TV- What is really changing?

July 9, 2008

You know how we all hear that TV is dead and that the 30 seconds spots do not work any more, and that we need more “engagement” and not interruption. Well, I am here to advocate that TV is not dying, that 30 seconds spots will still work, and the fact that any call to action advertising will always be interruptive in nature.

Not that I am not a believer in how technology is changing the way media is consumed by consumers, planned by planners, bought by buyers, and used by advertisers, and how its demand and supply is completely turned upside-down given the fragmented nature of digital media. Or even the fact that all of this has huge implications on how “pricing of media” works- for consumers as well as for advertisers.

Au contraire, I am a big believer in this, but I also think that these changes affect the consumption of media, but in the end, any content will always be either “printed word”, “audio, or spoken word or music” or “audio-visual” in form.  Hence, while everything changes, much of it remains the same. What we have to learn to do, though, is how are we going to handle these changes and use them to our advantage in brand communications.

In the upcoming posts, I will explore various technologies and developments that are re-shaping the delivery of the audio-visual content, or TV. I will also look at their potential implications on the business of brand communication and consumer contact.

Bookmark me, and come back to read more please.

4 Responses to “TV- What is really changing?”

  1. DJ Marmite Says:

    Agreed, but what you are saying is also not new. I’m looking for those people who break through all the rehtoric and ‘the industry is changing’ mumbo-jumbo and truly deliver usable insights for the entire brand communication process. Can a comprehensive guide book be written for the new age?

  2. asadrehman Says:

    True, what I am saying is not new. I believe genius is finding simple solutions to seemingly complex issues. I do hope dabble into all of this, perhaps with greater simplicity than there is around.

  3. Caroline Says:

    Ok- if it’s simplicity you are after I suggest that someone attempts to deconstruct the issues into simple statements. For example– defining TV- TV is a device that recieves content that is consumed by a viewer. Traditionally the content developement was funded by advertisement money– i.e. in return for valuable content, the viewer was obliged to watch the commercial message that made the content possible. the funder would then hope that the viewer would be positively influenced.

    Here you can see how simple we need to state things….almost as if we were explaining to an alien from a different planet what the issues are. We make too many assumptions and we need to have a common language and common definitions of temrs/issues etc. It’s either we get intellectual about it or not. Let’s apply some riggor finally.

  4. asadrehman Says:

    Trying to do exactly that. Read on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: