Again a wise voice of sanity, sir. But I'd argue the debate should be else where.
Radio didn't kill the theatre and TV didn't kill the radio and video didn't kill TV. (You're probably getting the point by now).
But each reach had to relinquish it's power to a medium more relevant at the time.
So, whether or not TV's dying or kicking arse, isn't the point.
What is, I would argue, is that we are seeing it change, but into what?
Can you explain why ad agencies themselves would want to remain "solidly committed to this fraud"?
It seems as if declaring "TV is Dead" would be suicidal for most agencies, as their business model is based on television advertising and they have been unable to port that model to the web: display (e.g. banner) ads aren't providing them with the same sort of income and they haven't figured out how to charge for other, more strategy and media based efforts.
What's in it for them to continue the drumbeat? The fear of saying their experts got it wrong?
AW:
I hope I'm wrong about this and ad agencies stand up, but I'm afraid that, yes, they will be afraid to admit that their experts have been so wrong for so long.
BH:
That would make them even bigger and dumber than George Parker makes them out to be.
If the study is valid (and I have yet to see evidence either way) then they should be screaming its results from the rooftops. Ditto the TV networks.
Let's hope you're right. Although I'm not sure the study really helps the networks. Once again, facts still matter. While TV viewership is at its highest point ever, network share is continuing to erode.
And on second thought, while I don't have access to any of the global agencys' compensation agreements, I doubt very much that they are substantially built any more on media buying.
Just a couple of points of perspective. 1. You may be erring into the hyperbole you accuse the "TV is dead" crowd of. The study is a qualitative study (albeit a very in-depth ethnographic study) - there were 476 participants. It doesn't necessarily extrapolate to the population. 2. They report that among DVR users DVR playback was the most common form of TV viewing, suggesting that as ownership grows this will be the dominant viewing method. 3. They predict "environmental viewership (out of the home) could double in the next 5 years. 4. Computer use is the second largest medium used after TV (ahead of radio). 5 Any total numbers for media usage will be skewed by the absolute size of the baby boom, but if you look at the numbers for younger demos (under 35) then the picture is quite different. And given they are the emerging generation of "families" they are going to be increasingly important to advertisers.
The real issue is that there is no homogeneous media target any more, i.e. no adults 25 - 49. We are forced to look at every case separately (which we should have been anyway).
1. No research is perfect. I have read that this is the most exhaustive study of actual media behavior ever conducted.
2. It suggests nothing of the sort. Playback use among recent DVR owners is far less frequent than among early adopters.
3. Yeah, so?
4. I knew this would come up among web advocates. My original post had the following paragraph: "The only point that will receive extensive exposure is that the web is now the second most popular medium. Web advocates will use this to justify ever more arcane and expensive social media experiments." I took it out because it was off the point. And, by the way, how come you take their assertions about the web at face value but not about TV?
5. The picture is not all that different. TV is the dominant medium in every age group. And, by the way, peoples' media behaviors evolve as they age. What reason do we have to believe that experts' predictions about how people will behave in the future will be any less wrong than they've been so far?
the truth, as mr. hoffman so skillfully has exposed it, is boring and "inconvenient." so it will continue to be be swept under the rug. the smart people, meaning the people who are brave enough to still create, sell and produce quality tv ads, will continue to do so. quietly. effectively. and i am perfectly ok with this arrangement. so my response to mr. hoffman? "shhhh. don't spoil it for those of us who get it."
I dont think tv is dead. But, I also feel like people want to watch what they want to watch when they want to watch it. For those without tivo, the internet seems like a better option then waiting around till something good is on. My younger brother watches everything on his laptop.
I'm not an advocate for any medium, the right medium is where the punters are. On th3e DVR point the summary of their findings says:
"Early DVR owners spent much more time with DVR playback than newer DVR owners. At the same time, DVR playback was even more likely than live TV to be the sole medium."
I take the second sentence to say that despite different rates of use DVR is/will be the dominant way of viewing among DVR owners.
I'm actually in agreement with you that TV is nowhere near "dead", I just disagree that if TV is not dead, then digital media are not going to grow or have the potential to be an important realm for brands to communicate.
The people saying TV is dead are as idiotic as the people saying TV is fine.
neither is right, but one thing is certain, the system is a mess. As a proud Neilson family, I can only give you anecdotal information.
We have basic cable, and rarely watch it. We watch most of the things we watch on the computer, which nobody counts, even though it could easily be counted with a simple login.
And yet, we rely on this macro ratings system, the elephant in the room if you will, whereby someone represents 30K-60K households, and then we trot out stats either for or against going look: and the bigger question should be, why are we looking at these stats?
Digital will not replace TV, but then, the people who think it should are idiots. The computer and the TV are on a collision course. The course will be, as it always has been, dependent on the content. good TV shows means people watch more TV (notice how few reality TV shows are on these days, and how TV is actually pretty good?)
