, inspire us as to what could work for us,” says Marek Singer, AKTV’ s president


“The CEO and Top Exec’s Summit was the ideal opportunity to remind our delegates that both TV and radio are thriving now that they have digitally transformed and are available across a multitude of screens, devices and audio platforms. The exchange of insights, benchmarks and best practices in our constantly evolving industry illustrate that – whereas we can compete on the content that we propose to viewers – there are plenty of reasons for broadcasters to collaborate in the face of increasingly international competition. Our sincere thanks goes out to AKTV for graciously hosting the Summit in the beautiful city of Prague and providing the ideal conditions for these insightful two days,” adds
Katty Roberfroid, Director General, egta

WHY IT’S TIME TO RE-EVALUATE TV PLANNING test

As BARB releases its latest Viewing Report, Wavemaker’s Emma Moorhead discusses how new multiple-screen data is changing the way that agencies plan television

The media industry is in search of the Holy Grail: a single-source measurement of TV viewing across all screens and channels. In 2018, we got one step closer to this with the launch of multiple-screen viewing figures, the first stage of BARB’s Project Dovetail initiative. While these additional data are very much welcomed, how do they change the way we deliver the best outcomes for our clients?

Overnight viewing figures have formed the bedrock of how we plan, buy and optimise television campaigns. The launch of a new campaign goes hand-in-hand with securing a kick-off spot in a top-rating programme to reach a mass audience. If a programme over- or under-performs, next-day negotiations ensue to secure the desired number of exposures. But in recent years, displacement of viewing has made this task more complicated.

Linear television viewing is now regularly timeshifted. On average, people watch 29.3 daily minutes of television timeshifted, and this timeshifted viewing accounts for an average increase of 15% on a typical overnight rating. Sometimes it can be more; the launch episode of Shipwrecked on January 28th 2019 was watched live by 219,000 people, but the consolidated 7-day figure more than tripled to 685,000. Consolidated ratings used as a proxy for reach become progressively difficult to estimate, making the buyer’s job increasingly complex.

Some content is still watched live by the majority of its audience, in particular event programming – think of England in the World Cup. BARB data break down the numbers watching live or timeshifted within seven or 28 days, so we can buy the right spot when that live first-look is still the key metric; we’re starting to see greater nuances in how we plan our television content.

In addition, while it’s well-documented that linear television consumption is in decline, this is partially compensated for by the growth of BVOD services. The appetite to consume high-quality content for several hours a day remains, albeit fragmented across screens. BARB’s new multiple-screen viewing data give us insight into how programmes are viewed across TV sets, PCs, tablets and smartphones.

For example, in 2018, Love Island gained up to 27% incremental viewing uplift from non-TV devices, while Family Guy gained up to 8% uplift. Nonetheless, as a whole, non-TV set devices add less than 2% to TV set viewing; the TV set remains the favoured means of viewing.

And despite these additional data on device consumption, we remain none the wiser as to the incremental reach BVOD can offer to a linear television campaign across all screens.

Using BVOD to supplement reach is centred in a linear television-first approach to planning. Interestingly, another aspect of BARB’s data suggests that alternative approaches could be sensible to deliver impact in a fragmented viewing world. BARB can now measure viewing to programmes on BVOD services before they are broadcast.

For example, 1.15m people chose to watch the second episode of Save Me via Sky On Demand pre-broadcast on TV sets; this was more than half of the total TV set audience of 2.19m. This increased throughout the series, with the final episode watched by 83% of people via Sky On Demand pre-broadcast.

Understanding how programmes are consumed influences how we approach planning. A linear-first approach misses the opportunity to reach audiences when the content is at its most valuable; when it’s providing the watercooler moment. We should instead be moving towards an audience and content-first approach – buying the right programming, at the right time for greatest impact amongst viewers.

The need to re-evaluate our planning approach becomes even more prominent when we consider that changes in consumer behaviour are starkest among younger audiences. Ad-supported YouTube and SVOD services such as Netflix and Amazon remain the top challengers to television’s incumbent media owners.

