Since the 1990s, technology has dominated and changed the advertising industry, including its relationship with the media. Rapid new technological advances have transformed the conventional media landscape. The internet and social media have altered the way advertising is thought about, produced, disseminated, and consumed. Media purchasing habits, advertisement functions and forms, and advertising behavior have all evolved dramatically. This paper examines how advertising has evolved in the new (post-1996) media climate.
alterations in the ads industry
The evolution of advertising is influenced by technological and media change. Advertising relies on the media to tell its story. As such, the way modern people perceive and consume the media dictates how advertising is done. As Deuze (2016) says, the key to understand the contemporary media and its impacts on advertising is to consider the lives of people as lived in the media. Virtually every aspect of today’s life is dictated by how people interact with different media. In actual sense, media has become central in the way people understand their world and their role in it (Deuze, 2016). In contemporary times, there is a supersaturation of media messages in almost all spaces of day-to-day lives.
As the modern media environment continue to rapidly change, advertisers incorporate the dynamic forms of interactive media in their campaigns. Even with the traditional advertising channels like the newspapers and television, advertising agencies have to use multi-channels to put up with the consolidation of the media industry (Wagler, 2013). At the same time there is a hybridization of the art and creative industry. Consequently, there is an explosion of hybrid advertising formats which utilize both online and offline media. It would be hard to find advertising agencies using just one channel to advertise. The new media has demanded that they have to combine multiple channels to achieve their target.
The consumer dimension, which is related to modern media, has also changed the way advertising is created and disseminated. The modern consumer is empowered and knowledgeable. The consumers live in a personal information economy. This calls for advertising practitioners to “present their activities not as privacy invasion but as two-way customer relationships, not as commercial intrusion but as a pinpoint selling help for frenetic consumers in a troubling world” (Turow, 2005, p. 120). In addition, new media has transformed the traditional audience to a receiver (Dahlen & Rosengren, 2016). The consumer has more power – like remote control, internet and social media – which makes him decide whether he wants to be a passive audience or to receive advertising. At the same time, the consumer has control in whether they want to seek for and partake advertising. In that light, advertises who rely on consumers to seek out advertisements, like on YouTube, have to target consumer behaviours that will attract them to adverts. From this dynamic, consumers have become co-creators of adverts through the myriad channels of feedback allowed by the advertisers and the media they use.
The modern media is chaotic, hyper-fragmented and involves both the public and private domains (Deuze, 2016). Today’s online environment involves “cutting, zipping, remixing, redacting, uploading (and downloading), sharing, rating, recommending, commenting, and so on”, (Denze, 2016, p. 327), activities that people are involved in on a daily basis. As such, effective advertising demands that it is done to become part of people’s lives, focusing on relationships, using emotions based on people’s needs. Internet advertising has become the new trend in the advertising industry. According to Dahlen and Rosengren (2016), 33 percent of global advertising spending is attributed to the internet. Internet advertising takes the formats of banner ads in websites, affiliate searches, videos and the social media among others. Most of advertising takes place in the social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Snapchat, Instagram and Reddit, among others.
Television advertising amplify social media conversations about the advertised brands. Spotts, Purvis and Patnaic (2014) investigated the relationship of television brand advertising and how it related with social media interaction during the National Football League Super Bowl championships between 2011and 2012. They established that there is a reciprocal relationship between television advertising and online social-media conversations.
The new media has brought and continue to bring overhauling changes in the advertising field. According to Schultz (2016), advertising has previously thought to be creation and distribution of persuasive messages by brand marketers through the social media. However, that has changed and advertising now involves many players who are constantly evolving and adapting. As a result, advertising is being reinvented constantly. As has been predicted, those who will make in the advertising are those who will use the opportunities provided by the new media to pass their message across.
Dahlen, M., & Rosengren, S. (2016). If Advertising Won’t Die, What Will It Be? Toward a Working Definition of Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 334-345. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1172387
Deuze, M. (2016). Living in Media and the Future of Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 326-333. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1185983
Schultz, D. (2016). The Future of Advertising or Whatever We’re Going to Call It. Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 276-285. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1185061
Spotts, H. E., Purvis, S. C., & Patnaik, S. (2014). How Digital Conversations Reinforce Super Bowl Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(4), 454-468. doi:10.2501/JAR-54-4-454-468
Turow, J. (2005), Audience Construction and Culture Production, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 597, 103–21.
Wagler, A. (2013). Embracing Change: Exploring How Creative Professionals Use Interactive Media in Advertising Campaigns. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 118-127. doi:10.1080/15252019.2013.833001