I intuitively think that paid TV advertising is not an apt vehicle to promote Nearmap awareness in Australia. There may be a sensible reason, and I have one in mind, but it is retrofitting a positive reason to the fact. I also have a reason in mind that is less charitable to Management, but I don't want to upset the horses, so I'll not pursue that line of thought.
When I studied marketing over fifty years ago, the conventional wisdom was that brand-awareness campaigns have target demographies, and brand-promotional media have population-reach-based tariffs based on readership, audiences or viewers. Consequently, promoting cigarettes advocated using mass media, and promoting locomotives did not.
I can understand NEA paying for advertising in ArcUser see
https://www.esri.com/esri-news/arcuser/advertise, rather than in The Dolly Insider (
https://www.dollyinsider.com/advertisement/). For Australasia, a more apt example should be used. To reach target Nearmap-suitable demographies like utilities, three tiers of government agencies, and specific professions, more specialised media should be used, IMO.
Positive free media publicity is always good, and hence look-alikes are too, so paid advertising may be the price NEA pays to be in the news, so in effect it's paid news. It's a balance of expense versus advantage, and as an aside, the expense of the current litigation may be eclipsed by the value of the publicity.
