Traditional TV ads less effective than YouTube
In a call to advertisers to spend 6 times more of their budget in advertising with YouTube, Google has claimed that in traditional TV ads prove less effective in driving sales 80% of the time.
This comes from a report, unveiled by Google European executive Matt Brittin in an Advertising Week Festival session called “The (Entertainment) Revolution will not be Televised”, which assesses the effectiveness of 56 case study ad campaigns in eight countries.
Lucien van der Hoeven, The General Manager EMEA of one for the companies who researched the report, MarketShare, said “Digital video is under-invested in several categories we measured in the UK, France and Germany”.
Leaders from the Television industry were quick to refute these claims stating that the report “misses the point of TV advertising”. The director of research and planning for Thinkbox, Matt Hill, stated “TV builds brands better than anything else and creates the most profit.”
Hill went on to say “The bulk of YouTube is a long tail of UGC and it could only satisfy more advertisers by monetising this long tail, TV doesn’t suffer from this problem as it has the quality and volume of inventory to accommodate many thousands of advertisers with proven effectiveness at high levels of investment.”
This is not a new argument in the advertising online video vs TV world as it follows previous statements from Google in October claiming that to reach the teenage and young adult market, advertisers should be spending at least a quarter of their budgets on YouTube.
Advertisers who added YouTube to their to media plans would reach their target audiences more effectively according to Google’s UK & Ireland managing director Eileen Naughton after using its Google Extra Reach Tool to analyse over 1,000 TV campaigns.
Some large brands such as Mars and Danone have stayed firmly in the middle when asked for their position in this debate stating that YouTube advertising can complement TV spend as part of an overall strategy.