- Especially with the popularity of social networking sites--like Facebook, which is generally the top-most visited site in the world--advertisers can easily communicate with their market at a vital touchpoint. As a touchpoint, this can be utilized in different ways by advertisers--with a little bit of creativity, of course.
- Digital advertising can be very targeted. Digital ads, for instance, can be made for certain age groups and demographics--depending on who advertisers wish to tap. They only need to specify.
- Digital placements are seemingly more cost-effective than above-the-line (ATL) advertising. For instance, Facebook ads work on a cost-per-click basis, so you may have a big number of impressions but will only be paying for those that actually converted to likes. Even more, placements made before watching YouTube videos are actually targeted and at the same time, advertisers need not pay unless viewers see more than half the duration of the clip. So you can see that unlike ATL, which immediately costs millions for placement and production, you can work on a relatively lower budget with digital.
- Owning social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter for your brand allows you to control and regulate content regarding your brand--in a sense, it allows you to have good PR on your brand online where information is easily accessible.
So with digital in the picture showing itself as valuable medium--does this mean the end of traditional media? Or an even better question, is this the end of print advertising?
NOT AT ALL.
Undeniably, there has been a decrease in the relevance of traditional media. In fact, we've seen how much this has greatly affected print advertising. Here in the Philippines, we've seen in recent years that newspapers and magazines have been significantly affected by the increasing relevance of digital among consumers.
But that doesn't mean it's the end of traditional media, and especially print. In fact, if you look at Japan which has a highly digital-savvy market, it has been noted to have a stable demand for newspapers in recent years. Granted, this is just one example--but this gives us hope that traditional media will not die. If anything, digital media merely addresses what traditional media lacks and cannot entirely replace traditional media. For instance, some of the things that digital addresses are:
- Digital is essentially free and easily accessible for consumers. In a way, it is already a given among most households and individuals to have access to the internet. In fact, most consumers are easily online especially with easier mobile internet access and cheaper internet rates. Unlike print wherein there's a purchase requirement, digital is essentially free and readily available.
- Digital is engaging. Unlike traditional media (TV and print ads) where consumers are bombarded with static ads, digital engages with consumers. And engagement in this day and age can be a vital element in campaigns.
Some of the things that digital cannot address, however, are:
- Digital is not entirely accessible to the marginalised or those from lower social economic classes. And in a country such as the Philippines wherein more than 80% of its people belong to SEC DE, digital is not the most affordable medium given their pockets. On the other hand, free TV stations (since Cable TV here is paid via subscription) and radio are widely accessible.
- Digital mostly involves the younger market. If your brand caters to an older market, nothing compares to traditional media. Older markets are merely adapters to technology.
Traditional media, therefore, is challenged to look for unmet needs and opportunities to make it more relevant at present. My take is that there are things which digital cannot address but traditional media can. Digital media has indeed grown to be more relevant, but that doesn't mean traditional is at an end.
