Saw this on SMH today
“TV networks, online publishers and media buyers alike are reporting surging interest by advertisers in cutting deals with media owners who can integrate commercial messages across TV, online and print outlets simultaneously and include extensive editorial support. More than 100 such briefs are estimated to be in the market now.”
If I’m honest with myself, this is incredibly surprising if it’s more than just optimistic spin by the agencies and vendors quoted.
I can see the benefit in integrated, cross-media responses for the media owner – more extraction, more revenue across the group, higher share of wallet.
Not so clear is the benefit for the client. Does it raise awareness, deliver more bang for buck, more ROI? Or are you talking to the same person across 3 different channels? What issues is it really solving and is it providing a better end result that working with an external partner (ie media/creative/strategy shop) to deliver an integrated comms strategy across multiple platforms/vendors?
I could understand the wow behind cross media deals if digital was similar to TV and print media – ie limited players, 2-3 dominant operators – but it’s not. The beauty of the Internet is the depth of content and the broad advertising options. Locking in spend in line with your TV/mag budgets just doesn’t feel that compelling as there’s an opportunity cost that is significant. I understand it looks nice in powerpoint but most things to with the ‘smart art’ feature in the 2007 version. Execution in the real world is an entirely different matter.
Are clients looking to the media to deliver cross media solutions becasue their agencies are incompetent at providing them? What is driving this?