Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Media v. channels





Geeky subject alert!

I used to be a media planner when I was fresh out of university. I worked out whether people would be more likely to buy the shit we were peddling if we annoyed them on TV, in a magazine, or on the radio - or littering the roadside with big pictures of our stuff.

When I was at DraftFCB I found that they employed channel planners.

Oh, thought I, wonder how that differs?

I was told that channels were things like email, the internet, 'digital channels' that you could make your own rather than advertise on.

But people do advertise on the internet. So does that make it a medium?

And if direct mail is a medium, how come you don't advertise on it - thus making it a channel?

I was also told that digital was 'just another channel', which is now clearly bullshit as it encompasses so many things (digital outdoor media, iPhones, email, SMS, etc.).

And Channel 4 is also, in many ways, a medium - especially if you're an advertiser.
So many people I know now call them 'media channels'. Which I hate. It's imprecise and lazy.
AND now even the 'Media Channel' (see above) just about exists as an industry ranting forum.

I don't have a definitive answer yet, so any thoughts would be welcome.

No comments: