Would you bet your brand’s money on TV ads or Print?

Back when the newly-developed metrosexual advertising landscape was evolving at Madison Avenue New York, print advertising was ‘all the rage’. There was a very specific reason for centennial media agencies to switch to print ad volumes for their clients – newspapers and magazines gave them access into people’s lives, as opposed to huge billboards on Times Square, which would undoubtedly gather a lot of press at the time, but would ultimately seem a tad impersonal.


Let’s jump a few decades ahead, into the times we’re living in. The consumption of information has changed radically, and people prefer reading their news on their mobile devices, sometimes on smart watches, even. And as consumers keep aligning themselves to the idea of content tailored to individual interests, print media formats are losing their ‘personal‘ touch. If we take a quick look at the numbers backing up the platform, print readership has been reduced to a meager 2.5 billion globally, which can no longer be considered penetrative to an urban diaspora.


With a staggering viewership of 11 million, numbers seem to be the definitive point of contrast when we evaluate Television as a viable alternative for public outreach. However, the effectiveness of TV as a format goes way beyond basic penetration. The average attention-span associated with each format, decides how effective an advertisement stands to be, when published on that medium.


For instance, the median time spent reading a newspaper, is 16.3 minutes (global average). With the same target group, the average time spent watching TV everyday, is 3.5 hours (roughly 13 times that of print).


Next up, there’s the issue of eligible outreach. Although newspapers and print magazines can lay claim to reaching homes and offices with equal vigour, the possibility of a five-year old reacting to a print ad is very distant. Comparatively, every age group has an affinity towards televised content, which means advertisers can bank on a giant selection of content genres to advertise alongside, such as cartoon channels, music streaming channels (such as B4U), dedicated sitcom-backed channels (such as Romedy Now), and the list goes on. Add to this the fact that TV can relay the same essential brand message in a matter of 10 to 30 seconds, whereas a newspaper advertisement needs to be discovered inline, read and processed inside the reader’s head a few times before the message kicks in. Conversely, TV accommodates the luxury of frequency. The same message can be relayed multiple times throughout the day, ensuring that there’s maximum exposure for your brand, and consequently, better recall. In layman psychology, the effectiveness of a print ad depends on how the average reader chooses to preserve an old newspaper (and to be honest, only brand managers do that. Regular people declutter). But on TV, your message is preserved in continuity, for as long as you run a campaign.


So far, we’ve spoken about the advantage of impact, that TV offers over print alternatives. There’s a second layer of decision-making which goes into the process of planning an ad, or a series of adverts.


Undeniably, print media arrived at the scene a little earlier than its audiovisual counterparts, mainly because print enjoys the luxury of setting up local publication units. However, this also translates into a clear lack of choice & evolution, when you try to switch between a national campaign, a regional-only campaign and a hyperlocal campaign.


In print, you can choose to buy advertorial real estate across local publications as separate units, and the sum total of all local ad-spends will be your national expenditure. But thanks to the advent in geo/interest-based targeting options available via evolved TV distribution and content watermarking services such as AmagiMIX, we’re staring into a landscape where your TV ads can be targeted to either an entire national audience or segments of it situated in different geographies, as part of the same campaign. In addition to the cost advantage that it opens up, imagine the luxury of A/B testing, which had so far been reserved for the echelons of digital gurus, brought to you with the simplicity of televised delivery.


And that’s where TV is really killing it. Because while the physiological differences between TV and print will continue to dominate the effectiveness debate, it’s really the return-on-investment angle that hands the mantle over to TV.


So, is TV really a better medium for your brand? Head to www.amagimix.com right now and find out what your money can do for you! The game is on, and everyone’s welcome.

Leave a Reply