Skip to main content

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there.
The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices.
The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital?
Here we have the Debate between TV and digital:
Media Consumption
TV: People are watching TV now more than ever. 
Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices.
The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast.
Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours of video per week on YouTube, social media and other free online sources, and another 8.8 hours weekly on Netflix and other subscription-video services, according to a survey fielded by digital-media firm Defy Media. That’s 2.5 hours more than the 8.2 hours weekly they spend watching television.
My Opinion: Based on media consumption habits alone, TV remains an important channel, but it is no longer the leading channel. When it comes to young viewers, a case can be made for brands to use digital, primarily or exclusively. 
TV: Mass media is more critical for building brands than digital.
Digital: Today's brands are built through active and personalized content, not passive and massive communication.
The Fact: A recent study by the McCarthy Group suggests that 84 percent of millennials do not trust traditional advertising (outright). Why? People don't like to be sold. They see advertising as being deliberately manipulative. 
My Opinion: While audience attitude applies to all media, digital can deliver a better value exchange to people through content marketing and e-commerce. TV tends to be limited to short-form content. Short form content is rarely subtle because it can’t afford to be. A comparatively significant proportion of that content is going to be dedicated to trying to “sell” whatever it is that the brand is seeking to sell. 
TV: Television scales better than digital. Brands can reach more people at a lower cost than digital.
Digital: Today, YouTube and Facebook reach more people than any prime time show.
Others Opinion: It varies. Mark Ritson from Marketing Week has an interesting analysis on the topic. If you look only at reach and ignore time spent or use the “digital views” approach that claims an audience member as soon as they encounter three seconds of a partial, soundless video like Facebook or Instagram, then a digital video is the clear winner. If, however, you dive deeper and measure an audience on a minute by minute basis and then publish the average figure for the duration of the video the results change dramatically.
My Opinion: Reach without impact is less valuable than impact with limited reach. 
TV: With TV, you get what you pay for as opposed to digital, which has a credibility problem.
Digital: Digital allows measurement on a more granular level than TV. People’s behavior can be followed through the purchase funnel.
The Fact: This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. TV is based on the average number of people viewing at any given minute, whereas digital video metrics depend on the platform. The major social networks don't agree on how to count video views; Facebook video view is logged when a video plays for at least three seconds, a criteria that’s aided by the fact that Facebook videos autoplay in News Feed. Snapchat views are measured differently. A view is counted as soon as the video is rendered on the screen — that means it could play for a half second and still count as a view. 
My Opinion: TV and digital both have credibility problems. Most people multitask while they are watching TV. A reach is not necessarily a reach. We can also question the veracity of a view on digital. That said; in my opinion, digital beats out TV on measurement because actual behavior on digital can be tracked versus tracking viewers mere exposure on television.
The closing
The debate should not be about the channel; it should be about the principle "mass communication versus personalized communication." Adidas moving all into digital creates a beautiful constraint for the brand. Now, they have to engage people through three inches of screen in a more intimate setting, than TV. The rules of TV do not apply to digital. Adidas will now be forced to innovate to better communicate. 


Popular posts from this blog

The Irrational Power of Nudge Brands

Nudge brands are brands built on interactions, not attitudes. They are mostly defined by experiences, not TV campaigns. They are designed around people's inconsistencies and errors, not for machines. They are simple, not complex. They like to break things into small chunks that are less daunting than big tasks. They focus on changing behavior, not generating awareness and interest. The Paris metro system card is a nudge brand. It is designed against human errors. You can use the card in any direction. IKEA is a nudge brand. It uses the power of personal investment. The more involved people are in creating something, the better they feel about the end product. Ryanair is a nudge brand. It chunks the whole purchase process. They lock you in with a low 'seat price' first to get a mental commitment. Then, they start to add the extra charges in bite-sized 'chunks.' Hare Krishna is a nudge brand. It is built on the reciprocity rule by giving away daisies. People should …

The Curse of Advertising Resources

With more platforms, more products and more content who are trying to reach a disengaged audience, it is becoming harder and harder for brands to stand out. Conventional practices are no longer working. People don't watch TV as much as they used to, so they don't see commercials.  They don't click on banner ads. They don't pay attention to billboards ads. And they don't trust brands' messages. Part of the problem is that we are too dependent on traditional ad resources, which limits the realm of our creativity. To thrive in this new environment, we, ironically, need the freedom of a tight brief: what can you do with no budget for mass media?  Or limited marketing communications dollars?  To make a comparison, traditional advertising is a lot like countries and economies that rely on oil. This reliance handicaps innovation. Countries with a vast amount of natural resources tend to have (1) less economic growth and (2) worse development rates than other countrie…

The Engineering of Digital Consent

Today, we build brands through social interactions. People opinions online shape our decisions on what brands should we buy or endorse. 90% of customers said that online reviews influence their buying decisions. Our challenge is that consumers don't pay attention and trust the message coming from brands. So, how do we affect the opinion of others in this environment? In marketing, we spend a lot of time and money creating advertising with the hope that it goes viral. However, most of the campaigns have little influence in today's consumers. Many campaigns have even the oppositive effect, with consumers sharing negative opinions or blocking advertising altogether. Changing behavior is hard. I don't think we have a silver bullet to influence people online, but we can learn best practices from behavioral science to increase our chances. Getting a little better in predicting behavior can make a big difference. Here are four behavioral principles that we should consider when c…