Televisionaries

Massive congratulations to all the worthy winners at last nights IPA Effectiveness Awards, and in particular to the collective geniuses at BBH for scooping the Grand Prix and the Effectiveness Company of the Year award. God knows how big a mantelpiece they have in their building as they have to find room for both those special awards as well as two other Gold awards, a Silver and a Bronze. It should be a very happy Nick Gill who takes to the stage at Televisionaries.

We sponsor the IPA Effectiveness Awards for many reasons, but the main one is that word Effectiveness. Right now nothing is more needed than cast iron proof of the return on marketing investment. It’s a cause central to Thinkbox’s efforts and we couldn’t be more proud to be the sponsor of the awards.

We are also proud on behalf of TV. It once again proved its peerless effectiveness, dominating the award winners by appearing at the heart of 22 of the 23 winning campaigns (press was in 19, outdoor in 15, online in 14, PR in 13, DM in 9, and cinema in 6). It underlined the findings from the research Les Binet did with Peter Field in their book Marketing in the Era of Accountability. They examined 27 years worth of IPA case studies and found that campaigns involving TV are 25 per cent more effective than those without.

But also of interest (and lest we bang our TV drum too hard) is that it is not just TV on its own that creates effectiveness. Clearly TV needs to be at the heart of the most successful ad campaigns, but if the IPA Awards show us anything they show us the importance of an integrated approach. The average number of media channels used by winning entries was 6. It is TV plus other media that works best, not it or anything else in isolation. We’ll address TV’s evolving relationship with other media at Televisionaries I’m sure, but what do people think? How will integration develop in the future?

So. Mervyn King has dared to use the R-word. However, having heard the Prime Minister speak today at WACL’s 85th anniversary lunch, I’m following his advice and resisting calling this a recession until the facts catch up – or not – with predictions.

Either way, it’s not going to be much fun running media companies next year. Part of predicting the future for TV inevitably entails looking at the immediate future; we’ve all got to get through 2009 and the decisions people take next year will have significant influence over the longer-term shape of the TV industry. The restructurings begun, investments made, and collaborations struck will take place in a climate of caution.

But, as the esteemed MediaGuardian noted this week, there is a silver lining to this dark cloud: people will be watching more TV because they will be staying in more. And there are proven opportunities for brands in this climate to keep spending and steal market share very cheaply, so that they come out of the bad times in fantastic shape and ahead of the competition.

Yesterday morning we staged an event called “Upside to Downturn” which fielded some of the biggest brains in brand econometrics and marketing consultancy. Andrew Sharp of PwC, Professor Paddy Barwise of the London Business School, Karl Weaver of Data2Decisions and Peter Field, co-author of Marketing in the Era of Accountability delivered up an overwhelming body of evidence between them that should help Marketing Directors make the case for maintaining, or even increasing, their advertising spend in a downturn. Case after case study, and various research projects looking at the issue from a variety of angles, all reinforced the broad message that companies who can keep spending end up making far more profit than the short-term saving that cutting ad budgets yields.

But Paddy Barwise emphasised that we should remember the art of the possible; sometimes cuts just have to be made. And in those circumstances, the two original pieces of work commissioned by us from PwC and D2D showed that TV spend deserves to be increased for three reasons: a) it delivers the highest return of any medium – 4.5 times the investment – b) increases and decreases in TV spending produce positive and negative results respectively very quickly and c) TV investment delivers across a broader range of metrics than other media and uniquely can combine quality and value messages.

This point was vividly brought to life by Richard Warren from DLKW who demonstrated how TV had helped Morrisons improve perceptions of their food quality without losing their value positioning, contributing hugely to sales, profit and share growth across 2008.

The question we would ask you is, if TV companies have to prioritise spending next year, what should be at the top of the list? And anyone who wants to share how they have successfully persuaded CFOs to maintain marketing budgets will be very popular.

Yesterday’s research showed that TV was a very reliable investment. Who isn’t looking for a safe haven right now? And with TV CPTs at 1992 levels it’s the best media bargain in the UK.