I've never understood this. But then, I tend to look at advertising creative differently to most. There's an argument that says the production budget of an ad (and let's talk TV here) is proportionate to the size of the media spend. On the surface that sounds reasonable. But let's think about it.
If the media spend is two million dollars the production budget has every right to be 10-15% - $200,000 - $300,000. And if the media spend is $100,000 the production budget should be the same %, about $10,000 - $15,000. So the more or less you spend on media decides the more or less you have to create the persuasive message. The one thing that can transform a business.
Does this seem ludicrous to anyone else? What on earth do the two budgets have in common? Aren't the real questions: "How much money do we need to connect with the target consumer/demographic?" AND "How much money do we need to create the best possible, most persuasive idea we can?". I fully understand company's have budget constraints, but let's make that the decider on the production budget rather how much is being spent in media.
Look at it another way: A 30 sec spot on the Superbowl costs $1m+ - does that mean you have to spend $100,000 on production.
No it means you have to spend whatever it takes to connect with the millions watching the event. And you know what, that could be just $40,000, or $10,000 or another $1million.
I've presented creative ideas (both in digital and traditional) and when the client asks the production estimate responds with "But that's almost as much as the media spend!" And even though they loved the idea and thought it would effectively do the job required, have canned it and asked for something less breakthrough/involving/standout. No kidding, I've heard that.
This is not an argument for big production budgets. It's an argument for giving your communication company a realistic production budget, irregardless of what your media budget is.
As we say: Create talk. Generate Commerce.©
No comments:
Post a Comment