CBS and Entertainment Weekly made a big splash this week, when they announced the placement of a video ad within a print publication. Both entities are banking on the viral buzz this initiative will generate, but there are few hard questions that they need to answer:
Why would these companies foot the bill for high print costs to make a special page that can physically hold a small piece of technology in order to play a video ad that helps further prove that interactive media is more compelling than legacy print? It seems ironic that a ton of money is going into the production and delivery of a print medium that seems to be serving as a testament to the victory of digital media over legacy print.
How will engagement and conversion be measured? Unless these little video screens are linked to the internet, it’s going to be impossible to measure engagement, video views, requests for more info, etc…
I’d label this initiative ‘useless cool’. It’s a cool thing to see when you are a reader, but the interest will only last for a few seconds. Then it’s gone and the money is spent. There’s no concrete measurement of ROI so it seems it more or less useless.
Oh and by the way, I’m pretty sure that the “green” contingent isn’t going to be too happy about this. After all, what recycling bin do you use for a magazine that has a mini-TV in it?
No related posts.
