It’s well known Donald Trump didn’t have to spend nearly as much as his Democratic Party counterpart, Hillary Clinton, on television advertising during the presidential campaign season.
And that’s partly due to Trump’s ability to draw free TV coverage, based on his day-to-day statements that usually put his competitors in defense mode, and partly due to his talents at getting his messages out on Twitter.
In the aftermath of the election, though, it’s worth wondering: Does Trump’s election mean TV advertisement is on its dying legs?
Maybe. Its influence was certainly not as powerful this election cycle as in past seasons.
But television people aren’t going to admit that.
“One ad measurement exec says TV is still relevant – it’s just becoming a part of a new, multi-layered execution environment,” the Huffington Post reported.
You know executives are in trouble when their intent is masked and dressed in fancy language – the type that’s shrouded in business bureaucracy, like “multi-layered execution environment.” Why not just say “we have to adapt to the modern times?”
That’s what that phrase really means.
As Bill Livek, president of comScore, said in the Huffington Post: “One of the two candidates, the one that prevailed here in the election, used a lot of these [new] disciplines. That candidate spent a lot less, but he was very selective in what he did.”
That’s a “duh” moment if there ever was one.
But Livek went on, the Huffington Post reported: “I think there’s a lot of lessons to be learned that the combination of what we have digitally, socially and with television now is working together in this ecosystem.”
Another “duh” moment. Let’s just put it plainly: Trump won because he didn’t play mainstream TV’s game, and his win only underscores what most Americans already know – the left-leaning media dynasty’s days are coming to an end.
Source: the Huffington Post