BARB’s measure of unidentified viewing – where the TV set is used to do something other than watch a BARB-reported channel or BVOD service – includes viewing to SVOD services and online platforms. In 2018, unidentified viewing accounted for 48 daily minutes for all individuals, rising to 71 minutes for 16-34-year-olds. Greater insight into this consumption would be very much welcomed.

YouTube has expressed a willingness to be part of BARB’s Joint Industry Currency (JIC) model, but in its own words it wants to be “represented appropriately and fairly”. Here remains a fundamental problem with reconciling television and online viewing.

Television is measured by impacts in units of 30 seconds, whereas online is measured by impressions with no time exposure element. For the two to be comparable, we need to use duration-based measurement for online viewing. Everything needs to be clearly labelled so we aren’t comparing apples and pears.

Meanwhile, addressable television is on the rise but is far from ubiquitous. In order to realise the long-promised future where television is a more efficient, targeted and digital-like medium, we need to reach a point where content and distribution are more vertically integrated.

In this future, new measurement opportunities may complement the data offered by BARB through the likes of set-top box data. A more digital-like television future offers the opportunity to deliver precision at scale.

Trusted and accurate measurement remains essential to accountability, planning

and optimisation, and increasingly so in a world where we see displacement, fragmentation and disruption. Ultimately, we need to understand the value that each exposure drives for advertisers. The outcomes are what are important; measurement allows us to link exposure to value.

The industry must come up with a measurement solution enabling better understanding of viewing patterns across all screens and channels. This is still some years away, even in the most advanced markets.

BARB’s Project Dovetail in the UK is setting the example, although we must remain patient before we achieve multiple-screen advertising campaign performance. Regardless, the JIC principles underpinning Barb should not be weakened or compromised.

Despite everything, linear television has sustained advertiser demand, giving the impression that it is as effective and essential as ever, but for how long, and in what balance relative to the alternatives?

Source: https://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2019/05/20/why-its-time-to-re-evaluate-tv-planning

TV ADS STILL MORE RELEVANT TO CONSUMERS THAN STREAMING VIDEO ADS test

What does this say about programmatic video ads?

Despite marketers’ efforts with advanced programmatic and data targeting for video ads, consumers still find that they are more likely to be served a relevant ad on linear TV.

According to a survey conducted by Adobe in February 2019, 49% of US internet users said that TV was one of the mediums where they were most likely to see a relevant ad, while just 12% said the same about streaming video.

Valuable ad placements and the ability to reach a mass audience have kept TV ads relevant in the digital age. But digital video allures marketers with advanced targeting through programmatic advertising, which uses audience data that TV doesn’t have.

This year, we estimate $29.24 billion will be spent on programmatic video ads—accounting for 81.2% of digital video ad spend. For TV, just 4.0% of ad spending in the US will be programmatic.

There are many perceived advantages to programmatic advertising, most of which revolve around lower costs and the ability to harness data. In response to a November 2018 survey by Digiday Research, 56% of US agency and brand media buyers said that increased targeting and optimization was the biggest advantage of programmatic advertising. But if viewers still find TV ads to be more relevant, then programmatic may not be as effective as some marketers perceive it to be.

Consumer sentiment does indicate that ads are becoming more relevant overall. In the Adobe study, 46% of consumers felt that the ads they saw currently were more relevant than those they were served a year prior. But, most marketers can agree, there’s still a long way to go before personalization is perfected.

Only 32% of marketers believe their industry is delivering personalization effectively, according to a survey conducted in February and March 2019 by Evergage and Researchscape International. When asked how satisfied they were with the level of personalization in their own marketing efforts, 50% said they were either not satisfied or slightly satisfied, and 34% said they were moderately satisfied.

While marketers may have faith in programmatic’s potential to target the ultraspecific, it is possible that the accuracy of the data just isn’t sufficient—and that’s why these ads aren’t resonating with viewers.

Many marketers would agree, per the Evergage/Researchscape International report. Nearly half of respondents (45%) felt they didn’t have sufficient data and insights for effective personalization.

Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/tv-ads-still-more-relevant-to-consumers-than-streaming-video-ads

TWEETING WHILE VIEWING DOESN’T DIMINISH TV ADVERTISING’S REACH AND OFTEN LEADS TO SHOPPING test

People watching “social shows” like “Dancing with the Stars” or “The Bachelor” on television and simultaneously sharing their views on Twitter are more likely to be committed to the program and shop online, according to new research from Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.

