NYTimes article discusses how TV ads are adjusting to shorter attention spans...in other words, moving from 30's to 15's.
Personally, I don't think the answer lies in cutting down length, but rather in extending it...or at least giving the consumer the ability to extend it.
Furthermore, I think that incremental evolutionary actions are nothing more than short terms solutions to long term problems; what is required here are exponential revolutionary actions (arguably what BMWFilms was and still is)
The opinions of the so-called experts in the article reflect (I'm sorry to say) how truly in the sh1t we are right now. For examples:
- Aaron Cohen at Horizon thinks that because (15-second spots) cost less, advertisers can either save money or "increase the frequency of the spots with the same budget" - great all we need are another 30 Gap or iPod ads forced down our throats
- "It's hard to keep consumers excited about your TV spots when everyone has a kajillion-dollar budget" muses Antonio Bertone, Puma's global director for brand management. Surely he forgets Reebok's Terry Tate which I think came in slightly under a kajillion dollars. And of course, he conveniently forgets to mention his use of Johnny Damon or Cobi Jones who when last I checked, did not endorse for free
- Venables, Bell did some interesting mixing and matching for Barclays with combinations of a variety of 20 and 40 second versions, whereas TV10/KSL are now trying to reduce an already anemic and oversimplified story into 10 second mosquito-like fly-bys
If no one's watching TV, does it really matter how many ways from Sunday you try and slice and dice the TV ad. Put differently, when playing the casino table game of craps:
6 + 1 = 5 + 2 = 4 + 3 = 3 + 4 = 2 + 5 = 1 + 6 = CRAPS YOU LOSE!
Recent Comments