If marketers succeed in their wish to have their advertising only on certain shows, that seems likely to raise ad pricing on some shows, while pushing it down on others. Which ones would go up and which ones would go down is hard to tell at this point.
Want your ads in CBS's blue-chip "CSI"? Then you'll have to run some in "Harper's Island." Eager to get your message to the devotees of ABC's "Lost"? Then you'll have to buy some time during untested debutantes such as "Cupid."
That's how it's worked for decades. Marketers and their media buyers are forced to agree to TV networks' condition that they take ad positions across entire schedules if they want to be in the hottest shows. Marketers' patience with this system is, however, running out, and many are pushing harder than ever before to buy programs and not networks. Yet in this upfront, the networks will still ask them to once again buy across the board -- and pay a premium to really build their brands into a show's DNA.
"This is going to be the battleground for the next few years," said one senior marketer.
Perhaps Peggy Green, the respected but publicity-averse executive at Publicis Groupe's Zenith media-buying outlet, said it best during a recent industry conference organized by TV Week and Advertising Age: "I care more about the program than the network that it's on."
lots more at - Advertising Age
I would say finally, people watches shows not networks
I would think that this pratice would make it even harder for on-the-bubble shows to survive. Everybody would want ad’s for AI, Biggest looser, DWTS and CSI, but nobody would spring for “castle” or (yes I’m going to say it, Chuck haters close your eyes) Chuck. thoughts?
This would be a throw-back to the days of radio dramas in the 30s, 40s and 50s, where sponsors took on specific shows, and where networks “sustained” new shows until advertisers took notice. I don’t see networks going back to the sustaining model, but it’s not like advertisers are asking for something entirely new. It also seems to me that this could be a move back to advertisements and shows merging closer together. Again, in radio, this often happened with Jack Webb doing the ads, or the Petrie wine promos at the start of Sherlock Holmes.
@djm – I don’t know if it would help or hurt Chuck given its viewer numbers, but Chuck-like in-show ads and opportunities for product placement would work well with this approach.
Also certain companies have specific marketability beyond simple age demos. The current system scares a lot of advertisers away because of the extra money they would be required to spend to market to folks outside their target. It makes no sense. Sure big shows will see increases in ad revenue and others may slip- but it also allows tough rated, but well recieved shows to inherit their own marketable identities.
Package-less advertising can only help network revenues if structured correctly. Or if packages remain insisted upon make them demo-related. Put Dollhouse in ad packages with Fringe and Human Target. There is always a better, more profitable way and the first step is to listen to your consumers; who in this case are the advertisers!
Now if only this would spread to telecom companies that are trying to force consumers to bundle cable/phone/internet by saying things like (Verizon) “You cant have Verizon FIOS TV without switching your DSL to FIOS that will cost you twice as much money per month. “
I think it would support niche shows. But while some people may get fair wages in this (say the people who build the sets) some people get way too much from any fair point of view, especially the higher up in the pyramid you get. A new system will probably be born over time (decades) where its more direct to enduser and the greedy people at the top will be no more
Kermonk- I agree with your post. But you know what they say about the golden rule. The people that have the gold make the rules.
This is hilarious. I’m a CMO for a company and we have never paid package deals. There isn’t some law that forces networks to do package deals. Now sure broadcast network sales reps will always bring up the requirement for a package deal but I just laugh at them whereupon they give a nervous smile and toss that idea out the window. Nikky is EXACTLY right. There are actually very few products and services that would benefit from an all-demographics popular show. All our marketing goes after niches that have the highest probability of buying our products. This is the reason why cable TV networks are able to survive. Look at the Food Network. That network thrives on niche advertisers.
I see the trend going back to TV’s Golden Age where advertisers sponsored whole shows. We’re about to do that. In fact, we’re about to release some of those over peer-to-peer networks and completely bypass both broadcast and cable TV networks. Broadcast and cable TV networks are just gatekeepers and middlemen. That’s it. They are not noble patrons of the arts that support new shows. Every new show you hear about us advertisers have heard about for at least a year as we’re courted about whether or not we’d like to advertise on it. Networks don’t talk about show’s original writing, interesting characters, or such nonsense but what demographics they’ll attract.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh, Robert and Bill.