This week, Garfield talks about where network television is heading, accountability, TiVo and TV on the Web, and gives his predictions regarding the future of advertising.

Columnist, critic, essayist, pundit, international lecturer and obscure broadcast personality, Bob Garfield has appeared on four continents at venues such as the U.S. Capitol to the United Nations. His high-profile “Ad Review” column in Advertising Age singles out ads for praise or ridicule. He is also co-host of National Public Radio’s weekly magazine program, “On the Media,” and the advertising analyst for ABC News.

He has been a contributing editor for the Washington Post Magazine, Civilization and the op-ed page of USA Today. He has also written for The New York Times, Playboy, Sports Illustrated and many other publications. In his new book, “And Now a Few Words From Me”, Garfield’s unique sense of humor pervades as he lays down the rules for good advertising.

In December, Garfield will be sharing his advertising advice with attendees at the iMedia Summit in Beaver Creek, Colorado. Also, Garfield will team up with Joseph Jaffe to critique “10 of the Best” online advertising creations. (To submit a creative for consideration, email Joseph)

Last week, Garfield outlined what he thought works best in the online arena, alluding to the fact that the medium excels at embracing what it does uniquely and differently. Joseph picks up the conversation at this point…

Jaffe: There’s a huge trend in online right now – and maybe it’s because of the 30-second demise, as it’s occurring predominantly in the television arena – but there seems to be recognition that ads can be placed, or evolved, or transplanted online. There’s definitely a lot of interest right now in terms of TV on the Web, or the concept of TV on the Web.

And that’s particularly in a broadband-enabled environment, which has made that delivery mechanism possible. Notwithstanding that trend, I’m hearing you say that maybe the solution isn’t necessarily to create the same product and the same delivery mechanism – almost like revisiting the sins of the fathers on the kids, in terms of creating television-like propositions online. Is that what you’re saying? Am I hearing you correctly? Or are you saying maybe there’s a place for something that looks a little bit like television, but let’s not kill the goose that laid the golden egg in the process?

Garfield: I’m saying both things. First of all, don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg. That being said, I think the future is on the Internet. I’m not sure how it’s going to work out, but I do believe that whatever network TV is now, it will quickly, quickly evolve into a broadband, probably wireless, personal, digital everything that delivers your entertainment programming the same way your email messages are delivered, for example.

I think we’re edging closer and closer to convergence, and as we edge closer, the TV networks are going to collapse under their own weight, and distribution of programming will be via some sort of – somewhere in the Internet environment.

That scenario suggests there could be the 30-second ads, or something like them, distributed on the Internet, just as they are on TV. Just because the distribution channel may change, doesn’t mean the advertising model’s necessarily going to change. And it’s certainly technically possible, if funding and distribution evolves in a certain way, to serve content over the Internet that has advertising attached to it; advertising that you can’t avoid, that you can click through; that if you want to see the program, and you want to see advertisers supported, you have to view the ad.

So there’s room for both the kind of Web advertising we’re accustomed to, and also, the kind of TV advertising we’re accustomed to, that just happens to be delivered online. We’re not there yet, although I think we’re going to be within a very short while -- certainly within ten years. In fact, I think network TV as we know it will not exist, or at least will not be distributed over the air, in ten years. My bet is distribution will be via the Internet.

But in the meantime, people are using the Internet for everything they use the Internet for, and advertising that appears on Web pages is the main delivery system. So don’t screw it up now …

Jaffe: “It’s your future; don’t screw it up now” is great, almost-fatherly advice, especially coming from you. It’s highly credible and certainly something everyone will take to heart

Let’s back up one step and talk about the integrated landscape and then segue back into online. One of the strongest trends in advertising right now is towards a more accountable ROI-driven existence. How do you think this will affect creativity in general?

Garfield: Again, it gets to the definition of what constitutes creativity. Look. Long before there was an Internet, there was direct response advertising, or I’d say direct mail advertising, and direct marketing, that was at least measurable, and you knew it generated business. And because you could tell the difference between how one piece did versus another piece, and because that data collection almost always revealed that straightforward is better than obtuse, and that clear was better than clever, it was deemed an uncreative medium.

Now, I think the people who figured out a way to get a 4.2% response rate over a 1.9% response rate didn’t regard themselves as uncreative, but that’s another issue. No one has ever known what the ROI on television advertising is. Nobody has ever known that. And only now with some poll results we learn that people believe the ROI with television is poor. But it’s just a hunch, and in spite of it, the network Upfront season last spring was the largest in history for a declaring audience. These are not rational decisions that people make.