Marketers have feared that social media distracts viewers from commercials and minimizes their impact. But this research found the opposite. “Social shows” are more beneficial to advertisers because commercials that air in those programs generate more online shopping on the advertisers’ websites.

The international marketing research firm Nielsen estimated in 2014 that 80 percent of U.S. television viewers simultaneously used another device while watching television, often live tweeting to share their views, for example. The trend has led scholars to coin the term “social TV.”

“Participation in online chatter about a program may indicate that viewers are more engaged with the program,” said Beth L. Fossen, assistant professor of marketing at Kelley. “Online program engagement may encourage a loyal, committed viewing audience. And media multitasking may decrease the ability for the viewer to counterargue or resist persuasion attempts, increasing ad effectiveness.

“We find that advertisements that air in programs with more social activity see increased ad responsiveness in terms of subsequent online shopping behavior. This result varies with the mood of the ad, with more affective ads — in particular, funny and emotional ads — seeing the largest increases in online shopping activity.

“Our results shed light on how advertisers can encourage online shopping activity on their websites in the age of multiscreen consumers.”

In the study, Fossen and her co-author, David Schweidel of the Goizueta Business School at Emory University, sought to determine how the volume of program-related online chatter is related to online shopping behavior at the retailers that advertised during the programs.

In addition to their findings that social shows benefit advertisers by encouraging online shopping activity, Fossen and Schweidel also found that increases in online chatter about a retailer lead to increased traffic to the company’s website in the first five minutes after the advertisement appears.

They also found that ad timing affected online shopping. Ads airing near a half-hour interval — such as 8:28 or 9:02 p.m. — spurred more online purchases than ads aired at other times. Commercials airing earlier in the evening generated more web traffic than those airing before the late-night news.

Fossen and Schweidel studied the online shopping activity of 100,000 active internet users, which they paired with data on commercials for five retailers and nearly 1,700 instances of advertising on 83 prime-time programs during the fall 2013 television season. They considered online traffic and sales on the retailers’ websites, prime-time advertising, social media comments mentioning the TV program or the advertiser, and characteristics of both the program and the advertising.

Source: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/iu-twv040419.php

TARGETED BYRON SHARP, ANYONE? test

Data can now make TV more effective. Even Byron Sharp should welcome more accurate targeting.

Brands and their agencies face a dilemma.

On the one hand, evidence from Byron Sharp shows that brands should drive reach of all purchasers in the category as often as possible. What’s more, according to effectiveness gurus Peter Field and Les Binet, TV remains a critical part of the mix for delivering this reach and cost-effective growth.

But, at the same time, the ability of TV to deliver the requisite levels of reach has deteriorated rapidly. Over the past five years, the number of gross rating points required to reach 50% of an all-adult target audience has risen by 50% in the US, 40% in France and 22% in the UK. Other markets show similar trends, making Sharp’s vision harder to deliver. There’s a reach gap and it’s getting bigger – especially among younger audiences. It’s also becoming significantly more expensive to generate that reach.

To fill the gap, some brands have boarded the personalisation-at-scale bandwagon, targeting high-value individuals with personalised messages. But this is an extreme reaction. Huge amounts of money have been invested in the technology and data to deliver such personalisation – but it’s questionable whether the investment can be recouped.

Moreover, not all reach is equal. So, while it is possible to fill the reach shortfall with digital activity, it may not be possible to match the impact that TV-driven reach generates – especially at scale.

The dilemma is that TV remains critical, but there’s a reach gap and efficiency is diminishing. So, to compensate, we are facing a huge investment in a data-driven solution. Ultimately, this compromises the Sharp/Field and Binet dream and makes it harder to deliver effective reach of category users.

But there is a solution. One that retains the ambition of delivering Sharp’s reach strategy, addresses the shortfall in TV delivery against the real category users and frees up budget to fill any reach gap.

That solution is the intelligent application of data.

By applying the same data we use to activate personalised digital activity at scale to TV, we can plan airtime to actual category users instead of demographic proxies for category users. That may sound like a semantic change, but it’s actually hugely significant.

