Think TV's Adland 2017 - the thoughts of someone from Adland

I have to admit that the Think TV study into the media consumption habits of 'Adland' versus regular Australia I love and loathe in equal amounts.

What do I love about it? Well, after almost a decade of having the shit kicked out of it unfairly by digital channels (TV is dead, no one watches TV etc etc) TV finally decided to fight back and show marketers and agencies that there is plenty of life left in it.

This was well overdue and credit needs to go to Kim Portrate and Russel Howcroft for devising an angle that had cut through and focused attention back on the positives and uniqueness of TV and not the myths and untruths that had been pushed for years by some elements of the digital side looking to take TV dollars to line their own pockets.

To be frank, I didn't think that within ad agencies there was ever a shift away from television and I am certain there was never a change in terms of understanding the clear benefits of the medium.

What did change however is the noise created by digital and the perception that all the exciting innovation was solely happening in that area.

And there is no doubt there are countless digital suppliers claiming TV like reach and engagement when the reality was they had neither.

So the real dynamic shift was one of increased competition more than incorrect perception.

And ThinkTV did a good job in terms of creating some noise and clean space which showed what TV does well, does consistently, does at a high volume and will continue to do. And a lot of these things are unmatched by any channel, digital or otherwise.

There is no argument here on the general public findings. (taken from the report)

• TV advertising is the most liked form of advertising, the most trusted, the most memorable, and the one most likely to generate an emotional response.
• TV is the most likely place to find advertising that draws attention to a brand, product or service they have not heard of.
• A TV set offers the best viewing experience (but AdLand overestimates TV viewing on laptops).

So I love this part.

The part I don't love as much as the angle taken that basically tries to assert Adland is out of touch with regular Australia.

The argument is that the makeup of an ad agency doesn't reflect that of regular Australia. It's more urban, younger, generally more affluent and with much different tastes around dining, exercise and media consumption.

No question there.

But this line is hard to not take as a kick to the balls - "Many of us in AdLand presume regular Joes (and Jos) all over Australia behave and think as we do when it comes to media."

Do we?

Really?

I know I don't and I sit in an office with 170 other people who definitely don't either.

Yes, we may have different media preferences to the regular Australian but of course we would - we spend 40+ hours a week immersed in media, of course this will create differences.

But adland isn't blind enough to let their own preferences dictate where billions of dollars of clients funds are invested. There are numerous tools, data points, reports and results from past campaigns that are all considered.

If anything media could be accused of an over reliance on data at times.

For me this is the only part of the Think TV approach that grinds my gears a bit.

TV is a strong enough medium that it doesn't need to resort to a negative angle to make its point. It has a positive story - loads of them - that don't need them to create doubt in the eyes of marketers that their agencies are out of touch and investing subjectively based on personal preference.

I wish as someone in Adland they thought a bit more about this before undertaking a study that effectively looks to tell an entire industry they are out of touch ... when many of us have spent our entire careers ensuring that we are just the opposite.