I am a traditional ad guy and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Yes, I am interested in new media and the changing face of advertising and wouldn’t mind not doing traditional advertising forever, blah, blah, but I am sort of sick of hearing about the death of the thirty-second spot because, let’s face it, there is no better mass reach vehicle out there and even if there is a new tactic to replace television at the top of that pedestal, there will still be television advertising.
It just may not be the big budget top of the cake that it is now.
I am glad that someone else is thinking the same way that I am: TV isn’t dead yet.
It is as important for marketers to think ahead as it is for them to be effective right now, and if you want to be effective right now on a particular type of brand you will run away from TV at your own risk. And I am not just saying that because my job depends on it.
Television advertising, besides its reach, also gives a brand a certain institutional credibility not to mention a platform for telling a brand story to people other than loyalists. It may be replaced, it may be less of an emphasis, but it is still important.
People are so busy bashing it that they’re not thinking about how to use it in interesting ways. In Alan Wolk’s post he posits that most TV will be retail spots because TV is great for showing products, how they work and what they cost…so why have no big marketers gone into DRTV with high-production spots and a drive to an engaging website?
Just an example.
Again, advertising and marketing is more than TV, but hammering on about the death of the TV spot to the point that nobody is innovating in that space anymore is leaving a gaping hole for people who want to take a risk…even if that risk is with something as declasse at DRTV.
You never know, it (and crazy ideas like it) just may work.