You must be logged in to comment. Please log in or register.
Traditional media channels are going through a major transformation, not disappearing.
Maybe tradicional media is not dead but its important just for some objectives
Back from world trip. Context: humans organize in two types of networks - formal (traditional media) and informal (user assembled global text/Face/Tweet clouds). Traditional always about 10% of combined network. User WOM always much larger than TV ads. I just saw MASSIVE growth in traditional paper ads (print, posters, stickers above urinals in mens rooms, billboards, etc) - that ask people to "text in" for some activity. This in places where annual income 1/5 of US. Multiply by 6 billion mobile devices. See future. US is behind. Only US brand I saw was Coke. Big brands are Euro centered telcos (Orange) and everything Chinese. US passive geo-location does not involve users, but tracks them passively often secretly ROW respects users by engaging them in the process. ROW building more interactive community, with traditional media as clear, focusing, honest backbone.
Define 'traditional". US is 4% of the world population. TV is really big here. Rest of world never had legacy of TV and similar traditional channels. ROW now has 4 billion mobile devices and on SMS (very traditional) carries many times the messaging carried on legacy channels in US. Brand can be local and global at same time. Use all channels, but let users pull tailored message to them. Push dead.
Caveat: Days of complete power are numbered. Channels will/should continue for a while.
The line between how traditional channels operate are numbered, however as technology and adaptation continue I think you'll see innovation. For example, interactive TV and radio using technology to know who their viewer/listener is and present them with targeted messages that they may then interact with (ie buy something).
Dont think are numered, but will not be the only ones. Transmedia strategists try to use everyone by adding value to customers
I say it's the ideas of traditional vs new media in general whose days are numbered. It's time we started thinking in terms of content and delivery channel. Television didn't kill newspapers. The internet did. News content is still valuable and sponsorable. Just not in the same format or delivery channel.
I am a huge believer of Internet advertising and marketing.For any business and brand Integrated marketing is crucial. Depending to the vertical budget could be allocated 75% Internet and 25% Traditional Media.
I agree with E Boches, the new channels are on their way to becoming the traditional channels. Same variables with different names.
It's never an either or. The new channels are on their way to being the traditional channels.
That is such a good point, Thomas! It is the structure of the traditional agency that insists on the distinction, since it relies so heavily on taxonomy in practice and philosophy in order to feel in control.
I agree with Michelle. I really don't like to make a distinction. It's the structure of "classic advertising agencies" that create an artficial need to distinguish between "old" and "digital" media. To me it's all communication. What channels you select should be decided by the individual needs of each project.
Traditional and new media is in the process of melding, so there's no way there days are numbered. New media depends on trad media, still. It's an evolution. The days are numbered for the traditional media marketers, companies, whatever that refuse to 'go with the flow'. Those who resist, usually out of pride and insecurity, will lose.
I do not believe that traditional mediums responded quick enough to adapt to the changing society that we live in today. Their pride kept them from evolving their brands and thus, have lost significant revenues because of it. The "new" traditional mediums that get it - well, they are able to turn a little profit, but eventually, yes, they will decline still.
Traditional media might have more limited uses but for some objectives, TV is still the best got. As noted in the WSJ today. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576582782104631352.html?KEYWORDS=tv
Attention is the currency. Sometimes (as much as I hate to admit it) that currency is lean back and traditional. The difference today is that we consume multi-channel media (i.e. we still can't assume traditional is dying - it's evolving) - so I'm more inclined to watch TV with my smart phone or tablet than choose to consume one channel.
Curation is also the word of future editors.
What seems "numbered" (that's to say, ultimately fated) to me is the broadcast logic that has defined traditional media channels as we've known them... Already "broadcast" has effectively become "narrowcast," as alternatives within channels proliferate and average channel audiences shrink... But the underlying impulse remains "one to many-- to as many as possible." And that's going the way of all flesh...
Traditional media channels are already evolving to adjust to mobile and social media. Those who evolve effectively will remain at the top of their markets respectively, thereby establishing the new norm. I don't think it will ever go away, but the distribution methods will certainly change in the near term.
further to ted's point (again, most of my insights are specific to b2b, or the sale of any highly engineered/complex product with a less transactional sales model): we have actually found in a survey of c-level execs that direct mail (an actual object, not just a piece of paper) done creatively almost always gets to them because it cannot be filtered or tossed aside by an admin.
I also think it's partially all in how one uses traditional channels in unconventional ways. Hard to write off something that's still so pervasive in our culture. Question really becomes one of how to use the media differently.
Important but must integrate other forms MUCH more effectively.