TV Vs. YouTube: The Great Debate
Within our universe exists a virtual world, one where an exorbitant flow of information travels across data cables each second. A world where brands aren’t afraid to take risks with their communication and creatively entertain the consumers. Yes, you guessed correctly, the virtual world of which we speak is the internet.
Why is it that brands are risk averse when communicating to consumers via above-the-line media but embrace risk when communicating via online media? We are perplexed by this lack of consistency in communication. Let’s face it, the majority of television commercials that we are subjected to are better sleep enhancers than Valium. The video’s and images that brands upload to the likes of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube often cause more impact than their ultra expensive above-the-line communication.
We believe that much of the video content that is used for YouTube could actually be used for television commercials, but never is. Considering that 2,8 million videos are viewed on YouTube every minute, effective television commercials would become viral that much quicker. Analysts estimate that YouTube contributes more than $1 billion to Google’s annual ad revenue and is most likely profitable. Advertisers spend just $2.2 billion on all online video ads, compared with $60.5 billion on television ads, according to eMarketer.
A prime example that we found is from Redbull. The television commercials that are aired in South Africa do not have the same impact as the ones found on YouTube
Rebull Television Commercial:
Redbull YouTube Commercial:
And yes, there are many factors to be taken into consideration such as target market’s that watch TV Vs. YouTube, but all we are really asking for is more risk, more emotion and more entertainment in television commercials. When was the last time you said, “Wow, have you seen that TV commercial” Vs. “Wow, have you seen that advert on YouTube”?