For marketers thinking about a foray into television ads, the fear can be real. First, it just sounds expensive. And, before beginning, there’s often a need to justify the investment internally. Second, TV is high profile. This means all stakeholder eyes will be on it, and they’ll be asking about results immediately. Third, it can require commitment – both in terms of the upfront media buy and in the need to stick with it to create impact. To mitigate risk and exploit the upside, it’s critical for brands to understand the right – and wrong – ways to approach TV advertising.
It’s tempting, especially when cost is a concern, for brands chase cheap ad inventory. This is a mistake, says Alison Monk, CEO and Founder at Eden Collective, because brands need a strategy for reach and frequency. TV is about educating over a period of time, so reaching consumers just once isn’t only less efficient than a more expensive buy on better-known networks that have the desired viewer, but is “fundamentally unscalable,” she says.
While cheap ad inventory won’t address the right audience, relying too heavily on individual targeting also comes with detriments. Specifically, it can result in deemphasizing linear TV in favor of connected television (CTV). Yes, CTV offers the ability to target in contrast to the reputed waste” that comes with the broader reach of linear TV. But Monk cautions that many marketers don’t realize that, unlike most digital channels that offer individual-level targeting, CTV targeting is only at the household level. This means that while someone in a multi-person household may meet the targeting criteria and be served an ad, it’s unlikely the desired person is seeing the ad.
Without taking into consideration the type of inventory purchased and the consumer who’s actually being reached, the metrics being used for measurement may appear compelling, but superficially so. One brand executive who wishes to remain unnamed reports having felt “gaslit and confused” when his TV and CTV agency partner showed him dashboards claiming impressive results that were disconnected from the overall, less positive performance of his business. Relying on such data is another mistake.
With the right partners and measurement, TV can make sense for a variety of reasons. First, it’s a way to diversify the channel mix when a brand starts to see diminishing returns elsewhere. Second, it can be important at certain stages of a business. Kendra Prasad, VP of Acquisition at The Farmer’s Dog, knew she needed broad reach to “create a category and disrupt an industry.” This is one reason for which she led the brand in investing in TV earlier than other direct-to-consumer names. Monk shared that, by some industry estimates, only a small fraction of premium streaming is ad-supported as an example of why linear TV is important for broad reach.
In addition to measurement requiring caution, Chris Novak, Chief Operating Officer at Eden Collective, explains there’s a “minimum viable investment in TV because it’s not like digital media where a brand’s first dollar is its best dollar, and continued spend over a period of time is necessary for impact.” While patience is required to see that impact, ultimately ad recall is higher than for other types of advertising.
Of course, this success is contingent upon the creative being appropriate for the channel. Monk points out the difference in skill set required to drive TV ads in comparison to digital ads: “You need incredibly thoughtful creative strategy and script, not just production.”
Read the full article here