“As Advertised on TV” Still Works. Here’s Why Marketers Abandoned It Too Fast

“As advertised on TV” used to be a signal of legitimacy. It meant a product had been vetted, invested in, and trusted enough to put in front of millions. Today, most marketers under 40 treat television advertising like a relic, something their parents’ agencies did before digital came along and made everything measurable. That is a strategic mistake, and the brands quietly winning market share right now know it.

TV advertising never stopped working. What changed is who uses it, how it is bought, and how it fits into a broader go-to-market system. The marketers who wrote it off did so because they confused measurability with effectiveness, and those are not the same thing.

Why Did Marketers Walk Away From Television?

The honest answer is attribution. Digital advertising arrived with dashboards, click-through rates, conversion tracking, and the seductive promise that you could finally see exactly what was working. Television could not offer that in the same clean, real-time way. So when budgets came under pressure and CFOs started asking hard questions, TV was an easy target. It looked expensive and unprovable.

I spent a large part of my earlier career in performance marketing, and I understand the appeal completely. When you can pull a report showing cost-per-acquisition down to the penny, it feels like control. The problem is that the report shows you what happened at the bottom of the funnel, not what created the conditions for it. I spent years overvaluing that lower-funnel data before I started questioning what it was actually telling me. A lot of what performance marketing gets credited for was already in motion. The customer had already decided, or nearly decided, before they clicked anything.

Television, at its best, creates those conditions. It puts a brand in front of people who were not looking for it, who had no existing intent, and plants something. That is not a soft, fluffy outcome. That is how markets get made.

If you want a broader view of how this fits into growth strategy, the thinking on go-to-market and growth strategy at The Marketing Juice covers the full picture, including where TV sits relative to other demand creation levers.

What Does “As Advertised on TV” Actually Signal to a Consumer?

There is a reason that phrase still appears on packaging. It is not nostalgia. It is a trust shortcut.

Television advertising, even in its diminished cultural position relative to the 1990s, carries a legitimacy premium. Running a TV campaign requires money, planning, and a certain threshold of institutional seriousness. Consumers know this intuitively, even if they cannot articulate it. When a brand appears on television, it has passed an implicit filter. It is not some pop-up shop on Instagram that disappears next week.

This matters enormously in certain categories. Financial services, healthcare, insurance, home improvement, food and drink, and any category where purchase risk feels high. In those spaces, trust is not a soft metric. It is the primary conversion driver. A consumer who has seen a brand on television is already partway through a decision process that a Google ad alone cannot initiate.

I judged the Effie Awards, which evaluate marketing effectiveness rather than creative quality, and the campaigns that consistently won were not the cleverest ones. They were the ones that built genuine brand familiarity over time and then converted it efficiently. Television featured heavily in those winning strategies, not as the only channel, but as the one doing the heaviest lifting on trust and recognition.

Forrester has written about how even in complex, regulated categories like healthcare, go-to-market struggles often trace back to a failure to build credibility early in the buying process. Television is one of the most efficient tools available for doing exactly that at scale.

Has Connected TV Changed the Equation?

Significantly, yes. But not in the way most people think.

Connected TV (CTV) and addressable formats have made it possible to target television advertising with a precision that would have been unthinkable fifteen years ago. You can now reach specific audience segments, cap frequency, and in some formats, track downstream behaviour with more confidence than traditional broadcast ever allowed. That has lowered the barrier to entry and made TV viable for brands that would previously have been priced out.

But the fundamental value of television was never just about targeting. It was about reach, legitimacy, and the shared experience of seeing a brand in a context that implies scale and permanence. CTV preserves some of that while adding targeting capability. What it does not do is replace the mass-market trust signal that comes from appearing on broadcast television in front of an undifferentiated audience.

The smarter approach is to treat them as complementary. Broadcast television for brand-building and legitimacy at scale. Connected TV for more targeted reach, particularly for retargeting audiences who have already shown some interest. The mistake is treating CTV as simply a cheaper, more measurable version of the same thing, because it is not. The psychology of watching a brand appear on a major broadcast channel is different from seeing it on a streaming service, and that difference matters for how the brand is perceived.

