Great feedback this week, many thanks! I always learn so much from your comments.

This week’s signed print goes to DSprogis. I love the challenge he poses to rethink how traditional advertising even works, to shift from a quantity approach to a quality approach. In a way, this is what TED is trying to promote with “Ads Worth Spreading” (which I invariably stick around to watch after listening to a TED talk):

“With this competition, we’re seeking to reverse the trend of online ads being aggressively forced on users. We want to nurture ads so good you choose to watch. On TED.com, ads run after our talks, not before. This means they can run longer than the TV-standard 30 seconds. And that’s the key! In 2-3 minutes, there’s enough time to really tell a story, share an idea, make an authentic human connection, become unforgettable. Instead of ambush, they offer pleasurable, intelligent engagement. ”

Thanks!

-Tom

I would tend to agree with one of the commentators here that say ‘relevance’ but if I am interested in the program – then I am gonna FF, no two ways about it, and even if i catch a lingering brand image – its not going to register.

In-program advertising, if done correctly, would do much better. The BBC aired ‘Sherlock’ series advertises Phone brands via product placement almost shamelessly. But, the point here is – its almost not intrusive – you’d notice it but you’d carry on. Im sure, veracity of PP cant be established with one anecdote. But, PP with relevance makes sense
(‘done correctly’: very imp)

Btw, great as always Tom…

Yes, the talk will be recorded. I’ll share a link afterwards for those of you who can’t make it. Thanks!

-Tom

I look forward to your piece every Monday!

This piece is particularly interesting to me – with US ad spending at $173b to reach 311m people, advertisers paid over $550 per person in 2011. Adjusting for age and demographics, advertisers likely paid over $2,000 to reach members of your audience. If 86% are lost to FF, then only $280 of that $2000 is having any effect.

With that level of inefficiency, one would think that the “fast forward” becomes critical. However, I’d wager that the “fast forward” test boils down to skin, hair, muscle, and flash. So we return to the old adage that “sex sells”.

I wonder, however, whether there is another message. I wonder whether viewers are drawing the line at 86% because they can’t tolerate the excessive proliferation of advertising. Might the industry be better served by reducing the ad space and putting a higher premium on it? What if prime time had only 14% of their current ad space, 2-3 minutes on the hour rather that 14-15 minutes? And what if ads were rarely viewed twice in an evening rather than so many times that they become irritating? And with the cost of slots so high, what if advertisers routinely spend Super Bowl sums on creative? Might viewers not only be too lazy to skip so few ads, might viewers actually want to watch the ads?

So we’re discussing here how to get 300,000 prospects to take something away from fast-forwarded TV commercials? Okay, fair enough, they’re watching other shows and other segments of the same target audience are watching other shows, but still…

In the meantime, it’s likely that 100% of the target audience is online (in my house it’s often WHILE the TV is on!), probably for hours per day, so perhaps the bigger opportunity (and challenge) is how to convert “click-past” (ignoring or interactively skipping ads) to “click-thru” (actual engagement).