The ratings are in and almost 23 million Americans tuned in to watch the Royal Wedding, across 11 networks from 6:00-7:15 AM EST. By comparison, last February’s Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers, Obama’s inauguration brought in about 38 million, and “American Idol” is averaging nearly 25 million fanatics this season, but those are all in primetime.
What we’re asking ourselves is should the Royal Wedding be considered a ratings bonanza or not-so-much? We’ll know more when the network and demo breakouts emerge, and when/if we can see some sales figures from the networks. But to put the Royal Wedding in baseball terms, just for the TV world, we’ll call it a double, not a homerun by any means. While 23 million people is a huge number, especially for such an early telecast, it was also on 11 networks and had more pre-promotion than any recent TV event we can remember, except maybe the Olympics. And then consider the costs incurred, by each network, for all the coverage. Was there much ROI or was it a case of the return being all about sitting in the stands with everyone else and not being left out?
If we consider all the extra coverage and exposure of the wedding from other TV specials (i.e., Oprah, “20/20,” etc.) and then add radio, print, online and general world of mouth, the Royal Wedding was clearly a marketer’s dream and a massive media and worldwide event. But again, this was a shared story across multiple mediums. It wasn’t about selling products or driving people to one network, website, radio station or retail chain. The Royal Wedding wasn’t exclusive to any network – it became bandwagon jumping to the extreme and that’s a key issue. When everyone participates, how does a brand stand out amongst the sea of coverage?
When we work with our media clients, especially in cases like this with shared stories/content, a critical word emerges: Treatment. Which media outlet offers the best, most compelling and original treatment of shared stories/content? That’s what matters in the long run. The outlets and talent that truly capture the moment in an original and compelling way will thrive. Those that are further down the ratings mountain are generally just offering predictable and generic content treatment.
We’re not here to rain on any parades or question the judgment of media outlets who participated in covering the Royal Wedding, our goal with this post is to look at it from a 30,000 foot view, analyze it, and ask a few questions: was the effort worth it; which brand offered the best programming (i.e., “treatment”) for the audience, and does anyone stand to gain or lose from participating?
Let me put this in a different perceptive. When we deal with radio talent, we love to use “American Idol” as an example. Most radio talent will talk about the show because it’s #1, and ignoring it is also ignoring something much of the audience has in common. “American Idol” represents a tremendous content opportunity, whether a radio program celebrates or mocks the show. However, most radio shows sound the same with their “American Idol” coverage – using the same clips, offering the same surface-level observations, etc. But it’s no surprise that the radio shows with multi-share ratings leads are doing something different and more interesting with their coverage … it’s not the same ole, same ole you can find up and down the dial.
I’d love to tell you which TV network had the best treatment of the Royal Wedding, but I was in the middle of the pacific ocean and detached from everything the past two weeks, so I don’t know (but I welcome your comments on who the treatment winners and losers were).
Related Posts :
