BY aarrieta
I give you a preview of my column at www.periodicopublicidad.com from Madrid:
As well as communication and understanding between the members of a couple is complicated, even more when they speak different languages and believe that similar concepts represent the same or semiotic speaking, similar signifiers have similar meanings.
The same happens between TV advertisers and the video advertising industry.
TV advertisers are used to thinking their ads in GRPs, coverage and frequency. They assume and resign an efficiency loss in repetitions over the needed frequency and the coverage outside the target. They know perfectly the methodology vicious that the results measuring tools have but they trust on them.
Online advertising industry , tries without success speaking to those advertiser with the language that they have developed throughout their existence, CPM, CPC, CPL, CPV, CPA, frequency cap, Behavioral targeting, dynamic optimization, beacon pixels, cookies, etc. This advertiser have hardly learned useless concepts suchs as CTR and they asses the success of the little amount they invest online, through the click rate of a banner.
To make the scenery more difficult, who has the task of educate and advise this advertiser in order to invest their budget more efficiently, agency and media central, have to invest more time and resources in changing a status quo that would bring a benefit to the client but not a clear benefit to them, is what generates one of the biggest motivation of not investing online.
More time because it takes longer to advertise and negotiate with 20 sites and networks to get the coverage that you would obtain with only one TV show. And more resources because the agencies, except honorary exceptions, do not have the amount or the quality of people that is necessary to do this job.
Given this scenery is the online industry that needs to change first the “Mind Set”, and to start speaking the same language that the advertiser understand, that the TV industry taught them. This means to arrive to a GRPs and coverage point methodological consensus.
Secondly learning to transfer the multiple benefits of online video among the one you can find but they are not limited to:
. Permanent availability of the content, not being subject to a specific broadcasting schedule , waste: each time that it is exhibited a viewer is watching.
. Broadcasting complement: The only media that allows delivering a audiovisual message when TV is not being watched at the household. You have the possibility of showing audiovisual content at any place, even at work.
· HyperSegmentation: Showing just the video to whom present a certain behavior. The possibility of adapting the creativity to each target. Showing to the user a spot related to the search they are making or the page they are visiting.
· Interactivity: It allows searching for more information immediately. Call-to-action: make the purchase on the spot, register into communities, etc.
Third to be able to propose a media mix in which the instant big reach of TV lives together with the selective and precise offer (that cable does nowadays) on the advertisers ad. Being able to analyze the daily cost of each point of additional coverage on the targeted segment.
Forth and lastly, understanding that TV advertisers, know very well how to advertise and how this impact on his/her business, we just need to offer these new tools for them to perform their job better and to show the necessary incentives for the agencies to go along with this process of changes.