It is 2008. At the asi Advertising Effectiveness event, Professor John Philip Jones (ex JWT, at this time at Syracuse University) is presenting early findings on the impact that advertising on the new \u2018social media\u2019 (Facebook was in the foothills with somewhere around 100 million users) by his client P&G has on their brands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
His conclusion: advertising designed to build and sustain brands does not work on social media. The SM sell at the time was all about building one-on-one relationships between consumers and brands; as Bob Hoffman was to comment no-one\u2019s terribly interested to chat to a detergent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is 2024. Thinkbox, alongside Ebiquity, Essencemediacom, Gain Theory, Mindshare and Wavemaker release Profit Ability 2. 18 of the sharpest minds in media are listed as contributors (this excludes those at Thinkbox).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their Executive Summary the authors write: \u2018short-termism short changes brands\u2019. It seems reasonable to conclude that they see ads on social media as promoting short-termism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is 2025. Peter Field, one of our greatest experts in understanding how advertising works, writes an article for ThinkTV in New Zealand: \u2018To drive growth we must strengthen the brand\u2019, and (quoting Karen Nelson-Field\u2019s Amplified), \u2018the value of an ad that is viewed for 10 seconds is around 8 times greater than one viewed for just 5 seconds\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A few weeks later, at Media360 Field presents research for Newsworks that calls out \u2018the madness of brands moving ad money to social media from newsbrands\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We seem on fairly secure ground to conclude that TV and other more \u2018traditional\u2019 media forms work better in brand building than social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now for the gainsayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All the evidence that TV works comes from those funded by the TV companies. Same for newsbrands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And where does the evidence that (to pick on one at random) Facebook advertising works come from? How much independent validation and verification is there around any data produced by the social media platforms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Look back a few paragraphs. Thinkbox\u2019s work is co-authored by 18 experts. Are they being held hostage somewhere?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much of Peter Field\u2019s work is informed by analysis of IPA cases. Can Peter be bought off by sponsors? It seems unlikely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Moving along the line of gainsayers, if a medium doesn\u2019t work it\u2019s the fault of the creatives\u2019 use of it, all we do is provide the audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What audience? Where do social media audience numbers come from? Who validates them? Who examines them? What if they aren\u2019t true? What about the time FB claimed to reach more of a demographic than there are actually people within that demographic?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What about fraud?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What about definitions \u2013 half a screen for 2 seconds equals an exposure. Really? What about Amplified\u2019s findings? Shouldn\u2019t we take account of effective, or attentive exposure, not some random 2-second number dreamt up by the social media platforms to suit the fleeting way that most use their channels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n