There is a shift from mass advertising strategies to finely targeted and interactive strategies, according to one of Wall Street’s most influential trackers of the media industry, Lauren Rich Fine, analyst for Merrill Lynch. Fine describes the current state of media planning as a “polarization between targeting and mass reach,” and I think she’s right on the money. In fact, this shift in media planning strategies could be contributing to an even more fundamental kind of division: the polarization of marketing expenditures between the advertisers who can build one-to-one, interactive experiences with consumers (manufacturers/retailers of high-ticket items) and those who still need to hit mass audiences.
Fine doesn’t think the mass market is dead, noting that it might be difficult if not impossible for big marketers like Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch to convert to one-to-one interactivity. “Hitting big audiences with branding messages will remain important, she says.
The table below shows a great imbalance: the relationship between the time consumers spend and the share of advertising placed with each of the major media.
Share of Ad Spending vs. Time with Media
| Ad Dollars | Time | |
| Digital | 5% | 33.3% |
| TV | 37% | 32.4% |
| Radio | 9% | 18% |
| Newspapers | 30% | 7.6% |
| Magazines | 13% | 5.6% |
| Cinema | 0.4% | 3.1% |
Source: Carat
The data explains a lot of what’s going on with some media, especially print media like newspapers and magazines. If you look at this data, it’s pretty apparent that they already were benefiting from some fairly significant disparities and were overdue for some kind of economic shift. What you don’t see in the digital data row above, is how much of that time is coming from people using digital versions of print media. Clearly it’s a significant amount. Of course, people are using digital media for all sorts of things that are not directly related to advertising or media content: communication (e-mail, chat), socializing and commerce. But a significant part of it is people shifting media content to digital. It’s interesting to note that digital media currently collects fewer ad dollars and disproportionate ad rates than the traditional media.
Fine sums it up pretty nicely in her new report. What she doesn’t factor for, is the thing Madison Avenue and print media are citing as the reason for their disproportionate share of ad dollars: engagement. The reason why print media receives their share of advertising dollars relative to the time consumers spend with them has nothing to do with the amount of time at all, say publishers. It has to do with the quality of the time they spend with print media. And while there is a great deal of truth in it, the logic of that message will be increasingly challenged over time.
Online is great at driving people to do something immediately. It’s like direct mail or direct response TV on steroids. Print media’s engagement theory does have its merits. There’s a lot of good to be had from understanding when, where and what type of media and advertising content turn people’s minds on to a brand message. But it will never be a replacement for real media planning combining the science of reach and targeting with the art of crafting the marketing message. That’s always been the game and it always will.