There's a great deal of excitement around digital being the future of TV and it sure has its place in a 360° advertising campaign but globally TV still counts for the largest slice of ad spend and agencies' business models are built around these production margins.
In order to delve into this we first need to divorce content and platform. Content has evolved significantly in the past 10 years, and right now, the TV platform is undergoing a major revolution that will change consumer behaviour.
While everyone is screaming the future is in digital, consider this scene for a minute: You're at home watching your favourite TV show in perhaps five years from now. Of course, your TV is the stock standard Smart TV. You see a handbag you like the look of worn by the main character in the show. You hold up your hand and say STOP!
The picture freezes and your hand becomes a pointer on the screen. You point to the bag and with a flick of the wrist, you drag it into the corner of your screen that then displays the bag's specs and lists the stores stocking this fine accessory.
Perhaps your phone even then geo-locates your nearest store that offers you a promotion to buy it there. You pay for the bag and you carry on watching the show.
Far-fetched? The reality is that it's right around the corner.
Adapt or cry
The bag scenario equals zero interruptions for advertisers. If we consider that for a second, it feels that the future of marketers and advertisers is going to have to move fast, because right now it could be said that interruptive advertising is what currently underpins the advertising and marketing communications industry. This means that brands and ad agencies must adapt their thinking now and adopt new skills if they want to be as strong in a post-interruptive era.
To capitalise on the scenario above, brands would need solid systems and platforms in place that align their content, products, promotions and data coordinated across a multitude of platforms.
While this major shift won't happen overnight it will happen, and it will happen faster and with more impact than it did with the print industry because the infrastructure is all there - more ready to go now than it was when the web took out the newsstand.
Adelaide Potgieter is the founder of Cape Town based creative agency, Mad Advertising. Known for achieving the impossible, Adelaide lives the philosophy of "what we dream we can create". With an intriguing background in law, marketing, eventing, PR and broadcasting, she brings to MAD a wealth of knowledge, wisdom and passion. Find out more at www.madworld.co.za contact Adelaide on email . Twitter: @MadAdelaide
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. defamation, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.
Your overall point about change is perfectly valid, if not old and tired and worn to near death. However the illustration of your point is appalling. Firstly the notion of a post-interruptive era is pure poppycock. Commercial messaging, is, was and always will be interruptive - the only dimension (significant) that digital has added is the possibility of interactive. Second, your "consider this" scenario is extremely far-fetched other than in a tiny sliver of consumer categories - where the cost/benefit ratio is most likely to be insurmountable. Not that we lack the technology, we don't. What you and so many other commentators ignore completely is the mercurial nature of human behaviour. It's less predictable than tectonic plate shifts and history is littered with hundreds of thousands of examples of failed technology as as result. Just because someone invented it doesn't make it useful or desirable.