People believe in their heart of hearts that the only way to reach a mass audience efficiently and impressively is through television. So my whole point is that what’s going to change that is not people’s notion that they’ve always really harbored that the return of investment in TV is unimpressive. What’s going to change that is the audiences are fragmenting and shrinking. And at some point, the critical mass that has sucked all these trillions of dollars into broadcast TV will not exist anymore.

Jaffe: As media becomes more accountable, as ad servers infiltrate their way into television, as TiVo continues to proliferate, and media does become more accountable, what do you think that increased impact of ROI will mean to TV advertising?

Garfield: Television advertising is not a growth industry. We’re probably at the zenith and it’s all downhill from here. But once again, I don’t think it’s people’s perception of ROI that’s going to kill it. I think it’s the structural problem of having insufficient viewership – losing the critical mass of a mass audience -- that will make the act of faith that television advertising is, cease to be…

Jaffe: That’s a good point. Quick question following the religious undertones of this conversation: Is TiVo the anti-Christ? Because you would know.

Garfield: It’s probably the anti-Christ if you’re NBC. It’s not the anti-Christ if you’re a marketer, because TiVo and all the PVRs are not only becoming micro-networks for the users, but they’re also sending information back.

Jaffe: And that comes back to the point of broadcast becoming, and network television becoming, more accountable, because we can for the first time, a la John Wanamaker, determine which half is wasted, even if in fact, that wastage is greater than half.

Garfield: I would say that by the time network TV advertisers learn how to use data that’s generated by PVRs those PVRs will already long since have destroyed network television. It’ll be like trying to close the barn door after the cows have already fled.

That doesn’t mean marketers won’t be able to benefit in the intervening time. Not all television comes in over the air from the networks; there’s still a place for cable, and it will certainly outlast broadcast over-the-air TV.

Jaffe: As long as there are gamblers, there will always be a need for a gambling channel, which I believe is on its way. Poker is the New Solitaire. So there you go.

Two final questions. I’m going to stick my neck out and let you chop it off. I just hope you’ll go easy on me.

I know that no one’s ever disagreed with you in the past about any of your critiques, but you recently critiqued the new Sprint work, and you likened it to the work of Tolstoy. It’s the one about, “Don’t you just love your new boyfriend?” And I just hated that commercial so much, that if I had a Sprint phone, I would have thrown it out the window, jumped on it and driven my car over it a hundred times.

Clearly, I’m not the target audience, and I know I’m being very literal and even anal about my visceral reaction to it – but what I found wrong with that commercial was that I found the company was trying to create and force in a story in 30 seconds; a story that wasn’t believable, wasn’t credible; a story that I didn’t even think was realistic. Granted, again, I’m not the audience, and when I sat down with a creative director recently, he took me through it and explained the genius in the commercial and how this resonates with a much younger crowd.

This may be true, but why then did I have to see that ad several times during the World Series? I don’t think that target audience was watching the baseball game. Bottom line: It just was a complete disconnect.

So I thought maybe I would take the opportunity to allow you to tear my head off, and tell me what I don’t know about that commercial; and really just tell me what was so brilliant about it.

Garfield: Well first of all, you’re clearly wrong. It’s clearly a work of genius for all of the reasons I cited in my column. The other possibility could be true, which is that I’m wrong … [laughs] … there’s always that possibility.

I like it because, except for exaggeration of how sloppy an eater this guy is, it does ring very true. I think the bitchy friend element rings true, and the whole idea of irrational love at first sight rings true. But more to the point, it reminded me – and I’m not even in the biggest part of the target audience, which is mainly, I think, 21-year-old women – that, oh yeah, maybe that phone is really not the useless piece of technology I’ve always assumed it is. I’ve always assumed it’s just there because it can be, and the phone provider can’t figure out another way to compete for business so it has thrown in some gadgetry into the phone that’s sort of irrelevant to the central needs of a wireless user.

And then when I saw that commercial, it just suddenly crystallized for me, that in the very near future, everybody will have a photo telephone, and it’s going to be a revolutionary kind of technology. And we will see photographs of things we never imagined, because everyone will have one at all times, and we will see images we never expected.

So the conversion of a tiny, tiny little bit of human truth, and the sudden affect of the scale falling from my eyes about the technology, impressed me a great deal.

Jaffe: Y’know Bob, I threw that in for a little bit of fun, and I hope the two of us will have the same kind of banter and fun when we review some of the best online pieces of creative at the upcoming iMedia Summit in Beaver Creek.

The final question that I do ask all the people whom I interview in my Jaffe Juice column: If Jaffe Juice were a drink, what would it be and why?

Garfield: I don’t know – syrup of Epecac? It’s an emetic; it makes you vomit … [laughs].

Jaffe: I love it. Finally somebody tells me what they really think! Well, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed speaking with you and look forward to continuing the conversation in Beaver Creek.