Comments on: 03 Is The New 30

By: Jan Melnik

Jan Melnik — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:32:07 +0000

A teleseminar today with Deb Dib, the CEO coach, turned me on to your website. Extending your premise to the executive career industry in which she and I work, your challenge is an effective one.
Substituting hiring authorities (and consumers) for marketers is spot-on. Give the message, tell the story as succinctly as possible. No more 3-page resumes, never mind 4- and 5-page versions.
Boil it down. Make it resonate with true value delivered. Show the distinctive brand. Get it done in less time. It’s a compelling sell for job seekers! Thanks for your insights.

By: J.D. Mosley-Matchett

J.D. Mosley-Matchett — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:34:15 +0000

I agree, Jon. It’s a quality and not quantity issue. If “Eat at Joe’s” is your message and you’re simply shooting for the A in AIDA, then 3 seconds works. If you’re trying to engage people and be memorable, 3 seconds won’t work–but neither will any length of time if you offer nothing worth remembering.
I presume everyone in this thread has read “Made to Stick”? If not, this discussion is moot…

By: Jon Burg

Jon Burg — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:51:09 +0000

Is 3 (second) online better than 30 (second) on TV?
Sure, a 30 on TV is easily skipped while a 3 online is far less likely to be skipped.
But a 30 features enough time to tell a story. A 3 delivers a sound bite at best.
We’re talking apples and oranges. A 3 second spot is about awareness. A 30 second spot is about engagement. A 3 second spot features 3 seconds of information. A 30 second spot is exponentially more meaningful/powerful and potentially engaging.
One could argue that the online 3 (second) is best used to drive to an expandable ticker and/or post-roll that directs the user to a true 3, a 3 minute experience of interaction; hopefully leading to a 7, a 10 or longer engagement.
It’s not about determining the length of interruption, but the quality of the messaging and engagement.

By: mjmantey

mjmantey — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:17:14 +0000

Matt, I don’t think you’re wrong given the current (read actively decaying bloated programmatic broadcast model) structure. I do think Seni is right about context and relevance. What broke is when we consumers started getting double charged (of sorts). Ad-supported content is fine, but then in order to get reliable service, you started paying for a glut of cable stations too. There still are too few options in this equation to allow for much innovation; and still the interruptions. Along comes the webs and we have a chance to do it better. I feel that by explaining the units of commerce in the exchange is the key. You want to watch things on HULU, video anywhere online,et al? Every time you initiate a session and every hour after, you need to watch 4 spots( :03, :12 or :800 seconds long) of your choosing and then answer a question about each.
As for the death of the :30, I’ll watch 1:20 everyday when it’s really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-uz4JkXz2s
And even with really good advertising, I doubt I’ll ever drive a Honda.

By: Harry Hallman

Harry Hallman — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:04 +0000

Well, what you and others are saying points out the need for marketers to be “involved” in the lifestyles of their best customers and prospects. If you cannot get them to watch a 15-second spot, it is because it has nothing to do with what they are interested in.
They will watch a 30-minute program that includes product mentions and perhaps even overlays if the subject interests them. The same is true with the Internet. Engage them with messages in the content and provide what they are most interests them.

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:29:34 +0000

Toad — I agree on the point of context, though I still think that less is more. There are better options online than making me sit for 30 seconds. 60/30/15s are built for TV where there is no surround. Product placement is getting closer to the web model, but TV is very limited. Why shift that limited thinking to an unlimited medium?
Thanks for the background on ad formats. It’s always about the money isn’t it. I do appreciate that.
Three seconds is tough, I don’t disagree. This format is less a video ad and more a quick call to action/brand reinforcement message. We need to shift our thinking too. I like your one line thought, that seems like just enough to convey a message eh?

By: Toad

Toad — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:39:16 +0000

I agree with Seni: Context is everything. If it’s a 30 minute show, I don’t mind a 30 second commercial. But a 30 second spot to see a 2 minute video– no way. The advertiser gets the better deal there.
Matt– your history of the :30 TV spot is a bit off. TV commercials used to be 60, even 120 seconds. But there were fewer of them and they were generally for mass market products and they were the only way consumers could learn about products in the pre-internet days, before The Real Digital Revolution.
Today we have far more commercials on TV– promos for network shows, movie trailers and (in particular) DTC pharma ads– and those add up to a major annoyance.
30 second spots were designed to fill network coffers. They could charge more for them than for a 60, so the networks made more money under the guise of meeting pent-up demand. 15 second spots were also a money-making idea.
3 seconds is tough. When you do TV, the rule of thumb is that you leave a one-line super up for 3 seconds, with one second added for each additional line of copy.

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:31:45 +0000

Seni — I think there is a balance here, but less is more in this case. Context is vital no matter what the format or medium. Hulu has a good model, but I still find myself drifting away.
Dusan — I know message bombardment is a goal of a lot of companies, but why waste money when we know what doesn’t work? It will take a person who gets it to make this push and like you said, the first three seconds is crucial and it’s got to hook you.
Mark — You get my vote for best comment of the year. I’m still laughing.

By: Mark Goren

Mark Goren — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:19:18 +0000

Nice concept, M
(Sorry, my 3 seconds were up!)

By: Dusan Vrban

Dusan Vrban — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Matt, the problem is actually simple: people in the companies want to expose too many messages (we are the best, we are the cheapest, we are the thinnest, we are the…). For making 3seconds ads you need just one thing: a strong marketing manager that wants it and gets it.
Anyway, I think there’s a very very good way to have 30s or even 60s spots watched: have the first 3 seconds directed by Spielberg.
OK, him or whoever – the main point is that actually these 3 seconds are really all you have to bring attention. So you better make them perfect. Get the attention. Hey, are we gettin back to AIDA?