Dollars leaking out of network TV has to be good for somebody, but our exec editor thinks it's premature to say who that somebody is.

Many interactive marketing hearts went into optimistic palpitations this week at the news that both Johnson & Johnson and The Coca-Cola Company would be sitting out the network TV upfront. They might go to the parties, but both of the marketing giants are declining to fork over ahead-of-time dollars this year.

But is this truly a time for interactive marketers to break out the bubbly and look forward to flush banner budgets, a rich media renaissance and more dollars for consumer-generated content? I rather doubt it.

Take a look at the latest year-to-year comparison numbers from TNS Media Intelligence (note: this does not include spending on search marketing):

Sure, at 13.3 percent the internet may have achieved the single greatest percentage budget growth among advertising media, but it's important to pay attention to the real dollars behind that percentage: in 2004 the internet saw $7.3 billion and in 2005 it saw $8.3 billion.

A billion dollars is nothing to sneer at (unless you're Swedish pop music supergroup ABBA who reportedly declined a one billion dollar offer to reunite and go on tour), but it's still peanuts in terms of the overall national advertising spend.

For comparison's sake, take a look at the real numbers behind the 7.5 percent uptick in consumer magazine ad spending: nearly $1.5 billion.

Advertisers may be pulling back from network TV -- Procter and Gamble blazed this trail during the 2005 upfront -- and they may even be spending more each year on interactive (good news for iMedia readers), but if anybody is going to see a short-term windfall it's probably the cable television operators. Ad spending on cable TV went up more than $1.6 billion from 2004 to 2005.

As I've argued elsewhere, with an ever-increasing level of media fragmentation, savvy marketers need to learn how to make their budgets work together across different media. The silos between print, TV, DM, outdoor, online and other channels have to come down, and an integrated marketing approach is the best way to go. It's no longer enough to start with a killer TV spot and let the rest follow.

Getting back to the network TV upfront, our iMedia Communications CEO Rick Parkhill had this to say about the news:

"It seems pretty clear that the TV upfront bubble has stretched thin to the point of major leakage, if not bursting. Clients have been bitching about it for years, but now there is increasing action behind the complaints. The make-goods after last year's upfront set new records when audience estimates didn't show up. As much as we would all like to think it is because of increased internet spending, it seems more likely that it is more attributable to pushback against price increases, audience erosion and upfront timing that has never been convenient for the clients. J&J spent about $450 million on TV last year and just $25 million online. I doubt that they are holding back $450 million in upfront buys so they can heavy-up online. There are many dynamics in play this month that will result in greatly diminished upfront commitments. That money will be looking for a home later in the year, which may boost the scatter market and give online sellers a better chance at presenting value propositions that compete effectively. Expect other big brands to pull back on upfront commitments or avoid it altogether. That can only be good news for online."

Similarly, Media Strategies Editor Jim Meskauskas observed:

"I agree with Rick that the hold-back from the upfront has less to do with dollars moving to online than it does with other factors. And let's face it, if every $450 million worth of TV moved to the web, most online ad vehicles couldn't scale enough to effectively accommodate it.

"What's most likely happening is not for lack of belief in television as an ad vehicle (though the questions about television's effectiveness are being asked more poignantly and with greater articulation). It probably isn't diminishing audiences on any single network, though that is also a fact. What's also true is that just as many people are watching TV as have ever watched TV. They are even watching more TV. What they aren't doing is watching the same kind of TV and they aren't watching only TV. Given television audience dispersion and that there are so many places to go, clients don't need to tie up all of their money in one fell swoop. They can wait out a scatter market and spend if and when they want or need."

And Tom Cunniff, VP and director of interactive communications for Combe Incorporated, had this to say:

"I believe this is part of two major shifts in the marketing function. The first is that digital destroys scarcity. The new abundance makes consumer choice dramatically easier and aggregating large audiences dramatically more difficult. It also creates added price pressures for networks who have long sold on the basis of scarcity.

"The second is a shift from marketing as a once-a-year national 'set it and forget it' function to one that must be more nimble, tactical, timely and local. Wal-Mart can push your product (and 25 percent or more of your sales) off the shelf in one quick shove, so why commit to any major expense before you absolutely must? Also, if in mid-year you see a launch of a competitive product coming for the next year, a marketer will want the flexibility to make serious mid-course adjustments of where he or she spends.
 
"In the end, much of the money held back from the upfront will of course go back to the networks. But there's a lot of time and opportunity for digital between now and then."

With the cable upfront marketing coming next, the only safe prediction is that nothing will stay the same for long.