The 30-Second Spot: Dead or Only Napping?

Marc Brownstein of AdAge reported that a panel of industry insiders concluded that the 30-second spot isn't dead (article), and that the main reason they are ineffective is essentially that the creative is lousy. Improve the creative, he pontificates, and the 30-second spot will rule once again.

He's not right, but he's not far off, either. First, he points out that spots are still the primary vehicle driving brand awareness. Now, I have no data that supports that, but I'll assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's reasonable for the time being to assume that, but just because the volume of awareness may be high, that doesn't make it an efficient or effective means of driving it.

Second, he suggests that the platforms and level of interactivity will change, and I completely agree that, executed well, it could be a great idea. However, once interactivity is added, it becomes something other than a 30-second spot. It may incorporate video, and until 3-D rendering techniques are mastered and made affordable for the masses, video remains the best way to tell stories, which are vital to communication and persuasion.

Perhaps the most telling display of myopia, though, is that Brownstein listed these three attributes as threats to the 30-second spot:

• Lousy creative
• DVR/Tivo
• Distracted, multitasking impatient viewers

By calling these things threats to TV spots, Brownstein tips his hand to show us where his allegiance really lies. The viewers themselves are threats to his (and presumably the entire panel's) desire to force people to watch 30-second spots. And we know they want to force users to do it, because DVR/Tivo is also a threat.

I don't want to understate the importance of good creative. Improving it will help immensely. However, people only have a limited amount of attention on a given day. If everyone's creative 30-second spot is good -- even great -- then everyone's 30-second spot becomes at once ordinary. When that happens, only the bad will stand out. This is partly why Sales Genie's abysmal Super Bowl spot, when everyone else was clamoring to be the most creative, was effective (Sales Genie: Dumb Like a Fox).

The biggest problem isn't ultimately the creative. It's advertisers' love affair with the medium. That's why Brownstein's goal is to save the 30-second spot rather than build relationships between people and brands in a way that fosters 2-way affection and loyalty. This doesn't mean that we'll ever see the end of 30-second spots. Indeed, 30-second spots may remain an important part of a robust communications package. However, their importance will be diminished as we find more effective and less intrusive ways to communicate with our audiences. - Cam Beck

Comments

[mvellandi]

This post reflects many of the positions I've been reading in "Punk Marketing". The creative must get better, but ultimately there's a paradox if everyone's gets better. It becomes like a museum where nearly everything is great but yet our attention span is limited anyway and we only tune in to what we like.

[Cam Beck]

Thanks for the heads-up, Mario. I just put the book on my wish list.

[Jay Ehret]

While I agree that devotion to the medium is a key problem, more so is the creator's desire to create for themselves. They are like painters who create for their own self satisfaction rather than for the needs the audience.

The :30 second spot is meant to progress the brand, not provide entertainment. People want to buy stuff and they want to know what they should buy. Commercials provide this information. Consumers watch programming to be entertained, they watch commercials to learn more about the stuff they want to buy. Creative types have somehow forgotten this (Sales Genie excluded).