A Look into Cross-Platform Advertising - Rhys Wallett
Plan
- An example of the usefulness of cross-platform advertising
- Analyse it's effective and its potential cons (e.g: costs more to promote)
The definition of Cross-Platform advertising could be defined as a form of advertisement, usually for a product or organisation, which has been shown on a number of visual, audio and/or physical products. It is generally considered by companies to be an advantageous form of advertisement as said ad could be available to a mass audience, for example, youth audiences could view online ads on social media (e.g.: Instagram) and elderly audiences could see the same ad in a newspaper.
To identify how useful cross-platform advertising is by having a primary purpose to reach a larger mass audience, we can use Danone's 'Light and Free' Lemon Greek-style yoghurt advertisement. We can use this as it has been found on the Spotify website, a hub for music and audible entertainment which is used by mainstream audiences. In addition, it can also be found on the radio, particularly Radio X. This is useful for Danone as advertising on Spotify will allow said ad to reach a typically younger audience due to Spotify's primary audience being a younger audience, while adverting on the radio will allow a more grown-up audience to hear the ad, as they are stereotypically more expected to listen to the radio rather than Spotify. This results in more audiences knowing about the new product, thus a higher audience to purchase the product, resulting in more profit for Danone.
In contrast, Danone could also backfire from using this cross-platform advertising as this means Danone has had to pay more money for their ad to be on 2+ platforms, therefore, more investment equals less profit obtained from the ad in theory. and if we were to consider the advert's as unsuccessful in the premise that they attract either no or less than the desired amount of new customers, then this can result in the experiment becoming a failure.
However, if we were to use a secondary example, we could find different pros and cons of the ad. Another example would be for the Government's "THINK!" advertisement, accessible on Television, Transport and Radio. On TV, the ad shows a man about to go into cardiac arrest telling the audience how he was thinking of "going out for a pint with the lads" or going home to his family before he collided with a vehicle on the road. The Transport ad, which can be found on the insides of some trains shows a long shot of the victim, with the logo "THINK!" shown in yellow, decorative font, while the Radio advert is the audio of the TV ad. I feel that this is effective as the makers of the ad are a non-profit organisation, therefore the lack of income from this ad is irrelevant. Moreover, it has achieved its primary task of alerting and informing a mass audience of the issue of bikers watching out for cars while on the road which has been assisted by the cross-platform advertising as the TV ad would generally target stay at home audiences, who would watch this regularly, while the transport ad would be useful as it would appeal to a working audience, typically for those on the commute to work and the radio advert would apply to drivers in cars, FM listeners and generally a more aged audience, therefore the triple threat of using 3 different types of ad has been very effective in this scenario as it has been able to express its desired ideology to 3 very different audiences.
Overall, I believe that Cross-Platform advertising can be an extremely effective way of selling your product/ideal to help reach a wider audience, but you must be vaguely wary when selling a product and the ad is not for a non-profit organisation as there is a chance your investment will outweigh your profit.
In contrast, Danone could also backfire from using this cross-platform advertising as this means Danone has had to pay more money for their ad to be on 2+ platforms, therefore, more investment equals less profit obtained from the ad in theory. and if we were to consider the advert's as unsuccessful in the premise that they attract either no or less than the desired amount of new customers, then this can result in the experiment becoming a failure.
However, if we were to use a secondary example, we could find different pros and cons of the ad. Another example would be for the Government's "THINK!" advertisement, accessible on Television, Transport and Radio. On TV, the ad shows a man about to go into cardiac arrest telling the audience how he was thinking of "going out for a pint with the lads" or going home to his family before he collided with a vehicle on the road. The Transport ad, which can be found on the insides of some trains shows a long shot of the victim, with the logo "THINK!" shown in yellow, decorative font, while the Radio advert is the audio of the TV ad. I feel that this is effective as the makers of the ad are a non-profit organisation, therefore the lack of income from this ad is irrelevant. Moreover, it has achieved its primary task of alerting and informing a mass audience of the issue of bikers watching out for cars while on the road which has been assisted by the cross-platform advertising as the TV ad would generally target stay at home audiences, who would watch this regularly, while the transport ad would be useful as it would appeal to a working audience, typically for those on the commute to work and the radio advert would apply to drivers in cars, FM listeners and generally a more aged audience, therefore the triple threat of using 3 different types of ad has been very effective in this scenario as it has been able to express its desired ideology to 3 very different audiences.
Overall, I believe that Cross-Platform advertising can be an extremely effective way of selling your product/ideal to help reach a wider audience, but you must be vaguely wary when selling a product and the ad is not for a non-profit organisation as there is a chance your investment will outweigh your profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment