In his article (MW, July 20), Dominic Dudley interpreted the launch of Google video advertising as a threat to what he called “traditional TV advertising” – which I assume means broadcast advertising – despite Google itself describing it as complementary to broadcast TV. I have three observations.
First, the launch confirms that television – audio-visual content – is the medium that offers advertisers the most effective and persuasive way to talk to consumers and is what they most aspire to use. And consumers will be watching more television as technology, including broadband and mobile, makes it available wherever they want it.
Second, the “experts” quoted in the article failed to point out that push and pull media fulfil different roles within the creation, adoption and purchasing cycle of brands, and that to fund the latter from the former is a rash move unless your only horizon is very short-term. Google video advertising is much more likely to replicate the role that below the line investment – point of sale, direct mail, etc – fulfils. As I know from advertisers I have worked with recently, broadcast plus any interactive format, be it online, search, mobile, or iTV, is a cracking combination, but it’s dangerously easy to over-attribute the effect to the response-generating end of the activity.
Third, there are loads of emerging technologies which will deliver television in new and exciting ways but, just because it’s another form of telly, please don’t assume broadcast TV will necessarily be challenged by it. I’m sure you’d prefer that I didn’t keep writing letters like this to you.
Chief executive officer