Shit TV means more people will read your blog.
@Simon:
Did I say digital media are not going to grow? I hope I didn't because I don't believe that.
@Matt:
TV will never be that shitty.
Sorry. I didn't mean to misrepresent your point of view. I guess I'm just reacting to a general sense (in adland at large) of an either/or scenario, rather than a rapidly evolving mediascape with new venues that we all have to figure out
@Simon:
Exactly my view.
Alan,
You ask why would ad agencies trumpet the growth of digital and the death of TV.
It’s simply because everyone’s looking for an edge over the competition.
Clients always want to believe any new medium is the holy grail.
This relieves them from having to think creatively.
They can simply knee-jerk into the new thing and sit back and reap the benefits.
So ad agencies think trumpeting this stuff is what clients want to hear.
Thus it makes them look modern and innovative to clients.
Both groups are scared stiff of being thought old-fashioned and thus left behind.
Everyone is just looking to for an edge on their competitors, which is fair enough.
This is just a particularly dull, follow-the-herd, uncreative way to try to get it.
Actually, the ad biz is filled with early adopters and visionaries who live further, and more emphatically, in the future than much of the rest of the world. We know about the new technologies and we wholeheartedly believe that they will rule. OK maybe we go a bit overboard at times. But its that kind of new idea generation and creativity that attracts clients to us in the first place. Nobody's perfect.
You also need to remember that online usage is trackable, and tv viewing isn't. Just because my Digital set top box is switched on ALL of the time, i can guarnatee you, i hardly ever watch it. 99% of the shows i watch are downloaded as a torrent and streamed through my PC to the TV.
There you go. Insert your TVC in there somewhere and it will be win/win
@Robin:
Remind me again, who are all these visionaries in the ad business?
@Clintus:
Pls re-read my post slowly. The study had nothing to do with tracking. They measured actual observed behavior.
@Dave
It would seem to be blue ocean for some of those agencies though. Admit (finally) that they don't really get this digital stuff and that they're going to focus on making TV commercials.
Which, in addition to getting them a boatload of press, would have the startling benefit of actually being true: most big agencies don't get digital and only want to focus on TV spots. (And given the amount of money they make on the latter vs. the former, who can blame them.)
Their clients, most of whom don't get digital either, might actually be relieved.
@Alan
I see what you're saying but I'm not really sure agencies haven't adapted faster than you think.
I'm also not at all sure that agencies make more money on tv spots than on digital projects. They don't buy media anymore, so they're not getting media commissions. They may have a sister company buying the media, but as we all know, they're arm-wrestling that sister for the client's income.
So they are either paid on hours or retainer (which is justified by hours.) A 4A's report issued within the past few weeks says that a rule of thumb for digital projects is that they are more expensive than comparable offline projects (I think they say twice as expensive.)
Also online projects, especially social media projects, are ongoing, as opposed to TV spots which are often one and done. That means more hours and more income.
If there are any other agency management types reading this, I'd be curious what you have to say about the profitability of doing offline vs online work.
By the way, Alan, if you haven't seen the 4A's report on this I'm happy to send it to you.
Alleluia! Thanks Ad contrarian! This is what I've been saying for nearly 2 years now... don't buy the hype!
My new favorite quote: "Instead of wasting our money chasing rainbows we need to figure out how to use TV more effectively."
@Bob:
re: 4 As report, if I remember, it looked at cost vs revenue.
Web projects are far more time intensive and involve many more staffers than a TV spot, so agency revenue is considerably less than it is for TV spots. (Having worked both angles, often simultaneously, I can tell you that my experience was agencies just broke even on web while making money on TV. Even things like marking up costs and outsourcing to high priced specialists (e.g. production companies and directors) were generally more accepted for TV work.)
Plus, web projects with budgets equal to those of big TV spots rarely go to traditional agencies, but rather to shops that specialize in building e-commerce and other such sites-- most big agency adjuncts are still busy creating what Brian Morrissey calls "matching luggage" -- banners and microsites to complement the TV campaign
As for social media, agencies are still looking as to what their value is there: things like blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts-- those are things the clients themselves must maintain, esp. if used for customer service. Agencies can show them how, why and what to do in that space, but the actual doing is something clients need to actively partake in.
You have a web division at H/L though, don't you, run by a guy I sometimes talk to on Twitter- James Hipkin. What's his take on all this?
Don't know. He's too busy twittering. (Only kidding. I'll ask him to comment.)
@alan
If the agency is properly structured, web projects can generate revenue and shouldn't be "break even."
Consider where the production is done and who does it. With a TV spot the majority of the budget leaves the agency and goes to the Director and the Production House. With a web project, especially the "luggage" type projects, most to all of the production budget remains with the agency.
