<rss version="2.0"
					xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
					xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
					xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/"
					xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
				  >
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><title><![CDATA[Comments on: It's Time to Kill the Day-Part in TV Advertising]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<ttl>120</ttl>
<description><![CDATA[Today, people consume almost all of their media -- even TV -- where, when and how they want.]]></description>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Bill Crandall]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments-107411</link>
<description><![CDATA[Excellent article by Dave Morgan! 

While I believe consumers still consume all traditional, new, and emerging media by dayparts, they now clearly do it on their own terms. Where, when and how is the real question. And even then with an answer to that, which medium is/was the driving purchase decision factor given a meaningful, relevant, integrated, and TIMELY selling message? A rare commodity these days.

I am totally convinced that future media and brand success is all about the development and dissemination of superior programming and branded content across all platforms!!! Without that (which we used to call &quot;creative&quot;), it doesn&#039;t really matter now which &quot;box&quot; you broadcast from, i.e. TV, radio, print, OOH, PC, Mac, iPod, iPad, QR codes, website links, blogs, et al. Because the consumer gets it all! 

With that, and for better or worse, it&#039;s all the same thing at the end of today. Have brand sales, market share, and profits gone up? All other metrics for ROI, such as TV ratings; recall &amp; persuasion scores; hits; clicks; conversions; whatever, are very helpful tools for guidance. But they&#039;re no substitute for P&amp;L and balance sheet contributions - which seems to be a big reason why so many CMOs get fired so quickly.

Then again, I remember an old saying on a bronze plaque in my EVP&#039;s office many years ago ... &quot;It&#039;s hard to remember that you came to drain the swamp, when you&#039;re up to your ass in alligators.&quot; BC]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:21 EST</pubDate>
<author>Bill Crandall</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Arry Tanusondjaja]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments-107356</link>
<description><![CDATA[Hmmm -- although I agree that the concept may slowly become irrelevant due to viewer&#039;s access to delayed viewing, you still can&#039;t deny that the bulk of television viewing is still around primetime. The argument that if you want to target &quot;younger, upscale married households with school-aged children&quot;, you should focus on cable nets late-night is also a tad flawed. Yes, this segment may constitute a bigger slice of viewership of certain cable nets on % basis. However, when you see the absolute figures (i.e. how many people actually watch or tune in to those cable nets late at night), it&#039;s probably much more sensible to still stick to primetime scheduling for reach and CPM. Besides, these so-called targeted cables with specific segments usually use this reason to charge premiums as well.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:21 EST</pubDate>
<author>Arry Tanusondjaja</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: emily richardson]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments-107352</link>
<description><![CDATA[Hrm. Agree and disagree to some extent. Agree that relying solely on daypart to target will not work anymore. Seems to me a combination of daypart targeting and network/show level targeting would cast the most efficient net. As Dave already pointed out, there is still data telling us what our demos are doing - we just have to recognize when they&#039;re breaking their previous molds. So in the end agree with your word &quot;de-emphasize&quot; but wouldn&#039;t eliminate it completely.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:57 EST</pubDate>
<author>emily richardson</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Eric Picard]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments-107344</link>
<description><![CDATA[Great article, Dave! Day-part should be reserved for targeting offers/products with messages tied to TOD. e.g. Late Night hunger for QSR. Or just-in-time kinds of ads. At that point, Day-Part becomes a great mechanism for targeting. But you&#039;re right that the historical way of using it is obsolete.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:15 EST</pubDate>
<author>Eric Picard</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Robert Paltos]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/time-kill-day-part-tv-advertising/239045/#comments-107341</link>
<description><![CDATA[Dave makes for solid reasoning and rationale. The concept of &#039;clock&#039; is upended by the very fact our personal behaviour and business venues are 24/7...and at one&#039;s choice and call...if not demand. I would also point to very recent developments with Ron Howard and his LA-based colleagues...an interesting twist where even Hollywood sees Morgan&#039;s rationale in practical light. Some heavy changes in our video habits that will prompt and incentivize advertisers to look and use Video in a very different light than &quot;historical&quot; perspectives. Dave makes for a good pitch here!]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:43 EST</pubDate>
<author>Robert Paltos</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>