Media Research needs a makeover

"60%@4+" - these are the most mysterious of anything that a media manager/client/ brand manager ever encounters. These numbers are derived from a science so convoluted that even most media planners would be vary of being asked for justifications. Hours in media presentations are spent debating these numbers.

It used to be interesting to derive the operating frequencies by analyzing the brand on marketing factors, media factors and communication factors in the erstwhile Ostrow's model. These principles have precipitated into numerous varieties of Frequency Setting software and tools with various agencies. But, do we ever wonder in today’s context if these promised exposures really happen.

In the earlier days of limited media - an OTS (opportunity to see) really had a high correlation to HRS (Have Really Seen). These days, due to high advertising avoidance the correlation between the OTS that the planners plan with and the HRS is really suspect. Ad-avoidance levels are as high as 70% for some key media across regions around the globe. If the exposures themselves are suspect then where is the question of generating a response from advertising and achieving the marketing objectives. Then can there be any confidence on the 60%@4+ touted by media planners which is ultimately based on the unrealistic OTS figures. Do we not commit too much of money based on media concepts which are now inert due to advertising avoidance.

The concepts of frequencies when proposed where really ahead of their times and provided a guideline for media plans and investments. These concepts were also taken into consideration in the configuration of the media measurement systems then. Since, then the media choices available have increased manifold, technology has changed the nature of media and the manner of media consumption has changed too – but the ‘media concepts’ and the ‘measurement systems’ are still largely the same. Today the relevance of the numbers churned out by the available media research systems therefore are suspect – not due to any mal-intent but due to sheer obsolescence of the tenets of measurement then adopted.

It is not the ‘media planner’ who is to blame. The media planner is struggling hard to make some sense out of the plethora of media options armed with limited and inept research and tools. Evolution as always is happening and media research has not managed to keep up.

Most research systems/ organizations are huge monoliths built over decades. They have just recently realized the fruits of years of sustained efforts to bring sense and stability to the media industry. Kudos for that but, the challenge is not over yet – another wave has started and it is time to shed the old skin again and move on.

Today, all the available research is designed to deliver quantified measures of the audience who have the opportunity–to-see (OTS). Further more, many opine that the present research system fundamentals are more apt for the ‘homogenous nations’ these were created for. The same measurement systems may not be optimum for countries like China, India, Malaysia, etc where the population is highly heterogeneous. Would it also be true to say that in developing the media principles it is the FMCG products that have been the focus more often than not – the principles need to be suitable for all.

All this has to change. Many more changes in the media scenario that the research must address are discussed below:

TV and Press were the primary media. But, a consumer of today is exposed to many more media in a very affective manner unlike earlier. It would be naïve to believe that the situation remains the same today. Measuring and planning for each media in isolation is inappropriate. A more consumer-centric approach to measurement is required.

The level of engagement of the consumer with the media is very complex. While, some media are extremely avoided – others command rapt attention. It would be unfair to treat all media on the same scale of OTS. And mind you, time spent on the media (as measured by the current systems) does not even come close to defining engagement.

Given the variety of content options available through media – the very purpose of engagement with the media is different for different consumers. This means that what communication works for one may not work for another. The measurements in the new system must explore these aspects of audience differences.

The mammoth annual researches done for readership are by design made to suppress sudden changes - sudden readership changes were always attributed to hanky-panky by the publishers. In a period when product markets are very dynamic and volatile – dampened research numbers based on annual samples may be inadequate. The variations in the data may be of more interest instead of numbers averaged across a year.

Finally, ROI - maybe the most mis-used term in media is here to stay and advertisers demand concrete answers. Does, the current research system offer anything for the planner to fall back on to build a sure case for ROI - a case that is not just circumstantial. The awareness tracking studies that are oft used as surrogates to ROI measures - cause more problems than give solutions as most media beyond just TV and Press are still not measured adequately. It is not rare to find awareness measures showing no correlation to the very carefully planned TV and Press GRPs.

Will just measurement of TVRs, AIRs and manufacturing of GRPs be enough in the upcoming world or do we need new ‘measurement concepts and systems’ is a question that all in the industry have to answer.

Media agencies are fighting a continuous battle with the clients on accountability and are most eager to bring in change. Many have attempted in their own limited ways to bridge the research gap. Its time, the media planners too stop pushing obsolete concepts and take their media plans beyond the research limitations. They need to evolve strategic planning processes that compensate for the research lacuna and demand for relevant research. Without this changes will take their own time. It is already late.