The key is the staffing. Where it doesn't make sense to put a 20 something in charge of a TV shoot this same, lower cost individual is quite capable of producing the "matching luggage." Equally a web project can be effectively managed by a project manager where a TV spot usually involves several account people and the agency producer. If the agency has the right staffing for web work these efforts can contribute.
But you are correct to say that the big budget projects go to specialty resources. Generally speaking, they are better qualified to produce a large brand site or an intricate, data-driven viral campaign. But this won't last forever. Agencies are evolving and changing their approach in order to manage advertising production across multiple channels.
@ James - appreciate the input. You are correct in how the web can be more efficient and the scenario you lay out is in place at most small/mid-size shops.
But big agencies and efficiency have long been mortal enemies 
Hence the "break-even" scenario.
@ad Contrarian
Yeah because the study of 350 subjects (none under 18 either) is an accurate analysis of a countries population.
Is that what, 0.0001% ?
Studies like this are Balony™
Just....you know what?
As a copywriter, I will say this, and I will say it without a moment of hesitation or reluctance:
I'm happiest when I'm in my shutters jacuzzi tub, surrounded by bubbles battling with room-service jetsam.
You don't get that from a fucking web banner. Writing a web banner=going home and cooking dinner, and then washing dishes and then putting shit away and then "how about a video" and then "we never get anything I want" and then wondering if we'll have sex.
Web banners=real life.
If I wanted to live real life, I would've entered a respected industry where I would've made more money.
And guess what? I'm not alone.
Huzzah, teevee.
@Mike
Those that believe online is all about 'web banners' are clearly living in a dream world.
Embrace new means of reaching your audience or fail miserably drowning in your hot tub.
Here's a scenario for you - i want to watch the latest family guy episode. do i just watch an episode from 4 seasons ago which might be playing LIVE right at that moment or do i go and download/stream the very latest episode?
My point being, people dont want to wait for their content anymore. They will watch it on their TVs thats for damn sure, but it wont be from a LIVE service.
Why do you think LG is introducing a YouTube interface into their range of Blue-ray players?
Watching media from an online source DOES NOT equate to sitting in front of a computer. It equates to sitting in your lounge room with the content being streamed in hi-def from your PC.
Embrace this reality. Please. I beg of you.
TV entertainment won't die at all, the distribution point and method will change. It is inevitable. Anything less is delusional. Mobile killed fixed line telephony, the internet changed the music industry beyond anybody's expectations, email & social media have changed personal interactions. Who sends letters and printed invites to anything but a wedding anymore? Why is Hallmarks business dying a death of a thousand cuts?
TV as a form of entertainment won't change, networks will, advertising formats and pricing mechanics will. The people who are saying it won't are paid to believe it won't. Lets look back in 10 years and see what really happened!
What's with the reading comprehension problem among web maniacs?
Everyone who argues with me keeps making the point that things are changing. Duh. Of course things are changing. Only an idiot would deny that. That is not the point of this piece. The point is that the so-called death of television is bullshit.
Is that difficult to understand?
@TAC
Quit promoting flawed studies in your blog articles then.
A study on 350 people saying the sky is RED doesnt make it so.
From the original article youve cited:
Rather than relying on what people remembered watching, researchers captured the actions in real time by shadowing 350 subjects — most of whom were former members of the Nielsen television ratings panel — and recording each person’s behavior in 10-second increments. The researchers say they recorded 952 days of behavior. People under 18 were not included in the study.
Which parts do you need me to spell out for you? 
@Johnno y' nailed it.
So TV is definitely not dead. Does this mean TV advertising is just as alive as it's always been?
I have never heard of you in Australia but my ID here is fluke.
Anyways wanted to say that I dont think 350 people is even close to enough.
I have a degree, albeit only in marketing, but I remember enough about stats. 350 is not enough.
Liam
yep.
been saying this for yonks
http://www.warc.com/ConferenceBl...WAAC-
072008.asp
And we shouldn
’t forget the passive massive, he warns. Because this is the generation that has grown up accustomed to absorbing pre-made content, and it will be around for another 50 years, meaning that marketers will need to cater for a “functionally bi-modal consumer base for the rest of our careers”.
old habits die hard
FX
This rings true for me. But what I'd like to see is a study about the effectiveness of TV advertising vs. what it was 10 years ago.
Up until I quit the ad business about 9 years ago, TV was far-and-away the most cost-effective way to reach consumers. Most likely, that's still true. Yet I wonder about the attention level now, vs. then. These days, half my family has one eye on a computer screen while the TV is on.
My current clients don't do any broadcast advertising because they're all in niches too specialized for it to make sense. For them, the web has been a fertile place to market products.
Jon,
Here you go:
http://www.adweek.com/aw/
content...81fc984a1db2104
Commenting by HaloScan