Vidyard’s research into why go-to-market feels harder than it used to points to fragmented attention and increased buyer scepticism as core challenges. Television, precisely because it commands a different quality of attention than a social feed, offers something that is genuinely scarce right now.

The Reach Problem That Performance Marketing Cannot Solve

There is a ceiling on growth that performance marketing alone will always hit. It is the ceiling of existing demand.

Performance channels, paid search, social retargeting, affiliate, are extraordinarily efficient at capturing people who are already in market. They find the people who are already looking. But they cannot create new demand. They cannot reach the person who has no idea your category exists, or who has never thought to consider your brand. For that, you need reach. Real reach, not impressions on a platform where half the audience is scrolling at 2x speed.

I think about this with a simple analogy. Imagine a clothes shop. Someone who walks in and tries something on is far more likely to buy than someone who walks past the window. Performance marketing is brilliant at catching the people already walking through the door. Television is what makes people want to walk in who had no intention of doing so. If you only optimise the door, you cap your growth at whatever traffic was already heading your way.

This is not a theoretical concern. Brands that have spent the last decade doubling down on performance at the expense of brand are now finding that their cost-per-acquisition is rising, their audiences are saturated, and there is no new demand being created to replace the customers they lose. The pipeline is drying up because nobody was filling it from the top.

Vidyard’s pipeline research highlights significant untapped revenue potential for go-to-market teams precisely because most organisations are not reaching the full addressable market. Television, at the right scale, is one of the few channels that can move that needle.

What Makes a TV Campaign Actually Work in 2025?

The mechanics have changed considerably, even if the underlying principle has not. Here is what separates effective television investment from expensive wallpaper.

Creative that earns attention in the first three seconds. This has always been true, but it is more acute now. Viewers have more control over their viewing experience than ever, and their tolerance for advertising that does not immediately give them a reason to watch is close to zero. The brand needs to appear early, the premise needs to be clear, and there needs to be something, a tension, a question, a distinctive visual, that makes a person want to keep watching.

Frequency that builds memory, not just awareness. A single TV spot seen once does very little. The power of television is cumulative. Consistent presence over time builds the kind of memory structures that influence purchase decisions weeks or months later. This is why short-burst campaigns often disappoint, and why brands that commit to television for a full quarter or a full year see better returns than those treating it as a one-off.

Integration with the rest of the go-to-market system. Television works best when the rest of the funnel is ready to receive the demand it creates. If someone sees a TV ad and then searches for the brand and finds a weak digital presence, the investment is partially wasted. The paid search terms, the landing pages, the social presence, the retail placement all need to be aligned with what the television campaign is promising.

A clear role in the strategy, not just a budget line. The question is not “should we do TV?” but “what is TV supposed to do in our go-to-market system, and how will we know if it is doing it?” That might be brand awareness tracking, it might be search volume uplift in exposed regions, it might be sales velocity in markets where TV is running versus markets where it is not. The measurement does not have to be perfect. It has to be honest.

BCG’s work on scaling strategies consistently emphasises the importance of aligning channel investment with strategic intent rather than defaulting to what is easiest to measure. Television is a prime example of a channel where the strategic intent needs to be defined before the budget is committed.

The Brands Getting This Right Right Now

Look at the direct-to-consumer brands that scaled fastest over the last five years. Many of them started digital-only, built a performance marketing machine, and then hit the ceiling described above. The ones that broke through that ceiling did so by adding television. Not as a vanity play. As a deliberate demand creation investment.

Mattress brands. Insurance comparison sites. Meal kit companies. Fintech challengers. The pattern is consistent. Digital-first growth, performance optimisation, plateau, television investment, renewed growth. The TV spend does not replace the performance engine. It feeds it. It creates the awareness and consideration that makes the performance channels more efficient because there is more demand flowing through the system.

At iProspect, when we were growing the agency from 20 people to over 100, one of the clearest lessons from managing significant ad spend across dozens of clients was that the accounts with the healthiest long-term performance were almost always the ones where the client was investing in brand alongside performance. The pure performance-only accounts tended to hit walls. The ones with television or significant above-the-line activity kept growing because they kept generating new demand.

