“Don’t make meaningless comparisons against TV just for the sake of it”

In response to Ipsos MediaCT’s research article The power of the big screen, David Brennan, research & strategy director at Thinkbox, says: “Why does Ipsos believe it is relevant and appropriate to compare and contrast cinema and TV… and why make such unfounded and inevitably skewed comparisons in order to make a point?“

“I normally enjoy the Ipsos thought pieces and read them regularly, but I am somewhat dismayed by the most recent one advocating the power of cinema.

First of all, why does this highly positive paean to the power of cinema need to be pitched at the expense of TV? I could point to comments about size, scale, incremental reach or effectiveness as examples. Just to take a couple;

• They discuss the size and skew of the cinema audience – especially ‘the alternatives’ – as offering incremental reach opportunities, and yet even if one had advertised in every single movie shown across a week, the overall reach would be only 9% according to TouchPoints, and less than that if we only take the ‘alternatives’, against whom that comment was made. I would argue the same incremental reach levels could be achieved with marginally better TV targeting or use of TV on demand. This scale issue for cinema – it is too small to reach significant numbers of consumers in a reasonable time frame – doesn’t even get a mention.

• The points about receptiveness to advertising are also somewhat unfair. Just because 75% of those who expressed an opinion say they tend to arrive before the trailers, that means cinema ‘is the only single task medium remaining‘ (not judging from my recent experiences at my local picture house – use of mobiles, chatting away to friends and sorting through the kiosk purchases all seem to happen during the ads to an annoying level!) whilst the fact that 34% (i.e. a minority) claim to visit the cinema to treat or reward themselves makes it ‘the ultimate appointment to view and the nearest an advertiser can get to guaranteeing complete attention‘ whereas the fact TV completely outperforms cinema in terms of offering relaxation/escapism (surely the most relevant attribute relating to being “the entertainment medium most conducive to switching off entirely from the always-on world“) is completely glossed over.

• The comment that particularly irks is the one that states “Research case studies by cinema sales houses have demonstrated that cinema advertising leads to recall that is more detailed, more spontaneous, lasts longer and creates higher brand favourability than the same advertising on TV… some have argued that the unique features of cinema advertising actually make it twice as cost-effective as TV“. Oh really? There are so many arguments against that assertion – especially coming from a respected, objective research agency – that it is difficult to know where to start!

At Thinkbox, we don’t compare media in this way; we believe media work best together rather than in competition or set as silos. We have always spoken highly of cinema (as indeed we do of all media) and don’t believe the ‘our media is better than your media’ approach is relevant in today’s market.

So why does Ipsos believe it is relevant and appropriate to compare and contrast cinema and TV in this way (I would love to know how many cinema campaigns have worked well without television!) and why make such unfounded and inevitably skewed comparisons in order to make a point?

Rant over – but please don’t make meaningless comparisons against TV just for the sake of it.”