Fusing our behavioural data with TV viewing data enables us to plan a campaign against specific interests – dog owners, say – instead of 25- to 45-year-old BC1s. Planning in this way frequently generates in excess of 10% improvements in the cost of reaching the people that Sharp demands we contact: category users.

Data allows us to deliver actual category users, rather than people who look like category users.

Delivering reach more efficiently in this way releases investment for more targeted video activity – filling the reach gap against a consistently defined target audience. And, more than this, by using a single data source to plan activity across digital and TV, we can measure cross-media reach and identify those that have not been exposed to the TV activity.

Incremental video support can then be directed at these individuals, maximising reach against category users. Thus, Sharp is satisfied, personalisation at scale is delivered, relevance is maximised and ROI is stabilised.

The same data sets can also be applied to other channels, such as radio and outdoor. This lets us quantify and identify an audience in more detail than traditional media metrics allow and invest more accurately.

These principles can be applied to every sector, ultimately making TV more powerful and more effective, while, for the first time, reassuring marketers that they are actually reaching all (or many more) of their category buyers.

If it’s true that TV will become more programmatic in the future, then some of the more technical lessons learned online will be applicable to our most important medium, but that will take time.

For now, it’s important to remember that data isn’t simply the preserve of digital – it can be applied to every channel and every strategy. The impact is massive, and with smarter targeting strategies it can help any brand.

David Beale is global chief data officer at MediaCom

Source: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/targeted-byron-sharp-anyone/1580598

 

THINKBOX’S LINDSEY CLAY BECOMES PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL TV GROUP test

Lindsey Clay, CEO of Thinkbox, has been appointed as the first President of the Global TV Group, the informal grouping of TV broadcasters, sales houses, and trade bodies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and Latin America.

The Global TV Group was set up in 2013. egta is a founding member of the Group and acts as its coordinator.  It is a forum for sharing knowledge, exchanging best practice and collating global TV intelligence. To date it consists of 14 TV industry associations from across the globe.

Each year the Group produces The Global TV Deck, a valuable databank designed to meet the needs of advertisers eager for transparent, robust data and fresh insights about TV advertising’s business performance.

Lindsey Clay, Thinkbox CEO:

“I’m honoured to be The Global TV Group’s first President. The TV industry, so used to being nationally-focussed, needs to work together more internationally to tell the incredible story of its cultural and business-transforming power, and its rapidly accelerating technological capabilities. Viewers and advertisers have never had it so good. A great story is there to be told.”

Clay has been CEO at Thinkbox since 2014.

For more information on the Global TV Group, please visit www.theglobaltvgroup.com.

ABOUT egta

egta is the association representing television and radio sales houses, either independent from the channel or in-house, that markets the advertising space of both private and public television and radio stations throughout Europe and beyond. egta fulfils different functions for its members in fields of activities as diversified as regulatory issues, audience measurement, sales methods, interactivity, cross-media, technical standards, new media, etc. During its more than 40 years’ existence, egta has become the reference centre for television and radio advertising in Europe. egta counts more than 140 members operating across 40 countries. http://www.egta.com/

About Thinkbox

Thinkbox is the marketing body for commercial TV in the UK, in all its forms. It works with the marketing community with a single ambition: to help advertisers get the best out of today’s TV.

Its shareholders are Channel 4, ITV, Sky Media, Turner Broadcasting and UKTV, who together represent over 99% of commercial TV advertising revenue through their owned and partner TV channels. Associate Members are Discovery Networks Norway, Disney, TAM Ireland, Think TV (Australia), thinktv (Canada), TVN Media (Poland), TV Globo (Brazil), TV 2 (Norway), TV 2 (Denmark), DSTv (South Africa), and Virgin Media. Discovery Networks UK & Ireland and STV also give direct financial support.

TV has more to offer advertisers than ever before. In a cluttered media world, with new voices clamouring for advertisers’ attention, TV continues to stand out as proven, trusted and – most importantly – pre-eminently effective.

TV shapes popular culture. The investment our broadcasters make in premium quality TV shows catering to every taste – and available on any screen you wish – creates an advertising environment that is second to none.

