Interesting presentation from some DDB colleagues I've never met nor have any idea who you are. But, thanks to the blogosphere it presented itself to me (thanks to brand DNA.) It is a counterpoint to the TV is dead argument.
I've mentioned before that learnings from stock market behaviors are probably the truest window into human behavior. When the market is on the up trend and the pundits, bulls and side line experts are euphorically saying its great and everyone can make money without risk as the old rules no longer apply, it's never really that good. When the trend is down and the pundits, bears and side line experts are suicidally saying it's bad, the old rules no longer apply and it's only going to get worse our economy is about to implode and we're going back to trading wampum, it usually ain't that bad.
The truth is in the middle and the smart money can make money in any market. The smart money also never makes predictions as to whether the market is going up or down in the short term. That said, here are some fair assumptions about the is TV dead debate:
Is it diminishing in quality. Yes, about three percent less audience per year, with a 3% increase in cost per year in Canada. If it's dying that's a slow death.
If that's dying, is it a slow death? Yes.
Is there a guarantee that some shock won't expedite that? No. The writers strike could have been that shock if it continues.
Is there a likelihood that just as newspapers were pronounced dead four times last century, dating back to the beginning of the century, that the form of TV will evolve to something different over the next decade. Yes.
Is it still profitable. Absolutely.
Is it still a growth market industry to be in as a corporation. No.
Are corporations that own networks looking for new channels to broadcast their content. yes.
Are two minutes videos going to replace our societal need to escape in a beautifully produced long form story told well with good actors that convey and draw out emotion. No.
Are people going to stop watching sporting events live because they dislike commercials. No (except for a small percentage of hyper go getters.)
Are the same studios that have the connection, decades of institutional knowledge, teams of financiers that put deals together to make long form content (be it 30, 60 or 120 minutes) likely to still produce the lions share of great content and attract the lions share of audiences in the coming decade. yes.
Hmmmm....
To be frank, the idea that TV is dead generally comes across as empty rhetoric. Or coming from someone trying to peddle an unproven product or one that enjoys a 0.03 conversion rate. Even the most dismal surveys of what percentage of TV viewers stay tuned in during commercials are 5% plus. And those prouncing TV is alive and strong as ever has their head in the sands. As mentioned the correct answer is in the middle.
TV is evolving. Probably not for the better of the owning corporations. But probably better for the viewer. We really could do without another Viva Viagra ad.
Debating whether one should or shouldn't be on TV as a starting point to developing a piece of marketing is a fools debate. A distraction really. Whether it should or shouldn't be part of the plan should depend on who you are trying to reach and what is the creative idea - is it suited to be film content, that may then be broadcast on TV along with other platforms. From those two things you can figure our what are the best media tools to use.
Sorry for the ramble, just working out some things in my head. Hope that didn't confuse.