In this month’s digital discussion, we ask: “Is it fair to say that broadcast isn’t the best way for corporate communicators to clearly transmit key messages?”

Niall O’Malley is a director at communications agency immediate future. He’ll be arguing that, when it comes to clarity of message, broadcast isn’t best. Taking the opposing view is Peter Roberts, senior associate director at Hill & Knowlton.

Dear Peter,

Broadcast has been a receding power since the rise of social media. I don’t think there are many corporate communications teams which are not using the principles of two-way dialogue as the cornerstone for their strategies. Sure, there will be a case when a simple message has to be got out there fast, but even these occasions are becoming rarer. The recent ash cloud crisis was a great example of this shift. As is protocol, there were TV and radio appearances by company spokespeople, but the brands which survived with more credibility were those which were in a two-way conversation with the public through their corporate Twitter profiles and other social media estates.

There is an argument that there is no quicker way to reach a large audience than through broadcast, but I would say that reaching an audience isn’t enough for brands anymore. The goal is now engagement and changing behaviours. It could be that the notion of what broadcast actually is has to change before it can regain its once unrivalled perch in the marketing mix. There are signs of the medium evolving, with the recent TV UK election debates adopting more of a crowd-sourcing feel with the ‘sentiment worms’, but there will have to be a wholesale revolution if it is going to halt its decline.

Over to you, Niall

Dear Niall,

Good opener, but I’m afraid I’m not having it. Broadcast – a receding power? A fraction short of 10 million viewers for an election debate, 20 million for X Factor and nearly 10 million for Doctor Who – I rest my case.

You raise an interesting point with regards to the onset of the conversation, but are you seriously telling me that Twitter and other social media platforms are doing anything different to what television has been doing for years and radio for even longer? A staple ingredient of regional radio for instance – the radio phonein – has been engendering two-way conversation and bringing people together for decades.

As for engagement and changing behaviour – yes, it’s imperative this happens, and it happens with more clout by way of broadcasting platforms than any other – the increase in individual and corporate donation, together with the public interest in the developing world following 20 years of reportage by the national broadcasters, and the increased understanding and engagement in the global warming debate being just two examples.

However, I feel I need to bring it back to more of a parochial level, and return to the point in question – the efficacy of broadcast to clearly transmit key messages. Fundamentally, any discerning communications professional knows that an effective message is a concise message. Far too often, key corporate messages are lost in an interminable screed, which is symptomatic of the time and space afforded to the ‘new conversation’. Broadcasting is lean, which in turn makes it for the optimum platform for saying what we need to and delivering maximum impact with it.

Yours, Peter

“Reaching an audience isn’t enough for brands anymore. The goal is now engagement and changing behaviours”

Dear Peter,

Ah, I think that is the key point. The reach of broadcast is undeniable. No other medium can compete with the reach. But is that why brands now engage in marketing? I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve sat in planning meeting where both clients and competing agencies from media buyers, digital advertisers and PR firms have all gravitated towards a single question – so what? How is this brilliant idea going to have a business impact? How is this going to impact sales?

That is where the difference between social media and broadcast is so stark. I think the radio phonein is a great example of why the potential of social media is so much greater – imagine the galvanising radio phone-in multiplied into thousands of public conversations. As such, the ways in which people react and form opinions in social media are transparent and much more measurable than traditional broadcast.

It is actually consumers who are driving the change, it may be that the numbers for flagship programmes like Dr Who are massive but the overall numbers are declining. That Dr Who season finale which drew in nearly 10m viewers is nothing when you consider how people used to gather for appointment viewing. In 1986, 30.15 million people watched Angie divorce Dirty Den on EastEnders. It’s been almost a decade since we have seen any TV serialised drama break 20 million viewers. The macro-trend is acknowledged by many pundits – that broadcast is on a slippery slope. Of course it will plateau out, but not for many years.

To your point about conveying a concise message, I agree that many brands have become confused while taking their first steps into new media but the marketers are learning quickly. Sony is a great example of brand which has stayed focus on delivering real benefit to the business as opposed to ‘screeding’ as you talked about. Recently, it revealed that its simple use of an online voucher code on Twitter generated over £1 million in sales for its VAIO. I think that in today’s world, where consumers are sceptical about being sold a ‘message’ in a monologue, brands which talk about what they will do are not going to do as well as those who get on and do it.

Yours, Niall

Dear Niall,

You present a set of well constructed arguments which has much merit. It would be disingenuous of me to claim that I don’t recognise the impact of social media in the current marketing mix – I do, wholeheartedly.

However, broadcast’s continued position as the place to deliver high impact, memorable messaging to all audiences remains undiminished.

Why so? Due principally to the fact that it still matters, hugely. Yes, it matters because it’s followed – as you say its reach is undeniable – but as crucial is its ‘barrier to entry’.

Social media’s overriding attraction lies in its accessibility – though laudable that is – it leads, as you say, to “thousands of public conversations”; conversations which, on the whole, tend not to matter greatly as we’re all potential participants.

Broadcast, on the other hand, patrician as it may sound, involves those who we’ve bestowed the offices of power, authority and seniority, together with those who have achieved expert credentials. Subsequently, we engage with its outlets. We place greater credence and value in its output, which in turn leads to greater memorability.

Amid the thousands of conversations, moments stand out; broadcast moments – Richard Branson’s attendance at the Cumbria rail crash, Luke Johnson’s Today interview and the BA chief who fled from the cameras at Terminal 5. Some mishandled, others a triumph, but all memorable.

Yours, Peter

“Are you seriously telling me that Twitter and other social media platforms are doing anything different to what television has been doing for years and radio for even longer?”

Dear Peter,

Actually Peter, I think we are converging towards something. For me the principle which underpins the original question is ‘what is the nature of influence?’ Ultimately, both channels social media and broadcast are good for different things. Broadcast for short, simple messages and social media for more complicated ideas. However, in marketing circles the debate is moving on from what blend of these channels we should use towards how we can make these channels compliment and amplify each other.

That’s why the ‘comparethemeerkat’ campaign is always cited; it does what most marketing strategies always aim for but rarely ascends to – a point of resonance. In a way, that is why I think that the premise that broadcast is the best way to convey a key message is non-starter – there is no such thing as a ‘best way’, either for broadcast or social media. Smart strategies don’t make any assumptions on which channels they should use, they work backwards from the changes they are trying to make to purchasing behaviours.

So what has changed? Social media has opened up an opportunity to the consideration period which brands have never had the privilege of effecting. Like air rushing into a vacuum, it is no surprise that the agenda has switched firmly towards social media. Based on this overriding momentum, I would argue that this switch will continue to deflate the importance of broadcast for at least a decade.

Yours, Niall

Dear Niall,

Without wanting to appear too cosy, I agree with the idea that maximum impact is probably achieved by way of a complementary relationship between both platforms. However, I do believe you sound the broadcasting death knell too soon. Broadcasting’s future is a bright one due to a number of persuasive reasons. One, its continued intoxicating effect on executive management teams – the ultimate paymasters; two, it’s ability to remain highly attractive in the recruitment of young talent – in all aspects; three, its break from linear scheduling and four, the medium’s capacity to adapt and reconfigure all that’s good elsewhere, including social media.

The future of broadcasting is primarily about one thing, convergence – the coming together of different platforms in the one place.

Those behind the broadcasting levers of power have recognised this inevitable stage of evolution for quite some time and their collective strategies and influence will ensure that broadcasting as we know it will continue to be the single most prominent channel to communicate our views and messages for some time to come.

Thanks. Good fun.

Best, Peter