Retailers: TV is More Engaging than Internet and Mobile

August 21, 2009

Picture for Post #11Although it makes common sense, it’s still nice to see a study that confirms what a lot of us already knew:  For retailers especially, television presents a more effective commercial environment than the Internet or mobile devices. 

A new report from the research firm NeuroFocus found that TV earns high marks for emotional engagement, message recall and intent to purchase.  While on the other hand, viewers of small-screen media (Internet and mobile) found the ad experience to be less immersive and not nearly as engaging as TV. 

“Emotional response appears to be tied to the way people use different media platforms,” said Clay Collier, Cable & Telecommunications Association’s VP of Research.

He adds, “TV is particulary good at striking an emotional cord and conveying a sense of novelty. If you want to draw someone in and create an immersive environment, TV is a better fit.”

“On the small screen (mobile devices), certain emotional triggers – facial expressions, for example – are somewhat undermined,” said Clay.

(Somewhat undermined? On a three inch cell phone screen, you’d be lucky enough to discern a face, let alone facial expressions.)

The study also found that TV and Mobile ads were particularly effective at prompting a sale.  Not so for Internet ads, which appear to require repeated exposure before eliciting a consumer response.

On the emotional engagement scale, Internet ads came in last by a wide margin. 

“It stands to reason that people who are less emotionally invested in your ad may be less likely to buy your product,” said Tim Brooks, a former Lifetime Network Research Director.

I told you this was common sense … 



TV is Far from Dead for Retailers

August 7, 2009


While the internet and social media elites rant and rave about the death of television advertising, the facts tell a much different story.

A July 2009 Harris Poll learned that more Americans found TV commercials helpful when making purchasing decisions than any other media source. An impressive 37% to be exact.  17% of the survey respondents said newspaper ads were useful and 3% said radio.  Internet banner ads, on the other hand, were mentioned by the fewest people – a paltry 1%.

It’s hard to believe that just a few years ago we were being told that banner ads would revolutionize the advertising landscape.  I may add, by the same folks who have been beating us over the head with the “TV’s Dead” mantra.   

In fairness though, not everyone has become bleary-eyed from the new media cool-aid.  Carol Krol, eMarketer senior analyst, admits that “TV still does the best job of reaching a critical mass of customers.”  She adds “It remains the most effective way to boost brand awareness.” 

Need more proof that TV is still alive and kicking, just ask a teenager.  According to a report titled “How Teens Use Media,” teens are watching more television than ever before, up 6% over the past five years.  In between all that texting and twittering, the typical teenager still found over 104 hours a month to watch good old fashioned TV

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not negating the impact of online media.  It’s a new and powerful communication tool (as proof by this blog), but it needs to be put through the same tests as you would with any traditional media vehicle.  In the end, some of it will work and some of it won’t.  If anyone tells you differently – run away. 

 Following every new media trend that comes along can have costly consequences – just ask those who invested heavily in banner ads.  I bet some of them now wished TV wasn’t dead …