Sky Media UK’s Post

https://uk.themedialeader.com/brands-could-be-spending-three-times-too-much-on-social-you-read-that-right/

Why do we insist on continuing with these nonsensical categories with no rational logic. A 30" TVC could be viewed on Linear TV, Paid Social, BVOD, Online Video. Why differentiate Paid Social =/= Online Display =/= Online Video. Its a mix of medium and message. Do people experience advertising according to these arbitrary groupings? No. Are media agencies buying structures organised in this way? Yes. Should that be the case? How can an advertiser easily (or with difficulty) determine whether they are under/over-investing in AV when that spend is spread, according to this chart, across Linear TV, BVOD, Paid Social and Online Video? And where does YouTube fit, given it is the biggest TV streamer, but is arguably social media, but also online video. Eurgh.

Nice piece and a really interesting exercise. Even amongst advertisers with their measurement s**t together, there is failure to fully act on that measurement. As much a challenge of how that measurement work is communicated I suspect. Another useful caveat to add is that while this is totally valid for an individual brand, it may not hold if lots do the same thing. Re-allocation of channel investment is inflationary/deflationary for those channels; and particularly true for TV where the base of advertisers is small. So as an advertiser, it's not just enough to act on good measurement - you have to move quickly too.  

This is fantastic work (even if it does come from a lobbying body for TV advertising). As your article suggests, it's crucial for companies to acknowledge that models developed for a single brand often lack the granularity to provide statistically significant guidance on media choices with the exception of broadcast TV where we usually all have the most amount of past data in our models. One might question whether investments in physical availability, such as generic PPC or outdoor directional signage, are truly appropriate to consider in this context. Several comprehensive studies indicate that physical availability media spend yields a positive return up to a certain point, beyond which no further return is generated, primarily due to distribution limitations.

Hi Richard! Have You really thought this through? Karl Popper once said: "Never underestimate the destructive power of good intentions." With the media mix navigator you might end up in a place where no one listens to anything else you have to say. Some will say: Excellent here’s the answer and the confirmation I needed and allocate their budget accordingly. End of discussion. Some will say: Well that’s just what your data scientists say and they have a vested interest in picking the models saying just that. End of discussion. So in both cases you prime them not to listen to anything else you have to say. Hence, your MMM navigator could end up being an effective show-stopper preserving the status quo and closing the door to the fact that TV has 3:rd party people reach- and frequency measurements. And many investors need to be reminded that that is pretty unique for a media platform these days.

A big chunk of Paid social is AV though. What am I missing?

This is interesting and something we see across our MMM results. Linear TV continues to drive a large share of incremental sales and cannot be ignored. Some research also showed "wealthy" generations such as Baby Boomers/Silvers find out about new products via Linear TV advertising rather than Digital.

Great article Rich. Hard to draw these conclusions without understand creative quality, no? Some brands may have shit TV ads!

This is important work. I've frequently faced resistance from internal teams and creative partners when making the case for greater investment in TV / AV as opposed to social or display so it's great to have the effectiveness rationale out in the public domain. Well done.

My take on why - simply that the people with discretionary spending power are far older than most target audiences.