Comments on: Marketing headline: what’s good for the agency actually good for the brand http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rodrigo Schmiegelow http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-23289 Rodrigo Schmiegelow Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:52:32 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-23289 Hello, Very good post. I believe it varies from brand to brand, depends on the public to be achieved to add value to major brands, whether web, tv, print. The big Brazilian brand. What is the feeling with this acquisition? Burger King. Hello,

Very good post. I believe it varies from brand to brand, depends on the public to be achieved to add value to major brands, whether web, tv, print.

The big Brazilian brand.

What is the feeling with this acquisition? Burger King.

]]> By: mudskippah http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5059 mudskippah Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:41:28 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5059 I think ALL media have their place in a marketing communication strategy, it just depends on the objectives and the context. I think we should avoid fads, moving like lemmings to the latest cliff. We should instead learn simply to use the right tool for the right job. One thing is true, ALL media are evolving; everything can be improved. There are still times when a TV ad is the best tool for a job. Even what is novel today will be wrinkled and athritic tomorrow. Plus, personally, I hate internet clutter even more than mass media clutter. Consumers block stuff that bores them or impedes their access to what they are looking for in the first place, no matter where they are looking for it at, whether it's boring 30 seconders, annoying pop-ups, ugly billboards or intrusive ambient placements. At the end of it all, what separates the sheep from the clutter is CREATIVITY. Creative planning, creative content, creative execution that meets the consumer at his/her point of need. I think ALL media have their place in a marketing communication strategy, it just depends on the objectives and the context. I think we should avoid fads, moving like lemmings to the latest cliff. We should instead learn simply to use the right tool for the right job. One thing is true, ALL media are evolving; everything can be improved. There are still times when a TV ad is the best tool for a job. Even what is novel today will be wrinkled and athritic tomorrow. Plus, personally, I hate internet clutter even more than mass media clutter. Consumers block stuff that bores them or impedes their access to what they are looking for in the first place, no matter where they are looking for it at, whether it’s boring 30 seconders, annoying pop-ups, ugly billboards or intrusive ambient placements. At the end of it all, what separates the sheep from the clutter is CREATIVITY.

Creative planning, creative content, creative execution that meets the consumer at his/her point of need.

]]> By: Mark Lewis http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5058 Mark Lewis Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:34:22 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5058 Certainly, TV ads still have a role to play in marketing. For example, it would be hard to launch a CPG brand nationally without some. However, I am not sure I agree with the examples you give. Advertising, big companies and marketing overall lacks credibility in people's eyes. They have disappointed too many times. It is probably more important than Barclay's show that they are knowledgeable at the branch level, or on their web site, before (or maybe at the same time as) they launch TV. Kit Kat's campaign about the importance of a break would be more credible if it tried to win over the blogosphere first (after all, I doubt Nestle gives people that many breaks). The problem is not that TV ads are bad per se, but that there are to many of them, and to many really bad ones at that. Certainly, TV ads still have a role to play in marketing. For example, it would be hard to launch a CPG brand nationally without some.

However, I am not sure I agree with the examples you give. Advertising, big companies and marketing overall lacks credibility in people’s eyes. They have disappointed too many times. It is probably more important than Barclay’s show that they are knowledgeable at the branch level, or on their web site, before (or maybe at the same time as) they launch TV. Kit Kat’s campaign about the importance of a break would be more credible if it tried to win over the blogosphere first (after all, I doubt Nestle gives people that many breaks).

The problem is not that TV ads are bad per se, but that there are to many of them, and to many really bad ones at that.

]]> By: Mark Lewis http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5057 Mark Lewis Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:33:14 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5057 Certainly, TV ads still have a role to play in marketing. For exmaple, it would be hard to launch a CPG brand nationally without some. However, I am not sure I agree with the exmaples you give. Advertising, big companies and marketing overall lacks credibility in people's eyes. They have disappointed to many times. It is probably more important than Barclay's show that they are knowledgeable at the branch level, or on their web site, before (or maybe at the same time as) they launch TV. Kit Kat's campaign about the importance of a break would be more credible if it tried to win over the blogosphere first (after all, I doubt Nestle gives people that many breaks). The problem is not that TV ads are bad per se, but that there are to many of them, and to many really bad ones at that. Certainly, TV ads still have a role to play in marketing. For exmaple, it would be hard to launch a CPG brand nationally without some.

However, I am not sure I agree with the exmaples you give. Advertising, big companies and marketing overall lacks credibility in people’s eyes. They have disappointed to many times. It is probably more important than Barclay’s show that they are knowledgeable at the branch level, or on their web site, before (or maybe at the same time as) they launch TV. Kit Kat’s campaign about the importance of a break would be more credible if it tried to win over the blogosphere first (after all, I doubt Nestle gives people that many breaks).

The problem is not that TV ads are bad per se, but that there are to many of them, and to many really bad ones at that.

]]> By: Ed Simone http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5056 Ed Simone Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:41:23 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5056 Grant, Great post. It seems the question, though, is not IF the 30 second will die, but WHEN it will become extinct. What will take it's place as a vehicle of creating and communicating brand meaning? Word of mouth, open-source, various online/interactive hybrid models, experiential etc are all held up as modern alternatives but you are absolutely right: they don't come close to TV ads. Most likely, it'll be a case of "don't know what you have till it's gone". Grant,

Great post. It seems the question, though, is not IF the 30 second will die, but WHEN it will become extinct. What will take it’s place as a vehicle of creating and communicating brand meaning? Word of mouth, open-source, various online/interactive hybrid models, experiential etc are all held up as modern alternatives but you are absolutely right: they don’t come close to TV ads. Most likely, it’ll be a case of “don’t know what you have till it’s gone”.