From ensuring that the facts about TV are known (and myths challenged) to understanding how and why TV advertising works, explaining how TV is changing, showcasing innovative and affordable solutions and constantly providing the rigorous proof of effectiveness that advertisers need, Thinkbox is here to help businesses meet their marketing objectives.

Source: http://www.theglobaltvgroup.com/thinkboxs-lindsey-clay-becomes-president-of-the-global-tv-group/

ONLINE BUSINESSES ARE BIGGEST TV ADVERTISERS test

Collectively, online businesses are the biggest category of advertisers on TV in the UK, accounting for almost 15% of total spending via this channel in 2018 and 40% more than the next biggest category which is food.

Latest figures from Thinkbox indicate Amazon, in particular, boosted its TV spending by 21% to £60m last year as it promoted its Alexa voice assistant, putting it in the top three advertisers, behind Procter & Gamble (£169m ) and Reckitt Benckiser (£79m).

The top 5 biggest spending categories on TV in 2018 according to Nielsen’s data were:

 

  1. Online businesses: £760m (7% up year on year)
  2. Food: £534m (3% down)
  3. Cosmetics & Personal Care: £437m (1% up)
  4. Entertainment & Leisure: £380m (no change)
  5. Finance: £378m (18% up)

Thinkbox also observed 867 new or returning (after a gap of at least five years) advertisers on TV, possibly encouraged by the fact that the average cost per thousand (CPT) for broadcast TV ad views, at £5.13, was 21% cheaper in real terms than 10 years ago.

This figure, Thinkbox clarified, only includes TV advertising that is watched from start to finish at normal speed; TV ads that are seen during any fast-forwarding are free to advertisers.

“TV advertising put in a strong performance in 2018 given the challenging economic environment,” said Lindsey Clay, Thinkbox CEO.

“We are seeing signs of money moving back to TV from lower quality online environments which can’t guarantee a safe environment for brands,” she added. “It is a testament to TV’s continuing power to deliver that a company like Amazon, which understands its customers so well, is using TV to power its success.”

Total TV advertising in 2018 amounted to £5.11bn, representing all money invested by advertisers in commercial TV in the UK across all formats and screens: broadcast TV spot and sponsorship, Broadcaster VOD, addressable TV, interactive TV advertising, and product placement.

Source: https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/online_businesses_are_biggest_tv_advertisers/41834

FOR TV, MEDIA TRADE GROUPS, GROWTH MEANS EXPANDING INTO COMPETING AREAS test

TV/media-based business trade groups need to keep growing in a disruptive world. And that can mean spillover, as they extend into sometimes competing professional disciplines.

Promax, the TV marketing group that has been around since the 1950s, is now expanding global membership efforts to include a digital marketing and theatrical marketing emphasis.

Steve Kazanjian, president/chief executive officer of Promax, says there is certain level of “melding” between many marketing areas — for example, among small-screen TV and big-screen theatrical practices.

The 10,000-member group of TV marketing executives is getting a bit of rebranding; PromaxBDA is now Promax. The group is also launching a marketing campaign, “We Love What You Do,” starting around Valentine’s Day.

Three years ago the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau became the Video Advertising Bureau, adding national broadcast members, like CBS and Fox, as well big theatrical screen sellers of advertising such as  National CineMedia (NCM) and Screenvision.

Long before this — almost a decade before — you had the likes of the National Association of Television Program Executives thinking outside its box. For most of its history, NATPE centered around the selling of TV programs, off-TV networks and first-run content to local TV stations — part of the big U.S. TV syndication business.

NATPE now focuses its events around all video content for many platforms — international, cable, OTT, digital and otherwise — all to support development, production, financing, and distribution.

One can understand these moves with this ongoing question: Where is the growth in the media/entertainment world — and how can we gain members and interest?

We have known for a long time that there is much spillover. The Interactive Advertising Bureau began primarily in catering to the independent non-traditional TV/media businesses, as a competitor to the likes of local TV networks, broadcast and cable, and TV stations.

