Wednesday, July 01, 2009

More marketers want to compare mobile with outdoor, TV and internet ads

MediaBuyerPlanner summarized a new TNS study on the "digital cross-chasm channel" that marketers are faced with:

"Although marketers see the power of digital media and express optimism and enthusiasm, many are caught in the gap between expectations and reality,” the report said. “Until this uncharted territory is mapped, many marketers will continue to go with what they know and revert back to existing techniques and siloed channels."

Marketers cite the following barriers to cross channel adoption:

* lack of suitable metrics to measure impact and ROI (44%)
* lack of case studies to prove cross-channel effectiveness (37%)
* lack of technology (34%)

Looking ahead, once enabled to accept digital advertising, respondents expect mobile and TV to be the top channels for branding and response as well as the go-to channels for brand-response synergy:

* 68% of marketers cite mobile as the top channel to drive response, followed by TV at 40%.
* 76% of marketers cite TV as the top channel for brand building, following by mobile at 49%.
* 68% of marketers are interested in comparing TV and mobile compared with outdoor and mobile, TV and computer-based advertising and mobile and computer-based advertising at 62%.

Respondents to the survey also expect total market spending to grow by 30% over the next two years with a third of the market experiencing growth over 50%.
Given that the hype surrounding the mobile ad industry is even more deafening than our own, I'm actually surprised that so many marketers continue to ignore the most valuable of all possible conversions -- that of a browser into a buyer. But that's exactly what's happening if you take a look at the chart above. TV has massive reach, so it's no wonder that marketers want better TV-mobile integration and measurement since they have millions upon millions of potential touch points to follow. But the conversion rate isn't likely to be much better than that of a regular TV ad. Digital OOH, on the other hand, focuses on those locations where products are placed, readily available, waiting to be sold. It would seem that despite the smaller audience size, comparison data for these two media would be more valuable on a per-person basis.

Of course, marketers have never been ones to understand the meaning of "can't have your cake and eat it too," so what we're probably seeing above is their desire to meet their current needs based on their current media mixes (or those of their clients).

(chart courtesy of MarketingCharts)

No comments: