Relatively young "online" brands like My Jewellery, Mr. Marvis and Gorillas regularly advertise on TV. And for good reason. Ebiquity research shows that TV is still the most superior medium when it comes to reach and achieving growth (both on brand awareness and sales). But the TV market is under pressure. Viewing time has declined by an average of 6 percent over the past year, and among young people the decline is even faster. As a result, prices are rising faster than ever. It seems as if TV is no longer available to every advertiser. This raises the question of whether a start-up or challenger brand can be successful and grow without TV. As a digital consultant I see online video as the alternative to TV. In this article I will show you the advantages of online video compared to TV and vice versa.
TV the undisputed No. 1 on reach
To clear up a possible misunderstanding: I am not that digital marketer who has been saying for years that TV is dead. Because with TV you still most cost-effectively reach the largest audience in every target group (also among young people).
The cost of TV back to 1,000 views is relatively low at about 12 euros. For online video, the CPM is about 25 euros. At 70 percent, the potential daily reach of TV is almost twice as high as the potential daily reach of online video. This makes building reach and contacts via TV easier than via online video. That large reach of TV makes it crucial to grow as a brand, according to Byron Sharp. In fact, by also reaching the non- and light-users, you can grow the brand.
In short, online video vs. TV: 0-1.
Judgment of science: more active attention to online video
WARC, together with research firm Lumen and Ebiquity, conducted research on attention to video advertising, looking at the percentage of ads that were actually viewed (eyes-on screen) and how long people watched them on average. This research shows that a 15-second TV commercial per 1,000 views generates about 2,900 "attentive seconds. By comparison, for a non-skippable in-stream online video (pre- or mid-rolls), these are 4,500 attentive seconds and for a video on social, about 1,200. So on active attention, non-skippable in-stream online video wins out over TV.
Online video vs. TV: 1-1
Passive attention to TV drives sales growth
However, active attention is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of marketing effects originate in our subconscious. So there is also a role for passive attention. Marketing professor Karen Nelson-Field did research on this and came to the conclusion that passive attention for TV is many times greater than for YouTube or Facebook video. As a result, the average attention (active and passive attention combined) for TV is greater than for online video (58 percent vs. 45 percent). The study shows that the impact on short-term sales of TV with an uplift of 144 percent is also greater than that of online video (sales uplift 118 percent).
Why the impact of TV is greater has not been researched, but is anyone's guess. TV is watched on the biggest screen available in a house (room). In addition, the sound is always on. Both aspects make it almost impossible to miss a message. When I plop down on the couch in front of the TV at night, I enter a relaxation mode in which I fairly passively take in the moving images. Occasionally multitasking with my mobile, scrolling through Instagram or Nu.nl during the commercial break. I am never completely unaware of the TV, by the way; I know unerringly when to look up when Grey's Anatomy starts up again. So it is almost inevitable that you also subconsciously get the commercials. Karen Nelson-Field's research also shows this. Passive attention to commercials still has a small impact (110% sales uplift) on brand consideration/sales compared to a control group not exposed to the commercials.
The mindset of the viewer can also play a role. You can imagine that someone in a quiet lean-back mode (the moment in the evening on the couch) has much more peace to take it all in, than when someone is in a hurry on the go and watches an online video in between to kill time.
Online video vs. TV: 1-2
This is how we optimize online video for attention
Attention thus appears to be an important condition for impact and by default is somewhat lower with online video than with TV. However, I also believe that we can optimize the use of online video to approach the impact of TV.
Say you are a start-up clothing brand that wants to conquer the Netherlands, but advertising time on TV is completely sold out. You can approach the impact of TV with online video by deploying it in a smart way. My advice is first of all to move away from video on social media. You can achieve reach at very low cost with this, but the attention span for video on social media is zero. People watch a post for less than 2 seconds on average because they often use social media on the go or to kill time.
The most potential within online video to approach TV lies with in-stream video. In fact, when deploying in-stream video, we can still make some choices to get more viewer attention. On YouTube, you can achieve high reach at low cost, but then your commercial is often visible to children's content or music videos. The former is only relevant for few advertisers and with the latter you have to ask yourself how much (visual) attention a commercial gets, or whether people are not busy with other things in the meantime.
To realize the impact of TV, it is important to reach people when they have a similar mindset. So relaxed, on the couch (big screen), in front of premium content from creators they trust. I haven't named the latter yet, but it is definitely worth mentioning. Content on TV can be classified as premium content from trusted media. The trust they have in a medium radiates to the advertiser. This aspect was still evident in the Kantar media experience survey in 2020. If you want to achieve this online, you end up around video content on RTLXL, Kijk.nl or channels like StukTV on YouTube.
Online video vs. TV: 2-2
Conclusion: Online video (almost) as powerful as TV
With online video you can approach the impact of TV, when you use online video in a specific and qualitative way. The only point where online video cannot (yet) surpass TV is the potential maximum reach. Because building reach and contacts is slower, the impact of TV can't quite be matched. In addition, the CPM of online video is currently still higher than the "good old" GRP. But how long will that continue? The tipping point may come sooner than we think.
This article can be read at marketingfacts.com