Now you can see the likes of digital-oriented businesses — Warner Bros, Viacom, Turner, Hulu (owned by the four major TV companies, Walt Disney, Fox, NBCUniversal, and WarnerMedia), Meredith and others — offering events/presentations at the spring IAB Newfronts event in the hope of gaining attention and dollars from the big upfront TV advertising market in the summer.

At times you can call all these companies partners, frenemies, or even full-time competitors, when the situation fits.

Future business considerations will obviously mean many more new cross-platform, cross-media industry acquisitions, and then the game will change again. Specific media discipline trade groups will do the same.

Source: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/331934/for-tv-media-trade-groups-growth-means-expanding.html

IT’S TIME TO LOOK AT TV ADVERTISING IN A NEW LIGHT test

While addressable TV has been talked about in certain industry circles for some time, it seems the wider marketing industry has yet to truly appreciate its potential.

With new, head-turning channels and marketing approaches launching all the time, it can be easy to overlook the transformation other media channels have undergone, especially those around for a long time.

For the past year, ISBA has been working with its TV and AV Steering Group to fully understand this innovative advertising technology, get to grips with the opportunities it offers and get a heads up on what’s over the horizon.

Opening up TV to new advertisers

Addressable TV appeals to existing TV advertisers looking to combine linear TV’s broad reach with the targeted capabilities of addressable TV advertising. Which leads us to the real pro: addressable TV lets them reach niche audiences or test specific groups of consumers and how they react to new marketing campaigns.

In addition, it also enables brands who could not previously afford to advertise on TV, the ability to do just that – allowing SMEs to add TV to their marketing mix and target consumers they want to reach.

A new landscape

Previously TV and web technologies were considered separate elements, often planned and bought completely separately or even by different marketing teams. Yet when people watch TV, increasingly it will be on a digital device and often online or interactively.

The TV and advertising landscape of today includes digital broadcast and IP linear channels, closed format on-demand, web-on-demand, short-form, and interactive TV formats.

Addressable, data-rich TV advertising is emerging as a new advertising platform and our industry must be able to review and debate the media landscape, evolving right in front of us. To do this, all players need a clear understanding of the TV distribution and advertising technology and be precise in their use of an agreed TV and advertising terminology.

Demystifying

With the arrival of Addressable TV, comes the inevitable new language that surrounds it. But as we wade through the wording and attempt to define ‘what it’s going to do for me’, it becomes clear that the lack of real information as to the possibilities is the bigger issue.

Bobi Carley, who has recently joined ISBA, is very vocal about ensuring innovation follows demand “We need the advertiser’s voice to be recognised as a principle stakeholder in the shaping of this key market as it matures to ensure it does so in a way that meets needs”.

To this end, we have worked with Nigel Walley at Decipher (and were supported by Sky) to produce our guide to addressable TV, The Emerging Context for TV Addressibility. We hope it will start to fill the education gap among marketers allowing them to play an informed role in how Addressable TV develops.

The future

Addressable TV is now at the point where this debate can happen and the industry needs all players to be sufficiently informed to join in.

To date, Addressable TV’s scale has been limited, however, in the UK this is undergoing rapid change. Sky Adsmart, for example, is currently the only product in the marketplace and continues to evolve in 2019 with Virgin Media households being added to the Adsmart footprint in April and with YouView due to be added later in the year.

As we continue down the addressable route, the industry will be watching in anticipation for ITV and Channel 4’s plans.

In the past, broadcasters have tended to work in isolation. ISBA welcomes the increased collaboration between Broadcasters and would encourage continued investment in the growth of Addressable TV to deliver solutions to advertisers at scale.

 

Source: https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2019/02/04/it-s-time-look-tv-advertising-new-light

TV AND DIGITAL ADVERTISING NEED TO STOP FIGHTING AND ADMIT THEY NEED EACH OTHER test

Like two siblings vying for a parent’s attention, digital and traditional advertising have been fighting for advertisers’ attention since digital came of age in the post-dot-com bubble era. Many have portrayed this as a war between generations, where the old guard “just didn’t get it.” But this shouldn’t be seen as a battle of relevance between old and young or a battle for the billions of dollars of media that advertisers spend. Because the losers in a war of this kind are not just the advertisers, but also the consumers they serve.

