The Death of Big Advertising
Gone are the days of family viewing and regular audiences of more than 20 million viewers
For an executive summary 
click here For any Archers fan the night of January 1st 1951 was a major moment in the development of the world's longest running radio 'soap opera'. Phil Archer's young wife was scripted to die in the fire that consumed their barn. Millions listened. Many believe that this event was deliberately timed by the BBC to reduce the audience for another media event scheduled for the same night. It was the first broadcast of the United Kingdom's second channel and first commercially supported broadcasters. Independent Television had finally arrived and alongside that, for the first time in the UK, commercial organisations could promote their product to mass audiences. The audience that night was not that massive, and it was even smaller with the BBC's alleged scheduling spoiler. But it was the start of something new. Prior to this, the national press provided the only real opportunities to put your product in front of millions of people. But the largest number you could expect to reach in 1951 was with the Daily Mirror that circulated to 4,567,000 readers.
The Story So Far There was some commercial radio advertising available through Radio Luxembourg, broadcasting in English from that tiny independent European state, to audiences in the UK. Indeed, the Ovaltinees were specifically invented for the children's programming on Radio Luxembourg to promote that particular bedtime drink.
But the big new thing was TV advertising, though in those early days the largest audience you could expect to reach would be a few thousand as dual channel sets (up until that time TVs were only capable of receiving a signal from one channel, the BBC) were yet to take a hold, and for many, television of any sort was regarded as an expensive luxury. Within two decades, though, you could expect audiences of almost 20 million for programmes such as Upstairs Downstairs. And by the mid 1970s all marketers knew that if you wanted to put your product in front of more than 18 million people at a stroke, then all you needed to do was take a 30 second spot in the break of News At Ten.
Then things started to change. Along came Channel 4 which, in itself, made little difference, to the numbers, but it was then swiftly followed by Satellite, Cable and Channel 5. To give you some idea of the scale of the changes, in 1990 the IBA (the Independent Broadcasting Authority) the organisation charged with the responsibility of regulating the broadcasters, was monitoring 5 broadcast channels. By 2002 the responsibility for regulating them had moved to the ITC (Independent Television Commission) and the number of channels had risen to over 600.
The Future Starts Here The impact of all this on the viewing audience has meant that the very largest audience an advertiser can now hope to reach in spot on a regular weekday evening will be 10.8 million viewers at the very best.
In other words the audiences are now so fragmented that the opportunity to 'sell the message big' is very limited indeed. In fact, a recent article in the Economist suggested that the only remaining truly 'broadcast' medium where you can hope to reach a truly national audience is now the 48 sheet poster.
So should we mourn the death of the truly big advertising campaign with all that accompanies it? Should we, dewy eyed, wave a last farewell to the high budget, high production value, and high cost television advertisements shot in glamorous locations by budding young 'wannabe' film directors? Y
es we should. But, just a brief glance during the commercial breaks of any of the hundreds of channel choices suggests that this is just not the case. Agencies persist in producing the big budget, generic advertising campaigns, and clients persist in paying for them. Even though, at best, each single iteration of the ad will have the opportunity to influence only about 50% of the audiences that they used to reach.
But why is this such a bad thing? It is still, after all, the only way to reach substantial audiences in one go, to influence consumer choice and thinking, to persuade and generate significant awareness, to build a mass brand. It keeps the money circulating, keeps people employed and continues to boost the fragile egos of advertising agency creatives, and marketing executives alike. So why not continue in this same vein, even if the numbers keep dropping?
Although this, to some extent, must depend on the product to be promoted (mass consumption products still need to reach mass audiences, even if the definition of mass is relative to the size of audiences available), the answer to this question also depends on your views of the role of advertising and marketing. If you think that the sum total of the efforts in this respect are about generating awareness and little else, then perhaps we should leave things as they are.
But if you believe that the fundamental aim of all marketing and marketing communications is to persuade someone to buy something, then the answer has to be that this is a bad thing.
Why? Well there are three key reasons which can be neatly summarised as:
1. Segmentation
2. Context
3. One to one selling
Segmentation
Although looked at from some points of view (and especially so for those with a vested interest in the 'macro' markets) the fragmentation of broadcast audiences can be seen as a negative, it provides the intelligent marketer with an ideal opportunity. Under certain specific circumstances segmentation is not worthwhile, but in almost every other case, segments provide valuable opportunities to increase market take up, adapt product propositions to make them even more pertinent and therefore more persuasive, or provide new products or different versions of existing ones to meet segment needs. So good marketers are always looking to segment their markets, dividing them up into clusters to make their whole approach relevant to the individual cluster in question. For example, a manufacturer of something as universal as toothpaste might advertise their product as being an ideal refresher for young clubbers surfacing after a hard night of dancing, and drinking. Such a proposition would work comfortably alongside week-end afternoon programming on any of the music channels such as MTV, The Box and Kiss. The fragmented audience gives every marketer the opportunity to think carefully how she or he can capitalise on all of the benefits of opportunities such as these if only they want to.
Context
Context is almost inextricably bound up with the segment issues. It differs only in the respect that the proposition or product can remain universal, the advertising borrowing significance for the segment in question from the programming appearing around it. Thus in the example of the toothpaste, the proposition might be tangy freshmint taste promoted by suitably attractive young people that could be acceptable to any audience, but the programming it appears around being the same as the previous example of media planning, would suggest that this is a clubbers solution by the context.
One to One Selling
Finally, there is the implication of near one to one selling that such fragmentation offers. Thus the toothpaste manufacturer might actually be able to develop a product, a proposition and a branding that only appeals to young clubbers. Ignoring the production costs and the lack of scale economics that might render such an idea unworkable (though even these need no longer be a major obstacle), another key reason for not exploring this option was the previous difficulty involved in finding and reaching this singular segment. Yes you could talk to them as a segment, but in the days of mass audiences, the chances are you would also be talking to, and most importantly paying for talking to, a few million other people who would never dream of going out clubbing.
In fact the aspiration of the real marketer (the person that wants to sell someone something) should always be to try to reduce their markets to one to one selling. We know that such selling is the most effective way to persuade. Adapting the sales story to meet the identified needs of the individual purchaser has the most significant chance of success. All any marketing communications has tried to do, after all, is make the proposition compelling to the individual consumer. In the past it has had to do this en masse and accept all of the limitations, wastage and shortcomings implicit in that requirement. Fragmentation now provides the opportunity for marketers to overcome these shortcomings once and for all.
Yet the evidence suggests that few have recognised this opportunity let alone seized it. A glance through any cable or satellite commercial break reveals advertisements wholly unmatched to the segments that they serve. Most are just re-runs of campaigns run elsewhere for the (now rapidly diminishing) broadcast audiences such as they are with no attempt made even to borrow context from the programming that surrounds them. But if you want hard evidence then take a look at the scheduling used for a real clubber's product Bacardi Breezer. This range of alcopops really is a young person's product. Yet the client and agency have spent many millions with the terrestrial channels (no bad thing to help to support a national brand), but 'diddlysquit' with the music channels on satellite and cable. If any product could take advantage of context, then this one could. But it hasn't.
The Eternal Why?
So that leaves us with the final 'why?' The only possible conclusion that one can reach is that big advertising survives because those with an interest in retaining its bloated, unidividualised, over expensive outmoded presence choose to do so. Things will change as marketers realise the value and the opportunities to be gained from 'smaller' advertising. But that will take time.
Big advertising is dead. It's just that big advertisers and big advertising agencies don't want to recognise this fact yet. Time, perhaps. for someone to put the poor things out of their misery?
Has this article provoked you enough to comment? Join the debate and make your point. Click here.
