Time to call an end to the 30 second ad.

The recent Channel Four ad for Honda was 3 minutes long. It was certainly engaging. Which can’t be said for many ads on TV at the moment. Many are just plain embarrassing and largely expensive wallpaper. Of course the good news was that we did well at Cannes – with a commercial (some have described it as a YouTube idea) that was longer than 30 seconds – Fallon’s Gorilla ad that was done for Cadbury’s (well they bought it anyway). The advert as an event is not new. Several years ago Channel No5 launched it’s Nicole Kidman ad. The BMW films became cult. But ‘advoidance’ is at an all time high. And who can blame people – just look at the rubbish, especially retail, that breaks up the programmes. YouTube has become the number one channel of entertainment and it’s full of stuff that is either shocking or funny. Having looked at many examples, almost all were longer than 30 seconds. The question is, would you buy a 30 second single? Or a 30 second TV programme? Of course not, so why buy a 30 second TV ad when for the same money you can have longer ones and run them less? Quality, not quantity (a new concept to old school media planners). Would clients advertising be more effective if they produced longer more engaging ads (than lots of short dull ones)? This is proven on radio, which is working better than TV at the moment. Discuss…

Hi Chris,Interestingly, the number of ads we watch at normal speed (i.e. not fast forwarded or avoided in any way) is actually at an all time high – 2.25 billion a day on average last year, and this growth trend has carried on so far this year. It’s a result of people watching more commercial TV as digital take-up keeps growing (and great programming, obviously!).I would agree that the potential for ad avoidance is at an all time high because more people have technology like DTRs that lets them skip if they want to. But in reality only 2% of ads are vulnerable to skipping via DTRs (because, to be a bit statto, only 16% of homes have a DTR and 85% of their viewing is still to live broadcast TV). And – forgive me if this record sounds scratched; I do play it a lot though people don’t always listen – DTRs result in owners watching more, not less telly, which means they watch more ads. That’s pretty remarkable, I think.Not every ad is as excellent as Cannes Grand Prix winners, but then that’s why we have awards – to honour the very best and set benchmarks to aspire to. Enough are excellent enough that people still watch them on broadcast, talk about them with their mates, watch them again online, send them to friends and even go as far as to make pastiches. There’s also plenty of evidence to support the view that ads are getting more creative and entertaining as new technologies like online take away the need for them to be crammed full of facts and information.A question: what makes you say radio is working better than TV at the moment? The evidence I’ve seen – from the likes of the IPA and PwC – shows that TV is the most effective ad medium. Best, Lindsey Clay, Marketing Director, Thinkbox