Or it should be.
Just when I was starting to like ABC a little bit for putting their shows online so you can watch them when you want, where you want, they go and announce this a while back. What!? Do they really think the viewers are that easily fooled? That people will think they're still watching the show because one of the key characters sat down in front of a TV and now we're watching what they're watching and it happens to be three minutes of commercials? Is this what they call brand integration? Give me a break.
It seems to me that the networks (primarily ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) could learn a thing or two from HBO. When you don't sell ad space, you better damn well create some good content (shows) that draws people to you and makes them willing to pay their hard-earned money to bring your brand into their home. (In fact, could all brands learn something from HBO about creating original content to support and/or build your brand image? Hmm... Maybe. Going to give that some thought later...)
How about instead of airing anything that gets by the FCC sensors so long as they get paid their going rate for it, they start looking at their networks more as brands and protecting those brands by carefully selecting everything that goes on air? (I seem to remember that at least ABC tried this once. With the bright yellow ads and black reversed out logo? Anyway...) In doing so, they start requiring that the ads companies/brands want to run on their network have to score at a certain level for things like interestingness, relevance, entertainment value, production value, or something like, "would make me NOT change the channel," to get put on air? * By requiring that EVERYTHING they put on their network helps build and strengthen the network's brand image, won't they be building a stronger following? (Hmm. There's a thought for helping the Super Bowl get back to having more good spots on the air in there. These last few years have been terribly disappointing.)
Why else should the networks start looking at themselves more as brands an not as much as paid media vehicles? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because now that commercial ratings are around the corner, brands are going to be able to see that people didn't actually see their spot because either it lost the consumer's interest or a spot that ran somewhere before it made them change the channel? Or maybe because the show it was airing during wasn't all that interesting on that particular night? Or maybe more importantly, because the number of homes only receiving broadcast TV is somewhere around 13-percent, if not lower by now, and making your network stand for something against the hundreds of other channels 87-percent of people are watching might be a good idea? And this doesn't even take into account things like Joost or Apple TV.
Maybe this all sounds crazy and some of you in the ad biz are thinking I'm off my rocker. I know more testing would require more dollars and those might have to come out of the overall budget. And believe me, I'm not one who gets up on the pulpit and preaches for more testing and research. If it becomes part of the standards though in order to get a spot on air, in order to make sure ALL of the spots running are of high quality, it's worth it in my opinion. Maybe budgets would just have to bump up a little bit. Or, God forbid, we have to be a little more critical of how we're spending our clients' money and try to find ways to make it happen while keeping the quality we require at the budget we currently have.
Ah yes, but you're already producing great spots that get watched not only on TV, but sought out on YouTube. Really? Do you know for sure they're being watched on TV? Or could it be that the spot right before yours, or two before yours, was so annoying or irrelevant that the majority of the viewers flipped the channel before they ever got to your award-winning work?
If something like the commercial ratings are going to help raise the creative bar, I say it's worth it. If brands and agencies are being made to create good TV ads because of it, like we all want to do (or at least I hope we all do), isn't that a good thing? If we start getting consumers to tune in, instead of tuning out, thereby actually helping increase sales and/or change behaviors, might that be a feather in our caps when it comes time for agency reviews? I don't imagine you'd get too big of a fight from the creatives on this. At least not those who give a shit about the quality of the work they produce for their clients. I don't know about you, but those are the ones I like working with.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that commercial ratings are the end-all-be-all. They're just a step in the right direction. They're a step towards requiring that the work improve. Just because a spot was watched, doesn't mean it was a great spot. And just because an ad didn't get watched, doesn't make it a bad ad. But knowing your spot was or wasn't watched is a lot better than what we have now and it gives us something to build upon. Building and improving things are, and always will be, good in my book.
*Disclaimer: Of course we'll still have to make it all relate to the product/brand in a way that will move whatever needle it is we're trying to move. I'm not supporting the idea of doing creative/entertaining commercials for the sake of being creative/entertaining. I never have and I never will. Work that is only creative/entertaining/provocative/etc. for the sake of being such is worthless in my humble opinion.
(photo credit)
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments