1MHB

totally agreed. our industry often has a Nascar Blind issue where we forget that everyone aint like us. and seeing as that the content was geared toward an older demo, TV was the right proper buy.

November 3, 2008

2O.S

Exactly, those two things. One - we're a small clique who completely live online. An average 55 year old mother of two (and a dog perhaps) watch TV a lot more than online. And (and this is important for some narrow minded digital ambassadors) it's not a question of either or. But we (people) seem to fall into "either or" thinking.

November 3, 2008

3CoCreatr

Right, Noah, I see the economics of the media and agree it works to connect Obama and others who would, for example, not find your work and this blog. Yet, if you say "for a lot of companies, especially those small ones, if they could afford to run some TV ads it would probably be the best way to spend their money", I see two issues.
1. "could afford" is a question of cash flow to invest and
2. reasonable expectation of returns, and that is not cents or dollars per viewer on TV, it is conversions to contacts and ultimately orders.
Maybe a two-way internet presence is not so bad on the bang for the buck factor?

November 3, 2008

4Noah Brier

@MHB: I don't exactly agree that this is a case of NASCAR blindness as much as its just not thinking about the goals of the business. The reality of this situation is that we found ourselves here for the exact same reasons, mainly that those who buy television were (and still are) buying it for all kinds of situations, irrespective of whether or not it's actually the best channel.

@OS: Precisely, it's not a question of either/or. I didn't say that outright, but that's what I meant.

@CoCreatr: As OS points out in the comments, it's not a case of either/or and I should have been more clear about that. I'm by no means poo-pooing the advantage of a internet presence, in fact, I can't really think of a business that shouldn't have one. I totally agree, for some business, a two-way internet presence is the best thing they can spend their money on. However, there are many businesses out there who don't need this kind of interaction (packaged goods and offline service industries come to mind). For those businesses, especially the small ones, their biggest objective is awareness. Now TV is certainly a whole lot more expensive and most companies (as you point out) don't have the cash to make that happen, however, I do think there are probably circumstances out there where it might be effective. (I suspect there is still room in the startup world, for instance, for TV advertising. This is poo-pooed because of the .com boom of course, but look at someone like GoDaddy, who has ponied up a bunch of money for TV in order to take the lead in their category.)

November 3, 2008

5Dennis Demori

Hey Noah,

Good observation- TV is still a very relevant medium.

One thing I'd like to add, besides that the "Joe the Plumbers" aren't up to speed with technology, is the impact TV has on seniors.

Most seniors are still very uncomfortable with technology. I think my parents are a perfect example. They're in their 60's and they just bought their first laptop last year; their first cell phones the year before. And they don't live in the middle of rural America-- they live 30 minutes outside of New York City.

Everything from small fonts on our computers to equally small buttons on cell phones and other electronic devices intimidate and frustrate a lot of people in this demographic, while TV is something they've been comfortable with since they were young.

Does this mean seniors will be more comfortable with technology in another 10 years? Probably not, since technology is geared towards younger people who "get it" vs. seniors who would probably use these innovations if they were only more user friendly.

I think there's something about the TV interface that people feel is so much more personalized, and it's not something that consumers or voters are ready to abandon just yet.

November 3, 2008

6Simon K

Hi Noah

I agree that TV is still the way to go - no other media has that instantaneous mass reach at low cost per user.

In addition to the economic benefits, there is also the PR. Notwithstanding the saturated coverage, how many inches were devoted to the act of Obama on prime time? All this buzz can create a virtuous circle of talkers and viewers

Simon

November 3, 2008

7Graeme Wood

Hey Noah,

Agree with the post, especially that it isn't an either or: a really good point for digital folk to bear in mind.

I think what is really interesting though is the way TV was used - Simon's point about talkability is really key to me. I don't believe you would generate that impact using 30" spot ads, even buying the same amount of overall airtime - this felt important because it almost took over the airwaves ("we interupt this broadcast" sort of important).

So yes, TV is still hugely important, but mainly if you do something important with it.

November 5, 2008

8Denise Lee Yohn

i'd also consider the symbolic and perceived value of tv advertising -- meaning, there is something about running a tv ad (particularly a big/long one in a high viewership timeslot) that inherently communicates strength and importance -- or so many are inclined to think.

that's why, in part, companies want to run spots on the super bowl or at least in prime time -- as much as we marketers hate to admit it, such high profile advertising still makes brands look and sound important -- companies bet on making an impression with the media buy alone, hoping that people think, "if a company can afford that, it must be worthy of my attention." (the soundness of this bet may be argued, but it's nonetheless made)

i suspect the obama campaign folks were to some extent trying to make a statement simply by running the ad when and how it did

what do you think?

November 6, 2008