By Head of AV, Gregor Chalmers
Mark Ritson talks about Marketing Bothism – the idea that the most effective strategies don’t choose between opposing approaches, they combine them. It’s not “brand or performance”, but how the two work together, in the right proportions, at the right time, to drive growth.
For AV planners, that mindset isn’t optional. It’s essential. We have to move beyond what Jim Collins described as “the tyranny of the or” and embrace the reality of “and”. In practice, this is something planners already do well. But you wouldn’t know it from the industry conversation. Scroll LinkedIn or scan the trade press and you’ll still find the same reductive debate: TV versus YouTube. Spend more here, less there. Pick a side.
It’s a conversation that feels increasingly outdated. Yet it persists.
Part of that is simple self-interest. TV still commands a significant share of ad spend, making it an obvious target in tighter economic conditions. Platforms like YouTube naturally position themselves as a more flexible, scalable alternative, borrowing the language and strengths traditionally associated with TV. Meanwhile, broadcasters have become more vocal in defending their ground, leaning into the strengths of linear and BVOD while calling out perceived weaknesses elsewhere.
Both sides make valid points. But as is often the case, the nuance gets lost.
And that’s the second reason this debate refuses to die: a lack of clarity around the roles different channels play. The reality is far less binary. For some brands, a YouTube-heavy strategy is exactly right. For others, it’s a supporting channel at best. And for many, the balance shifts throughout the year depending on objectives, audience behaviour and market context.
The challenge isn’t choosing a side – it’s navigating the complexity. That complexity has only increased as the AV landscape has evolved. The traditional distinctions between platforms are breaking down. Take YouTube. One of the historic barriers to it being seen as “proper” TV was the dominance of user-generated content. That gap has narrowed significantly. Advances in technology have elevated production quality, while creator ecosystems have matured into mainstream entertainment. The scale and influence of creators today is undeniable.
At the same time, the barriers to traditional TV have come down. Buying routes are more flexible, lead times have shortened, and new formats have opened the door to brands that wouldn’t previously have considered TV. Add in AI-enabled creative development, and the idea that TV is only for the biggest budgets no longer holds.
In short, both worlds are evolving towards each other. As they do, competition for budget intensifies. But this isn’t a zero-sum game unless we choose to make it one. YouTube doesn’t need to act like “proper TV” to find a home on the media plan. Conversely, the traditional strengths of TV allied to the advanced targeting and measurement capabilities modern technology has brought means it’s “death” is greatly exaggerated.
The opportunity lies in applying Bothism properly. Not as a theory, but as a planning discipline.
The opportunity lies in applying Bothism properly. Not as a theory, but as a planning discipline. Using data, insight and clear strategic intent to define how different AV channels work together to deliver against a shared objective.
That’s the thinking behind frameworks like KiteConnect and the continued evolution of Seen & Heard. Not to pick winners, but to create clarity in an increasingly complex ecosystem. Because TV planning in 2026 isn’t about choosing between platforms. It’s about understanding how they complement each other and using that interplay to unlock the full potential of the screen.