Creator-led campaigns and social formats can play a similar role for some brands, particularly in categories where authenticity matters more than legitimacy. Later’s thinking on going to market with creators is worth reading if your category skews younger and trust is built differently. But for most established categories, television still carries a weight that no creator campaign has yet replicated.

How to Make the Case Internally for TV Investment

This is where many marketers get stuck. The CFO wants to see attribution. The performance team is protective of its budget. The board is not sure television is relevant anymore. Here is how to approach that conversation.

Start with the ceiling. Show the trend in your performance marketing metrics over the last two to three years. If cost-per-acquisition is rising and conversion rates are plateauing, that is evidence of a saturated audience. The question is not whether to spend more on performance, but how to create new demand for performance to capture.

Then make the case for reach. How large is your total addressable market? What percentage of that market is currently aware of your brand? What percentage is actively in-market at any given time? If the in-market percentage is small, as it is in most categories, then a channel that only reaches in-market audiences has a structural ceiling. Television reaches the other 90%.

Then propose a test with honest measurement. Not a test designed to prove TV works, but a test designed to find out. Regional splits, brand tracking surveys, search volume analysis in exposed versus unexposed markets, sales velocity comparisons. None of these are perfect. Together they give you a reasonable picture. Commit to reporting honestly on what you find, including if it does not work.

Early in my career I was handed a whiteboard marker in a client brainstorm, unexpectedly, when the founder had to leave the room. The client was Guinness. My first instinct was something close to panic. But the lesson I took from that experience was not about confidence. It was about preparation. The people who can hold a room in those moments are the ones who have done the thinking beforehand. The same applies to budget conversations. If you walk in with a structured argument and honest measurement criteria, you are far more likely to get the investment than if you walk in with enthusiasm and a deck of case studies.

For a broader framework on how television fits into a full growth strategy, the go-to-market and growth strategy section covers channel selection, audience strategy, and how to sequence investment across different stages of market development.

The Measurement Trap and How to Avoid It

The single biggest mistake brands make with television is trying to hold it to the same measurement standards as paid search. That is not a television problem. That is a category error.

Television operates on a different time horizon. It builds memory structures that influence decisions weeks and months later. Trying to measure it on a 30-day attribution window is like measuring the effectiveness of a foundation by looking at the roof. The connection is real but the measurement approach is wrong.

Marketing mix modelling, done properly, is the most honest way to assess television’s contribution to business outcomes. It is not cheap and it requires a meaningful volume of data to be reliable. But it gives you a view of the whole system rather than just the last click. Brands that have invested in proper MMM consistently find that television’s contribution has been undervalued in their attribution models, sometimes significantly.

Short of MMM, brand tracking surveys, search volume analysis, and regional test-and-control designs all give you something to work with. The goal is honest approximation, not false precision. A reasonable estimate of television’s contribution, honestly derived, is worth far more than a precise measurement of a channel that only captures demand you already created.

Semrush’s analysis of growth strategies across different business models consistently shows that the brands achieving sustained growth are investing across multiple time horizons simultaneously, not just optimising for the next 30 days. Television is a long-horizon investment. Treat it like one.

Where TV Fits in a Modern Go-To-Market Stack

Television does not replace anything in a well-constructed go-to-market system. It sits at the top, doing the work that nothing else can do at scale: creating demand among people who were not looking for you.

Below it, you need the infrastructure to capture and convert that demand. Strong organic search presence so that when someone searches for your brand or category after seeing an ad, you are there. Paid search to capture high-intent queries. Social and content to reinforce the brand message across the consideration phase. Retail or e-commerce that converts efficiently. CRM that retains and grows the customers you win.

The mistake is treating these as competing for budget. They are sequential. Television creates the awareness. The rest of the stack converts it. Cutting television to fund more performance marketing is like turning off the tap and then wondering why the tank is emptying.

BCG’s work on biopharma go-to-market strategy emphasises the importance of sequencing channel investment correctly during launch, a principle that applies well beyond pharmaceuticals. The order in which you build awareness, consideration, and conversion matters. Television’s role is to start that sequence at scale.

For brands in growth mode, the question is not whether television is relevant. It is whether you have the rest of the system in good enough shape to make the most of the demand it creates. If your conversion infrastructure is weak, fix that first. If it is solid, television is one of the highest-leverage investments available to you.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions