[jgv]

Beyond the dinosaurs being the big spenders on TV, there's no way digital advertising as we know it today will replace TV advertising. Creatively, you really can't even compare the two. A TV spot is the opportunity to make someone laugh or make someone feel something – anything. A banner ad or a spot with a "skip now" button is not going to do that. You really can't tell a story (as cliche as that sounds, its true). Digital advertising has less creative opportunity for the people making it and basically no reason for anyone seeing it to care.

This is why Snapchat and Facebook starting to really figure out video is so huge in adland. As attentions shift there and it starts to house real content, advertisers will have an actual digital channel to create content people might actually care about.

[dswalter]

I would posit that Snapchat and Facebook are working so hard on videos because video ads have a much higher payout in the current ecosystem. I don't know that it's necessarily because of efficacy.

[softawre]

But... why would they have a big payout? Is it because... they are effective?

[jgv]

The higher payouts for video exist because those units are more effective.

[kalleboo]

> there's no way digital advertising as we know it today will replace TV advertising

As people adopt DVRs and quality show producers move on to online platforms like Netflix and Amazon (as they entice them with full creative control and no ad interruptions), won't the only thing remaning that resembles TV advertising be during live broadcasts (sports, maybe news)

[michaelbuckbee]

It's also possible to do "native" and go the other way (even longer form). Consider something like Colin Furze's YouTube Channel.

He gets paid for doing things like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OyoWAZEcIE - which is both interesting and a 6 and a half minute long commercial for a video game.