If only the 30-second commercial were really dying

Millions of words have been written on the "much exaggerated" death of the 30-second TV commercial. In a way I am glad to see people speaking up for TV against the wilder claims of fanatical Digital Fundimentalists - or "the Telliban", as I suppose they should be known.

But, please remember, it is not necessary to defend the 30-second commercial in order to defend television as a medium. Particularly when no-one seems to have paused to mourn the really tragic deaths in Anglophone Tellyland: the death of the 40-second commercial, the 60-second commercial and the 90-second commercial.

This Thai commercial is a perfect example of the deeper emotions you can arouse when you have a little more time in which to do the arousing. Unfortunately the system of media buying - which accounts for reach far more dutifully than it accounts for impact - is making this all but impossible. The problem is further compounded by the creative awards industry - whereby a creative team only need to have a 60-second commercial run once at full length in order for it to be eligble for awards. Hence they have no incentive to fight for greater airing of longer spots. If you have ever wondered why awards reels bear so little resemblance to the ads you see in an evening's TV-watching at home, there's your answer.

The death of longer TV commercials is all the more peculiar in that Direct response advertisers - ie people who really know what works - seldom buy anything 30-seconds long; they prefer the extremes of 60s and 10s. Interestingly, after some research, Ogilvy in India has reached this conclusion too, and is downplaying 30s in favour of a fortnight of 60s followed by a burst of 10s. But then, in a less developed market like India, the media and creative people may engage in really quaint old-fashioned practices such as talking to one another.