ellipsis flag icon-blogicon-check icon-comments icon-email icon-error icon-facebook icon-follow-comment icon-googleicon-hamburger icon-imedia-blog icon-imediaicon-instagramicon-left-arrow icon-linked-in icon-linked icon-linkedin icon-multi-page-view icon-person icon-print icon-right-arrow icon-save icon-searchicon-share-arrow icon-single-page-view icon-tag icon-twitter icon-unfollow icon-upload icon-valid icon-video-play icon-views icon-website icon-youtubelogo-imedia-white logo-imedia logo-mediaWhite review-star thumbs_down thumbs_up

Why video is the new TV

TV is dead. Some of you may be shaking your head in disbelief, but everyone needs to recognize that TV is dead. You may have watched "The Voice," "Modern Family," "Amazing Race," or "American Idol" last week, but where did you watch it? On an actual TV? On your desktop computer? On your laptop? On your tablet? On your mobile phone?


To clarify, the format is alive and well -- and actually growing, thriving, and reinventing itself.  However, I believe the nomenclature of TV is, for all intents and purposes, dead.   
 
What this means is that we are eliminating the word "TV" from our vocabulary and replacing it with the word "video." Video is more descriptive of both how and where people consume TV programs and other video content -- on the go, wherever, and whenever they want, given the flood of mobile devices and tablets into the market in the last year. Consumers are now device agnostic. Build it (the content), and they will find it -- whether on their computer, phone, or tablet.



 
Online video viewing is up across all devices. ReelSEO posted a story last year with the headline "The Rise of Online Video Will Break the Internet" because consumer demand is driving so much traffic that the bandwidth needs to be increased. Build it and they will come.
 
Think about the 2012 Super Bowl. The marketing ecosystem was turned on its side when virtually every advertiser in the telecast on NBC debuted their spots online days before, and then used the actual Super Bowl telecast as a form of "sustaining" advertising to maintain their momentum. And if you missed any of them during the actual telecast, you can still view them in the AdZone on Hulu.
 
Speaking of NBC, they had a lot riding on their new series "Smash," that launched February 6, the Monday after the Super Bowl. In order to ensure a strong launch of the program, NBC had an aggressive campaign to build sampling via online venues prior to the premiere of the show on NBC, including: digital downloads of the pilot on multiple platforms (including Apple iTunes, Xbox/Zune, Playstation, Samsung MediaHub, and Vudu), offering the pilot via video-on-demand partners (including Amazon, Comcast, and Set-Top-Box On Demand), and online streaming on both NBC.com and Hulu. It's very telling that an analog network resorted to digital venues to generate awareness, interest, and sampling.


Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal ran an article (which I read online) about P&G cutting up to $1 billion out of its marketing budget over the next five years. The anticipated loser: TV. The predicted winner: digital. As The Wall Street Journal suggested, P&G will be "leaning more heavily on lower-cost digital marketing and easing up somewhat on pricey broadcast ads." That's a big change for a marketer the size of P&G. The article explored TV's role in P&G's marketing mix -- generating awareness and interest; but it's the digital that amplifies the message and really engages customers. Because of this new mindset, P&G is exploring a new currency to measure their marketing efforts across traditional and digital touch points: the electronic gross rating point.
 
Online video provides marketers the best of both worlds: the sight, sound, motion, and "magic" of traditional TV, and the targetability, accountability, and interactivity of online media.
 
For example, when a home improvement retailer decided to launch a new paint product exclusively with online advertising and 75 percent of the funding in online video, there were skeptics. But, the results speak for themselves: The online video campaign alone drove more than 40 percent of the yearly site traffic in only one quarter and increased the average click-through rate for online media campaigns by more than 500 percent. An added benefit from purchasing online video is a cost per thousand that is 20 percent lower than national TV, allowing the brand to stretch its marketing budget. In the end, DIY consumers engaged with the brand online in relevant content and then in store, which equated to sales.
 
It's clear, online video is in the driver's seat and calling the shots. As such, we've removed "TV" from our vocabulary. Tomorrow morning, you'll say, "What did you watch on video last night?"
 
Dan Albert is SVP and executive media director at MARC USA.
 
On Twitter? Follow iMedia Connection at
@iMediaTweet.

"Mobile device video" image via Shutterstock.

 

An industry veteran, Dan Albert oversees all media planning and buying for MARC USA, supervising all media teams across MARC’s three U.S. offices (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Miami). He coaches the media teams in developing integrated campaigns for...

View full biography

Comments

to leave comments.

Commenter: Dean Donaldson

2012, April 19

Dan I can understand your point for controversy sake, but the fact of the matter, it is simply not true. Whilst i agree the mode of viewing maybe moving across screens, the reality is how the 'video' content distributed. Is it via a premium, up-front purchased content distributed through a linear broadcast network to a play-out box attached to your TV which increasingly is becoming an app on your smart device - in which case this is TV (albeit IPTV) - or is it via the internet in an open-forum web TV scenario, such as YouTube, Hulu, etc. Irrespective of whether the video content is served via Terrestrial or Satellite or over the Internet, it is all to do with the back-end mechanisms. You CAN NOT get premium content without a subscription to a TV Aggregator. Disney pulled content from NetFlix, and BBC pulled content from YouTube to prove this point. There is no business model for true premium video outside of TV infrastructure at present - and the moves of the broadcasters to create "TV Everywhere" is all to do with making content more convenient, not about offering it free - and this follows from the basic fact that technology makes TV viewing increase, not decrease.Your premise is stuff in a browser on a PC delivered freely. Premium content costs money - from production to delivery - and therefore can not be free, irrespective of the advertising opportunities. Hybrid ad-subscription models will continue, and TV growth (albeit through new delivery mechanisms) will continue to outpace your narrow description of online video.