]]> By: James Boardwell http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5055 James Boardwell Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:28:12 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5055 I'm not too sure about the bank example - I think that it's highly doable to create a more trustworthy brand through being more 'knowledgeable' about money mainly because more and more people are researching financial products online and 'doing' banking that way. And it's not just the context and the time spent that are key - the internet allows users to follow the rationale of any ad by reinforcing the message with a more engaged experiential use of the brand. But, i agree there's a mad rush to 'new media' that smacks of a gold rush [all hype from the early runners], without any real thought as to how appropriate or cost effective it may be. I’m not too sure about the bank example – I think that it’s highly doable to create a more trustworthy brand through being more ‘knowledgeable’ about money mainly because more and more people are researching financial products online and ‘doing’ banking that way. And it’s not just the context and the time spent that are key – the internet allows users to follow the rationale of any ad by reinforcing the message with a more engaged experiential use of the brand.

But, i agree there’s a mad rush to ‘new media’ that smacks of a gold rush [all hype from the early runners], without any real thought as to how appropriate or cost effective it may be.

]]> By: Matt http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5054 Matt Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:14:11 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5054 And let's not forget that the (TV) ads are still the only good reason to watch the Superbowl. :) I think the problem with TV advertising, the reason people skip it most of the time but spend hours recording an event in which they have no interest, just to see what the most expensive ads of the year look like, is that most advertisements on TV don't use the medium to anything like its creative potential. They're the contextual equivalent of google ads or banner ads, except with video and sound. And so just like we employ ad-blocking technology to help us ignore google ads and banner ads on the web, we employ ad-skipping technology to help us bypass content-free ads on television. To the advertisers of the world, my only advice is this: if you don't have anything interesting to say, STOP TALKING...or at least stop paying huge sums of money to make sure we all KNOW you have nothing interesting to say And let’s not forget that the (TV) ads are still the only good reason to watch the Superbowl. :)

I think the problem with TV advertising, the reason people skip it most of the time but spend hours recording an event in which they have no interest, just to see what the most expensive ads of the year look like, is that most advertisements on TV don’t use the medium to anything like its creative potential. They’re the contextual equivalent of google ads or banner ads, except with video and sound. And so just like we employ ad-blocking technology to help us ignore google ads and banner ads on the web, we employ ad-skipping technology to help us bypass content-free ads on television.

To the advertisers of the world, my only advice is this: if you don’t have anything interesting to say, STOP TALKING…or at least stop paying huge sums of money to make sure we all KNOW you have nothing interesting to say

]]> By: Pradeep Aggarwal http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5053 Pradeep Aggarwal Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:46:52 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5053 Nice blog with good information on articles. Thank you for providing relevant information. I’ll keep visiting it for updated information. Keep it up Nice blog with good information on articles.

Thank you for providing relevant information. I’ll keep visiting it for updated information.

Keep it up

]]> By: Kevin Marks http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5052 Kevin Marks Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:11:39 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5052 The last time I discussed an ad I saw online was November 29th 2005: http://epeus.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_epeus_archive.html#113331469749679883 The 'bouncy balls' ad got lots of online discussion going, as did the Guinness Evolution one. Strong brand statements like these will get distributed outside the TV system. The last time I discussed an ad I saw online was November 29th 2005:

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_epeus_archive.html#113331469749679883

The ‘bouncy balls’ ad got lots of online discussion going, as did the Guinness Evolution one. Strong brand statements like these will get distributed outside the TV system.

]]> By: Daniel Scrivner http://cultureby.com/2006/02/is_tv_advertisi.html/comment-page-1#comment-5051 Daniel Scrivner Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:52:14 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=761#comment-5051 Wonderful post! Up until this post I rode right along with the idea that television advertising was dead - due to DVRs, the mute button, etc. But I think you made a great point that no other advertising method (product placement, online advertising especially, etc) can deliver as much value, emotional attachment, and likability as a television ad. And I think the main reason is that other advertising mediums do not deliver any connection emotionally. Product placement does little except get the product, brand colors and logo in front of our eyes. Online advertising, I believe, is slated for to only be a good medium to promote offers and present sales deals. Neither deliver anything emotionally. But, when I watch a hilarious and clever television commercial, or an inspiring and touching one, I become emotionally attached to that brand and their product. I immediately feel better, and think more highly of the company and its offering. And that's why television is not going to die. Or at least, that's why television will not die until another medium comes along that can deliver as highly on an emotion level. Great post! Bravo! Wonderful post! Up until this post I rode right along with the idea that television advertising was dead – due to DVRs, the mute button, etc. But I think you made a great point that no other advertising method (product placement, online advertising especially, etc) can deliver as much value, emotional attachment, and likability as a television ad. And I think the main reason is that other advertising mediums do not deliver any connection emotionally.

Product placement does little except get the product, brand colors and logo in front of our eyes. Online advertising, I believe, is slated for to only be a good medium to promote offers and present sales deals. Neither deliver anything emotionally. But, when I watch a hilarious and clever television commercial, or an inspiring and touching one, I become emotionally attached to that brand and their product. I immediately feel better, and think more highly of the company and its offering. And that’s why television is not going to die. Or at least, that’s why television will not die until another medium comes along that can deliver as highly on an emotion level.

Great post! Bravo!

]]>