Module 9 - TV versus YouTube

Why is YouTube better value than TV?

TV is a genuinely expensive, complicated medium to buy into, while YouTube's ad space is effectively unlimited, which keeps its cost dramatically lower.

One of the reasons for getting so excited about setting up s.media was the ability to bring video and the storytelling ability of YouTube to everyone, on laptops and everywhere else, compared with TV. TV has a place, that's not in question, but there are a few things worth thinking through. TV is expensive and complicated: you have to go through a media buyer or the TV station itself to book space, and buying a slot around a national soap opera or programme means talking tens of thousands of pounds, unless you land an unusually good deal, which is rare. In the UK there's typically a three minute commercial break, three times an hour, and because that real estate is limited, the price for it is a premium price.

YouTube, by contrast, has endless space for ads, because there's so much content being posted, something like five or six hundred hours every minute, so the cost of that space is incredibly low.

How does targeting compare between TV and YouTube?

YouTube's targeting is far superior to TV's, because it's owned by Google and lets you build an audience with real precision, where TV is still buying a national or regional audience in a fairly broad sense.

With TV you're effectively buying a national or regional audience. Media buying around programming can be clever, but it doesn't have the ability to be as targeted as YouTube. When this business started out, it felt like the best of both worlds: entertaining, story-driven, as long as you want it to be, but properly targeted. Tools like Sky AdSmart exist, but in this view they simply don't touch the sides compared to YouTube's targeting. To get anything meaningful out of TV, a couple of hundred thousand pounds is often the realistic minimum, whereas a tenth of that on YouTube can do phenomenally well over a few months, which for a lot of businesses makes it a better route to market with better returns against spend.

What about attention: are people actually watching?

YouTube tends to have a more captive audience than TV, where ad breaks are a natural moment to get up and do something else.

Watching a programme, the commercial break comes on, and it's common to get up, put the kettle on, and come back with a brew having missed the ads entirely. That's not universal, plenty of people don't do this, but plenty do. On YouTube, sitting at a computer looking for something, a music video, a plug for something, whatever it is, means being more of a captive audience. If something relevant comes up, there's a real chance of watching it, and clicking through if it's not relevant, the option to skip is right there, so it's a better medium for getting a video message in front of people who are already paying attention.

What does it cost to tell a longer story on each platform?

Telling a longer story on TV means buying an entire three minute commercial break at enormous cost, while on YouTube you can run as long as you want after the first 29 seconds for a fraction of that.

Buying a three minute slot on national TV requires seriously deep pockets, because you're taking an entire commercial break, and that's exactly the point in the programme when people get up and make a cup of tea. On YouTube, after that first 29 seconds, or "TrueView" moment, you can run for as long as you want for a cost measured in pence, which is a real advantage for telling a story properly.

How does production cost and speed compare?

YouTube advertising tends to cost far less to produce and can be turned around far faster than TV, which is a real barrier removed for a lot of businesses.

Because TV is trying to interrupt someone and fight for attention, it leans towards heightened, magnified storytelling, think of the classic UK ad campaigns built around a family dinner table, and that tends to mean high creative costs, because you need a genuinely good agency to make it land. Production values also tend to be higher on TV, because you're competing head to head with everything else in the break, ranging from a few thousand pounds to, in one case mentioned here, £250,000 spent on production, and it shows. YouTube is a place where people are actively leaning in to find something out, which makes it feel more authentic, so it doesn't have to be as highly produced, though it can be if the budget and brand call for it, big clients can absolutely repurpose their TV or cinema ads for it. For most brands and businesses, content can be made at a much lower cost and still be decent quality, because the audience is more forgiving, they want a real experience rather than a polished performance. Turnaround is faster too, TV can take months, a YouTube video can be done in a morning if it's planned carefully. There's a speed to market benefit, a cost benefit, a timing benefit, a bigger targeting opportunity, and a better return on investment.

What can you actually learn about your audience from each?

Everything on YouTube is fully trackable, so you know exactly what actions people take, when and how, which teaches a business far more about its customers than TV typically can.

With TV, you often can't tell whether someone saw the ad, liked it, or took any action at all, someone getting up for another cup of tea might have missed it entirely, or might not have. There's a place for TV, but YouTube is the biggest opportunity to get in front of clients and tell stories, and get returns, in a way that hasn't really been possible before, and that's without even comparing it to the many other marketing channels that could be talked about for hours. At this point in time, YouTube beats TV hands down, and viewing habits are shifting further in that direction, with more people apparently watching YouTube on connected TVs than watching Netflix in the United States. The opportunity is only growing.