Web Video Didn't Kill the TV Star

This is a different take on my Web video vs. TV post. This is a great conversation to have, particularly from Brian Donahue, one of the real leading lights of GOP advertising and author  of the must-read 30or60 blog. I'll be traveling over the next few days, but I'll have a response to this and to Josh's piece. -Patrick

Recently, my friend and colleague Patrick Ruffini, whom I respect dearly, posted on the subject of ‘new media’ versus ‘traditional media.’ The subject is a new lightning rod for political marketers and advertisers – especially the ones that fall into the ‘new media’ camp.

Here is a third approach – one that addresses the values and weaknesses of both forms of media and how they intersect, compliment and supplement one another. 

<!--StartFragment-->

The bottom line is – comparing ‘traditional media’ vs. ‘new media’ is like comparing apples and oranges, they are not mutually exclusive mediums for advertising and carrying messages – but different vehicles, that target different audiences, with different creative formats – each working best within their own confines of delivery.

Allow me to examine and respond to several of Patrick’s points: 

1. Unlike broadcast ads, web videos can move an edgier message
   

Web videos are a tried and true tool to move an edgy message, but not necessarily more so than broadcast spots.  If the point is to be edgy for the sake of edgy – then yes there are a lot more edgy web videos out there.  Some are smart and funny, others are dark and dramatic – done correctly, and they get a lot of views and thus a lot of play in the news media that follow such activity closely.

In terms of cost and backlash – broadcast creates more backlash and excitement within the audience it directly goes after.  It is a direct communication with actual voters, who are actually making the decisions.  The cost is more, because broadcasters rightly point out the greater amount of reach and frequency the ad is viewed vs. online.  More eyeballs – more cost.  Simple math. 

These eyeballs belong to people who may not visit YouTube, may not closely follow blogs or not ordinarily read the newspaper.  These are average people, carrying on their daily lives, who may vote in an election and who need to be reached with a message to persuade them to vote for or against a candidate.  By far, the best way to reach them with a repetitive message is on TV (broadcast or cable) and on the radio.

Good digital advertising and messaging through web videos and other formats can also be effective, but for other reasons - different target demos and different outcomes – like rattling the echo chamber that dictates media stories.  Web video delivery is not direct to a wider range of demos and the method for receiving the message is more deliberate –people often have to actively seek out the video to view it in order to be a recipient of the message.

If done properly, combining all elements of script, creativity and context, TV spots and web videos can both do this effectively. The famous Daisy Spot, the Willie Horton ad and the White Hands ad did this well through TV and so far The One has done this well through web video. 

2. With the exception of a few spots, web video has “outstripped” TV advertising this year

 I completely disagree with the point that web videos have been better than TV spots this cycle.  While there are just as many bad TV spots as good TV spots out there, like in the digital world, the media world suffers from just as many hacks and wannabes.  Many who call themselves media consultants usually offer cookie-cutter, old-recycled-junk at best, and truly horrible local-used-car-style commercials at worst. 

The digital world suffers from more bad media and creative material because it grants more access and more platforms to anyone with a computer and a basic knowledge of a video program.  I’ve viewed a tremendous amount of garbage on YouTube and would argue that there is a greater amount of it per capita than television ads.

TV ads serve a different role than web ads.  Generically comparing McCain TV spots to McCain web ads is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Each is produced in a way to get the most out of their method of use.

Web videos are granted the free ability to be longer form, which creates value in telling a deeper story, drawing out a point with greater context and carrying out more complex humor and shock.  Many take too long and never get watched all the way through.  Others are so poorly edited they lose the viewer fast.  And yet some are just so shocking and crazy they over shadow the message.

Web videos should be produced not as longer form, overly scripted TV spots, but rather as a different artistic expression – usually with a more unscripted and less formal appearance.  Regurgitated and repackaged TV spots simply do not work well as effective web video.

