Thinking about the TV you have been watching, can you tell me some Ads you remember seeing? What about some of the TV shows you watched?
If you are like the 1000 member test panel that Nielsen Research in the USA is using to define a viewer “engagement” measurement system, then only a third of you will actually be able to remember TV ads that you have seen. If you do then you will only have recalled about 2 or 3. You will also have recalled correctly what TV shows you actually watched!
This news, of course, created some snappy headlines in some of the marketing and advertising press, such as on Adage.com which blurted out “Nielsen Research Proves Less Engaging, Only a Third of Viewers Recall TV Spots”. This makes for a great and quite startling headline.
But what does it tell us?
I think all it tells us that we need to ask more questions of ourselves at how we engage with consumers and about how we communicate our message to our target users. Especially in a world where they consume much more fragmented media and also increasingly start to shift towards more time-shifted consumption of content.
When I first read the news item I actually found the data that only 21% of viewers had correctly identified what program they had watched correctly more staggering than the data on TV ad recall. As I would have expected that as people actively chose what to watch, as they have choice and presumably get engaged by actively watching it, that they should remember what it was that they watched!
But these days this is a complex question in itself. If it was me answering the question on what I watched on TV, I would have to ask if you mean what I actually watched LIVE as it was broadcast - or what I had watched time-shifted via Sky Plus / Tivo/ DVR?
The only program I now watch live is the news. Everything else I watch via Sky Plus (Tivo equivalent). I even watch “live” TV by starting to record a show or pausing it live, waiting about 5 minutes and then starting to watch it so I can fast forward through the ad breaks. This is a terrible admission for a marketing guy.
Why do I do that?
Because the ads overall are awful and not engaging or entertaining to watch. They are just as clear on fast forward but less boring. It is interesting to me that as media is fragmenting TV ads are heading in the opposite direction and getting more rational, harder selling and more and more benefits and features driven – and not trying to entertain, intrigue, engage and encourage interaction. No surprise people struggle to spontaneously recall ads after the event. They are not engaging enough to bother to remember.
Surely as media fragments we are seeing that consumers are increasingly showing willingness to use multiple media formats and get more engaged with content that inspires and intrigues them? So while people may (according to the study) be not remembering what TV shows they watched, we can learn from some TV shows that are experimenting on ways to increase engagement and on-going loyalty beyond the 30 or 60 minutes they are on air by pushing content and features across media.
For example, the “Dr Who” series on the BBC which has audio and video podcasts, an active website with sounds/ videos/ back stories/ commentaries and then encourage fan materials like blogs, message boards and podcasts that build loyalty and engagement among their core targets.
Is the problem with ads because Ad Agencies remain largely that? They are still primarily the 30, 20 and 10 second generators of slices of film to run on broadcast media and so we are caught in a trap of not considering how to engage and keep engaged with our target beyond the 30 seconds or so on-air.
Or it is all because, in fact, the real message that the Nielsen study is telling us is that “spontaneous ad recall” (which is what the data generated is based on) is a poor measure for engagement? Nielsen in the materials about the study argues that ad recall is the best predicator of success. But surely as we move more and more to so-called “360-degree” communication across many touch points and consumers consume media across many platforms it is the totality of what they recall and not what TV ads they spontaneously recall since they may not remember the individual elements but the total mix?
What do you think?
1 comment:
I agree on the fact that most TV ads are not engaging enough, and that in a fast-paced living environment, consumers choose to spend every free minute they have in things that really interest them. However, in my view, advertising has always been somehow an interruption in consumers life. Most of the time they tolerated it, rather than choosing it. They just couldn't do much about it. Nowadays, fragmented media is only an equivalent of fragmented life, and in my view, only the brands that manage to be part of consumers lifes, will be successful in the future. I think that the industry efforts to develop 360 communication platforms is positive...But I think that brands still have a long way to go in understanding how this really works: if consumers can't make the effort to recall a 30" TV ad, how are they going to make the effort to "join the dots" of a 360 platform ? I guess the answer is that it is done in a way that the message understanding comes "effortlessly" to them...Another way, easier I think, is to provide consumers with information that is relevant to them vs just a brand or product feature sell...It is also the communication "content" that we need to change in my view, not just the media platform.
Post a Comment