The vexed question of the disparity in price commanded for creating content for TV ads and that of producing Internet video is ever present for those of us trying to forge the way in high quality online production.
Why is it that the big corporates are willing to pay hundreds of thousands for TV and next to nothing for online?
I just don’t get it.
Website video is far more exposed to more viewers on demand with a much longer life span than a TV advert, which once the campaign is over and the ad disappears from the media slots it’s been booked for, is relegated to a You Tube listing.
Yet the effort and quality control involved in making the two types of video is not dissimilar.
Is it just familiarity with the ad landscape that keeps marketing teams heading for the same channel and paying the same prices, plus a belief deep down, despite the metrics that prove the opposite, that Internet video is somehow a nice-to-have to mop up the tail end of the budget while the muscular work of marketing is really being done by adverts on TV channels?