– read the headline
– actually read the article
This article will get a lot of attention in the next 72 hours. It’s a piece from The Guardian with the headline ‘TV Advertising Skipped by 86% of viewers’.
If that doesn’t sound like ammo for a digital sell job then I don’t know what else does.
Problem is, when you read the article it becomes a little less attractive as a thought changer.
In paragraph 2 especially …
“More than half (52%) of respondents said television was more memorable than any other form of advertising medium, followed by 10% who said newspapers and just 2% for online video adverts and 1% for online banner ads and on iPhones and iPads.”
Hrm. Not great.
“Online advertising’s poor showing relative to television may surprise, given that the former has often been portrayed as television’s nemesis.
“What television does best – display and brand building – is what online struggles with. Online advertising is best at search, which previously newspapers, particularly for classified, had excelled at.”
I’m not sure I agree with all of this but I think the last point is probably valid – some online display formats struggle to really create impact.
The article then goes onto say that TV still struggles with accountability and proper measurability, something online has the potential to get better and better at.
Here’s the thing – this article will be flung around tomorrow and the next day with the assertion that TV doesn’t work.
The article never says that.
And for the next 3 months in powerpoints from digital types the headline ‘TV Advertising skipped by 86% of viewers” will be a line used in conjunction with the mandatory ‘IF Facebook was a country’ slides to show the decreasing relevance of the broadcast medium.
Articles can often be more insightful if they’re read.