This is surely a grim year for traditional media, and even the internet is seeing a slowing in growth, but one area of media appears to be doing well through this ad recession, and that's alternative media.
By and large, media buyers and planners go out of their way to include alternative media elements on media plans they present to clients, and they also think spending on alternative media will be up this year over last.
That's the outcome of a survey Media Life posted over recent days asking readers what sort of coverage of alternative media they'd most like to see in the pages of Media Life.
For the purposes of the survey, alternative media was defined as "all forms of out-of-home advertising beyond traditional billboards, ranging from digital signage to street teams handing out product samples to skywriting to advertising on beach umbrellas."
The survey was targeted to media planners and buyers and marketers either directly involved in recommending alternative media or having a voice in decisions regarding alternative media. Readers who did not qualify were excluded from the survey. Among qualifying respondents, roughly two thirds were directly involved in recommending alternative media.
A key question was whether media planners and buyers expected to see spending on alternative media increase or decreased in 2009. More than two thirds, 69 percent, thought spending would increase, versus 31 percent who thought spending would decline.
Another key question was how often those readers included an alternative media element on a media plan. More than half made a point of doing so.
Some 44 percent agreed with the statement: "We try to do so whenever we can," while 18 percent agreed with this statement: "Much of the time if there's the budget for it."
More than 36 percent agreed with this statement: "Sometimes but only if something really grabs our interest."
Just 2 percent said almost never, and no one said never.
Media Life then asked readers to describe their attitude and the attitude of their supervisors toward alternative media.
The response was pretty upbeat.
Nearly 36 percent agreed with this statement: "Very positive. It's a terrific way to set a media plan apart,” while 27 percent agreed with the statement: "Generally positive."
Just under a third, 33 percent, were more neutral, agreeing with this statement: "Neither positive nor negative. It's case by case."
Just 3 percent said their attitude was not positive, and 2 percent were very negative, agreeing with this statement: "Few experiences and those were bad."
Next Media Life wanted to get a sense of how clients reacted to alternative media options. The question: When you are presenting to clients, how do they generally respond to alternative media elements in a plan?
It turns out very few are as positive as the media people presenting those options. Just 6 percent agreed with this statement: "Very positive. They pick up on how the element ties into the brand in a creative way."
By far the largest share, 72 percent, agreed with this statement: "Mostly favorably but it will depend largely on what it is."
Just over 9 percent agreed with this statement: "Little response. They're much more interested in the bigger-picture, bigger-budget elements."
In the rest of the cases, 13 percent, clients didn't get the alternative media element (8 percent) or thought it was a waste of money (5 percent).
In some cases, though not all by any means, adding an alternative media element to a plan may mean cutting from some other media. But which one?
Media Life asked that question of readers, and newspaper came out on top at 30 percent. But not far behind was television at 26 percent. Radio was next at 15 percent, and magazines followed at 10 percent. Internet was last at just 3 percent.
Most buyers think clients are more open to alternative media these days, but with reservations. They're not so inclined to spend more on alternative elements.
The question: Do you sense that clients are more or less willing to spend money on alternative media than say two years ago?
Just 14 percent gave an unqualified yes, agreeing with this statement: "Far more willing to spend and far more willing to spend more dollars."
The largest share, 60 percent, agreed with this statement: "More open to alternative media but reluctant to increase the spend."
Just 21 percent said clients’ attitudes had not changed one way or the other, and just 5 percent saw alternative media as the first thing to be cut from a plan.
What has changed to make alternative media that much more attractive to clients? Quite a few things, in the view of media people.
Asked to choose one or more responses, they picked the rising clutter found with other media, such as TV, at 62 percent.
But second, at 60 percent, was "the ability to deliver highly targeted messages." Third, at 40 percent, was "the increasing number of smart options out there."
Other choices were opportunities to reach across a number of markets with one buy through digital networks, 19 percent; the increasing sophistication of sellers in making their case for alternative media, also 19 percent; better, more sophisticated tracking of results, 24 percent; better execution of campaigns on the part of media sellers, with fewer glitches, 19 percent; feedback from friends and business associates about campaigns they've approved in the past, 27 percent: cost efficiency, 29 percent; and comparatively low cost, 32 percent.
But there is a negative to alternative media as well, actually a few in the minds of media planners and buyers, and topping that list is the inability to put numbers to how well it performs.
The question: When considering alternative media options for inclusion in a media plan, what are the negatives you and your team members are most likely to consider? Readers were asked to choose one or more responses.
Way out ahead, at 67 percent, was: "Lack of means for quantifying performance for many alternative media."
Second, at 45 percent, was lack of research, and third was "the amount of work that must go into executing an alternative media element," at 39 percent.
"Risk that it will fizzle or malfunction, embarrassing the client" came in a 34 percent, and last, at 33 percent, was "poor cost-versus-impact ratio."
undefined undefined
undefined
undefined undefined undefined
