Advertisers do not buy media
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
One notion that has consistently irked me over the years is the concept of a "media buyer". Rupert Murdoch is a media buyer. He made an offer the Bancrofts couldn't refuse. Now he can essentially do whatever he wants with the Wall Street Journal as long as it remains profitable for shareholders. Advertisers, however, use the term "media buyer" to designate someone that negotiates with the media for the use of their time and/or space to deliver a message. Doesn't the word "buy" denote ownership? Ads are about media renting. And, to be honest, advertisers merely rent the medium as a communication vehicle. They are not really renting the reputation of the media outlet. When a company places an ad in the Wall Street Journal, they are not paying to have Walt Mossberg write a favorable review. Ads in nearly every medium are denoted as such, or else you lose the credibility that brings people back. In other words, ads are not the reason people consume media (except perhaps for fashion magazines when some ads can become art in and of themselves). How effective will advertising be in the future as a one-way communication vehicle? Behavioral targeting or geotargeting helps make advertising relevant, but it's still rarely the message that consumers really want. People consume media because they are looking for specific answers or entertainment. Isn't it better to be in the conversation or in the path of research instead of trying to force feed a message that people actively try to avoid? So when iMedia asks if we pay too much for media, the answer depends on who you are. If you're Rupert Murdoch, then no. If you're Joe Advertiser, then probably yes. Labels: advertising, media
posted by Adam Edwards
0 comments
Post a Comment
0 Comments:
Home
 |