While we all should acknowledge the rise of digital advertising as a strategic media channel in an advertiser’s arsenal, the more beneficial point of view is one where we get rid of the “zero-sum game” model where one wins and the other loses. Instead, we should take an “additive” point of view, where advertising itself evolves and new tools and perspectives develop to meet advertiser and consumer needs.

This need to evolve can no longer be ignored by the old guard, as the young upstart digital has finally usurped TV as the dominant advertising media by spend. In 2017, digital marketing overtook television advertising for the first time. According to reports, TV advertising generated $178 billion worldwide with digital reaching $209 billion

While the great marketing divide debated traditional vs. digital and old vs. new, TV and digital marketers went to battle by picking sides. However, actual consumer consumption trends don’t support this. According to the August 2018 Nielsen report, people are actually watching more — not less — media, especially when you factor in consumption on tablets, smartphones and the web. On top of that, adults in the U.S. actually spent more time watching live TV each day (16 minutes more) in 2018 than they did in 2017.

Have we thought about media usage wrong and, in turn, are making decisions because it’s been a “one or the other” mentality?  

Done right, television can provide the scale and memorability that advertisers are after. Based on compiled data from The Global TV Group, TV reaches nearly every person on the planet in the course of a month, with 90% being reached each week. It’s this reach that makes TV such a powerful form of advertising. TV not only helps you reach a large audience, but you also can reach the right audience via behavioral targeting. If you think TV is only for traditional brands, think again. New-age brands, like Fitbit and Airbnb, have seen immediate and significant increases in digital engagement (measured by site traffic) once they started advertising on TV.

“The reality is Google doesn’t motivate a search. It simply enables it. No one randomly types in the name of a brand, product or service. It all starts somewhere else. To see the big picture, one must look at these cross-media connections. You need to focus on the synergies, not the divisions, that exist between TV and digital … The more we think about Google as a destination and less as a starting point, the better we’ll understand its connection to television,” said Bill McCabe, president and CEO of Eicoff in a March 2018 blog post.

A Google study on TV’s impact on search in 2010 and updated in 2017certainly acknowledges the correlation between the two as well. And Google’s groundbreaking work on Zero Moment Of Truth and micro-moments reinforce that search is growing, but ignore the “stimulus” that drives search, even though it is clearly part of the model.

Television’s scale and awareness are undeniable, and digital provides unmatched precision. In fact, we’re seeing more companies, including our own, focus on merging broadcast TV ad performance and digital engagement. Based on data on how a TV ad is performing via digital engagement, advertisers can adjust search advertising bids and budgets and identify broadcast opportunities for improvement. Moreover, you can gain insights into your ideal customer with granular data on who is interested in your product, brand or company. This detailed view of who is interested provides an opportunity for companies to drive engagement. You can encourage your audience to interact with you and draw them in.

For those that want to start an armistice between TV and digital advertising within their own organizations, here are a few great first steps:

1. Improve cross-team communications. Encourage your digital team to ask the TV team about their media strategy and attend a TV media-oriented conference and vice versa.

2. Find a web analytics solution (in addition to Google Analytics) that gives you access to visitor-level data that can be exported for analysis.

3. Request TV media clearance reports at the spot level with date, time, creative and market data for each spot run.

With this data and free data analysis tools (like Google Data Studio), you can begin to quantify basic “lift” generated by TV and start exploring other ways to proactively use this data to activate new campaign strategies.

TV’s scale and digital’s precision are better thought of like peanut butter and jelly: better together. The latest Facebook IQ study shows that direct correlation. This study observed the everyday behavior of U.S. TV viewers and revealed that 94% of those studied had a smartphone “at the ready” nearby while watching TV.

So, come on, TV and digital, it’s time to stop the feud and work together and add your strengths for the greater good. Television, you build credibility and scale that drives digital engagement. Digital, you supplement TV with microtargeting on additional touch points like paid search engine ads, audience retargeting, display ads and social media.

When you both grow up and realize that you both support and need each other, advertisers, consumers — frankly, all of us — will be better off.

 

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2019/01/31/tv-and-digital-advertising-need-to-stop-fighting-and-admit-they-need-each-other/#44aab542e15e