Transplanting TV commercials online WILL increase the size of the pie – but at what price?

For all those who have threatened grievous bodily harm to the next person who asks the question, “Is the Web a branding or direct response medium?” I am pleased to offer up the next debate which is sure to become both as overdone and hackneyed as the branding/DR conundrum: Should TV commercials be transplanted on the Web as is…or is this selling out?

I’m glad you asked.

First, let me state for the record that I was staunchly opposed to putting commercials online. And then out came ESPN Motion and I shut my trap once and for all, determined not to be remembered as either a fool, a liar or a foolish liar!

This discussion couldn’t be hotter or more relevant right now. We are at a critical juncture in our emergent media sojourn and the way we resolve this debate could arguably affect where we go from here. (This being said, when I look at our resolution track record, I can’t help but shudder.)

I’ll say this – love it or hate it – the simple fact of the matter remains: transplanting TV commercials online WILL increase the size of the pie – and quite conceivably more/quicker than any other efforts are currently yielding.

I want to make one thing evidently clear: I’m not saying I accept or reject this notion (or at least, I’m trying not to).

Back at an iMedia Summit in May of 2003 in Scottsdale, Starcom CEO Jack Klues said it would be so. Many felt he was just appeasing the room of interactive zealots by talking about committing more dollars towards broadband in an upfront-like way, but then $5 million later, he delivered his version of the Upfront: Up Front (that’s like saying she’s my girlfriend…she’s a girl and she’s my friend = GIRLFRIEND).

And if you believe everything you read, then you ought to take note of what SMG’s below-the-radar President Rishad Tobaccowala had to say: “About a third of the broadband budgets are coming out of traditional TV advertising budgets, a third from online ad budgets and a third from incremental spending.” Translation: Mo’ Money.

I intentionally used the word transplant to refer to a trend that for all intents and purposes couldn’t be more appropriate. The 30-second commercial is terminally ill right now. For starters, it resides in a place which is not exactly good for its health – TV. In addition, it is constrained by an arbitrary constraint that makes storytelling – in a time when results are as (if not more) important than romance – rather tenuous and challenging.

I also used the phrase selling out as this represents heresy to some, but profitability through scarcity to others. Our friends at ESPN would probably not put up a big fight against being labeled as such.

At a time when there are those who are debating whether rich media should be called just plain media or whether flash is in fact considered to be part of rich media, I’d like to focus on the richest form of media, that which combines sight, sound and motion in a flawless delivery mechanism – you might call it a television commercial, although I would challenge you if you did.

For example, I often ask the question, is the Honda Cog commercial the best online advertisement ever created? Whether you believe it is a TV or a Web ad (…on the Web) is really not that relevant. What is important is what the consumer believes, and if he or she doesn’t look to distinguish between the two, then neither should you.

And so to those who have chained themselves to the gates of Parliament in silent (or not) protest, I would draw your attention to a variety of new approaches that are boldly going where no 30-second has gone before, and in doing so extending legs, longevity and hope to an increasingly endangered species (I’ll let you decide whether I’m still talking about the 30-second spot or the agency that created it):

• “Opt-in TV”: Porsche on Yahoo! or any click-to-view trailer creative in the entertainment sector
• Made-for-the-Web original content: Reebok’s Terry Tate or Buick’s Tiger Trap
• Viral Longevity: Honda Cog
• TV commercials that are deeply integrated into a Web-based experience: Reebok’s Whodunnit
• Seamless viewing technology: ESPN Motion
• Launching campaign’s online: ING Direct debuted its TV ad on the Web
• Watch to Win! American Airlines incentivized consumers to watch its television commercial online through a sweepstakes offer.

Please send me any additional examples you’ve worked on or stumbled upon of late. I’ll add them to the display cabinet.

Transplanting or repurposing TV commercials online WILL increase the size of the pie allocated toward online. But at what price remains to be seen. I’ve done my best to resist the urge to weigh in with my point of view in order to challenge you to take up the debate. So let’s hear from those for and against.

In the interim, I’ll leave you with Mr Shakespeare’s original verse which has eerie suitability to this discussion at hand:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

Takes falling on one’s sword to a whole new level, don’t it?