While TV spots are limited to 30 and 60 second time frames and must work to make a point more quickly and succinctly than web videos, they tend to appeal to a wider range of demographics because of the reach and frequency associated with airing TV spots.  There exists a greater emphasis on production value to keep in line with what the viewer is attuned to –when a viewer is watching a high production quality TV show they expect to see equivalent quality in advertising.

3. The only good TV ads we have seen this cycle might as well have been web video

Come on Ruffini! Celeb has gotten the play and the excitement because it was the first real attack spot and it brought a new issue into play that went largely untouched – the fake value of Obama’s celebrity like stature. This is not because it had some incredibly high production value (while I do agree it was well produced). The Chuck Norris ad was generally funny – many TV ads are generally funny – the Norris ad followed a more product-style advertising look than anything else.

As a media consultant, I would argue that both ads were created by smart and effective media people, who strived to create something that would get noticed and break through the clutter.  I seriously doubt that they made a decision to actively follow a web video style.  The bottom line:  nothing new here – just good creativity. 

4. It seems Obama’s camp is either: a.) using the two mediums to target two different demographics or b.) David Axelrod doesn’t know what he’s doing

One medium and vehicle approach is not necessarily better than the other.  They are both done in a unique style that fits the outline of the medium itself. As much as ‘new media’ people hate to admit it, standards and definitions exist on the web, which is why the web is continuing to become mainstream and even dominant in some demographics. 

You must also consider the fact that presidential campaigns are an anomaly to the typical political or issue campaign (See Josh Kahn’s post in this space).  Presidential campaigns are still largely driven by earned media and the news press.  All non-presidential campaigns are about direct messaging to likely voters.  The direct appeal to the media is secondary.  So naturally, entertaining the media plays an important role in this, and every, presidential election.  It’s easier to do that with wittier more sophisticated media vehicles that will only be viewed by the eco chamber and intelligentsia.

Vying for the love and respect of the media class is a tough game where the most cynical and creative work for the sake of creativity wins.  That’s why the ‘new media’ space loves web videos most – because they also appeal to their sense of intelligence and cynicism.   

TV spots are the workhorses in a presidential campaign.  They take center stage in congressional and statewide races.  They dictate the tone and the issue matrix of an election.  TV spots move numbers and drive favorables and unfavorables.  Web videos barely accomplish any of these things.  This is changing.

5. Dowd tells us that the effective ads are the ones that fed a story, the media already had that story, so in the end, ads don’t matter

Dowd is simply talking about the dynamics of a presidential election.  Dynamics, which do not apply to the majority of political and issue elections.  This concept is often lost on operatives.  That is why the Republican win in 2004 became so dangerous: too many former Bush operatives were under the belief that all elections can be run like the last presidential.

Direct voter communication is the most effective way to reach and persuade voters.  This is currently best done by TV commercials and direct mail.  There is no doubt this will change – as more and more people spend greater time in front of a computer and spend less time in front of a TV their decision making habits will change.  Product advertising has always been dictated by consumer habits… political advertising has always been dictated by voter habits. 

ALL IN ALL

My view is that the TV ad vs. web video debate is pointless.  Debating which message delivery vehicle is better and more effective will only place people into camps.  These camps are what the current problem is with political advertising and marketing.  You have media consultants competing with mail consultants competing with grass roots consultants now competing with digital media consultants.  What are they competing for? – the almighty campaign budget.

This competition pins different advertising sectors against each other, forcing campaigns to make decisions based on what theory of effectiveness they subscribe to most.  This places an emphasis on separated sub strategies for persuasion and messaging.

The most effective strategy is one that deploys a fully integrated advertising / marketing / messaging campaign that combines all of these delivery vehicles into one comprehensive plan.  That is what we should be striving toward.  Funding decisions for message delivery must be based on critical needs, desired outcomes and greatest return on investment.

Remember, as technology evolves, political advertisers will be forced to change.  The Internet and TV will become one – and when that happens we will be forced to advertise in a hybrid of both forms.

The ideal future of campaigning will not pit these message delivery vehicles against one another, but rather combine them all into a comprehensive advertising strategy.

Brian Donahue blogs at 30or60.com

<!--EndFragment-->