I chanced upon what I thought was a rather strange usage when I saw the words 'digital commercial' in one of the Indian advertising trade magazines on the internet today. Did they mean an ad on YouTube I silently thought, as I read on only to discover that I was right. 
Saying Youtube ads generate a better return on investment most of the time, earlier this year Google once again targeted TV advertising budgets by saying YouTube ads generate a better return on investment than TV commercials most of the time.
Google conducted a meta-analysis of 56 case studies from brands within six different types of industries, across eight countries in Europe between 2013 and 2016, as well as its own research.
Google concluded, in the European study published in April 2016 to coincide with Advertising Week London, that at current spend levels, "YouTube delivers a higher return on investment than TV in 77% of studies." It is difficult to judge that statement as a superb way of selling Youtube and unselling TV, or if it is actual truth.
The other view is that the challenges for YouTube to attract greater investment are typically skippability and scalability. YouTube's skippable ad model has an obvious impact on how much advertising is actually seen.
The counter argument seems to be that if brands increased their spend on YouTube, they would see their ROI fall, given YouTube's challenges as a medium. The assumption here is that the majority of YouTube viewing is by a relatively small group of heavy users (80% of viewing is by 20% of viewers). Also the fact that a majority of YouTube viewing is a long tail of user-generated content.
But unfortunately TV Channels as an industry don't seem to be coming together as a group to take the Youtube challenge in any organised way, leaving Google to make random attacks on them as a a medium.
In the meantime, the creative ad agencies are having a field day. They have converted their skills of creating the 30 second spot to making 5 minute videos for YouTube. For agencies it has been a breath of fresh air. The 30 second spot since time immemorial has been a stick in the mud for advertising agencies, severely limiting both their creativity and their enthusiasm.
Saying Youtube ads generate a better return on investment most of the time, earlier this year Google once again targeted TV advertising budgets by saying YouTube ads generate a better return on investment than TV commercials most of the time.
Google conducted a meta-analysis of 56 case studies from brands within six different types of industries, across eight countries in Europe between 2013 and 2016, as well as its own research.
Google concluded, in the European study published in April 2016 to coincide with Advertising Week London, that at current spend levels, "YouTube delivers a higher return on investment than TV in 77% of studies." It is difficult to judge that statement as a superb way of selling Youtube and unselling TV, or if it is actual truth.
The other view is that the challenges for YouTube to attract greater investment are typically skippability and scalability. YouTube's skippable ad model has an obvious impact on how much advertising is actually seen.
The counter argument seems to be that if brands increased their spend on YouTube, they would see their ROI fall, given YouTube's challenges as a medium. The assumption here is that the majority of YouTube viewing is by a relatively small group of heavy users (80% of viewing is by 20% of viewers). Also the fact that a majority of YouTube viewing is a long tail of user-generated content.
But unfortunately TV Channels as an industry don't seem to be coming together as a group to take the Youtube challenge in any organised way, leaving Google to make random attacks on them as a a medium.
In the meantime, the creative ad agencies are having a field day. They have converted their skills of creating the 30 second spot to making 5 minute videos for YouTube. For agencies it has been a breath of fresh air. The 30 second spot since time immemorial has been a stick in the mud for advertising agencies, severely limiting both their creativity and their enthusiasm.