However, the real opportunity to change the systems lies with those who own the measurement systems. Yes, sure given the ‘bulk’ that most of these research systems have evolved into – it will not be easy for them to change. At one time they had thought ahead of the times and were granted market success. Today the industry again needs a fresh breed of media professionals to challenge the basics and propose systems based on ‘new thought and knowledge’ and not on ‘old available infrastructure, concepts and resources’.

In Asia alone, the estimated advertising spends for the year 2005 are over $US 65 billion increasing rapidly at a rate of over 27%. I really wonder how much of this money is really doing what it is meant to do. Imagine another year going by and the dollars wasted.

(Published earlier in Pitch Magazine)

Do not divide - and rule!!

Yes, that seems to be the philosophy of media research providers in India. In a market that is otherwise offering choice to consumers like never before, media research providers have a very contrary view on providing choice. Let me explain.
 

If one has to buy any syndicated research what one gets is the total solution. This total solution includes the database along with the software that rides on that database. IRS data come with the IRS Analyser; the radio database (ILT) comes with the EARS software; NRS data come with Sesame; the TAM database comes with its own softwares Xpress, Xpert and Viewergraphics; and, finally, AMAP TV data also can be analysed through their own software.

Largely, the choice the consumer of media research gets is whether one wants to buy the product or not. There is not much scope for breaking up the total solution and buying components from across vendors. No choice in that area.

So, the mantra is that ‘if you want to use my data, you need to buy my software’. This approach sounded fantastic when providing the software was a sure value addition where people were tired of reading voluminous printed reports. However, now these softwares are hygiene and at times a limitation to the kind of analysis one wants to do.

Well! Each of the software providers may say that ‘you can always buy the raw data separately from us’ and do your own analysis. Yes, we can buy the raw data but will it be available at a reasonable cost -- after having paid for the data and software already? Yes, we can buy the raw data but are there any companies that provide the data online – at the same time as their normal data are released? Mostly, the raw data are provided long after. Yes, we can buy the raw data but is there any guarantee that the research provider will adhere to the defined data formats and codes and not change these according to their justified requirements? Yes, we can buy the raw data but is there any standardization in the measures, definitions, data formats and codes that will enable us to seamlessly build applications that cut across databases?

The answer to all these is a NO. All research providers do not provide access to raw data. The raw data if on sale are very expensive to buy. They are usually available after an appreciable lag beyond the release of the regular data. The database formats and codes change frequently. There are no standards of data exchange.

This problem we are facing is a lack of open systems. We have all seen the growth of industries that have open systems – computer hardware and software, telecom, Internet, etc. This is the era of plug-and-play but our media research providers are not ready to divide their systems.

The systems need to be divided into data as one unit and application software as the other unit. One should be able to buy data in specified standard formats from any research provider and the application software from another, if one so desires. On the one hand, this will reduce the barriers to entry in the media measurement space as companies with strength in either of the functions can create a niche and provide specialized service. On the other hand, it will drive investments into data analysis applications by media organizations, each trying to analyze the data in their own way. In the long run, it will bring value to media research users.

The task of bringing these open systems into existence lies with the user bodies that regulate the media research in the country. It should be on the agenda of the MRUC, NRSC, JIB, etc., to insist upon open systems so that it encourages specialization, competition and innovation and brings in true choice for the media research users.

(Published earlier in Viewpoint, Exchange4media)

10 biases to avoid in making media plans!!

When I was coached in the process of market research a lot of literature talked of the biases in respondent response to the questionnaire and how one could plan to avoid such biases. As, I entered the field of media planing, I often heard people joking about the 'CEO bias' which is said to exist in the manner of selection of hoardings for a campaign.. such that the key hoardings on the route that the CEO often takes were ensured to be part of the campaign.

I realize that the field of outdoor media has evolved much more since then and is as professionally managed now as the regular mass media agencies. However, we must realize that there are some biases that may still creep in if we are not too careful in following the structured process of media planning. Here, I will talk of the possible biases in making mass media plans:

(The biases mentioned below are not in any order of importance)

1. Prestige Bias: A man is known by the media properties he buys and more so in the small community of brand and media professionals. Though, well-meaning the media buyers often stray towards this bias pushed by sheer peer pressure.
2. Lifestyle Bias: In the process of evaluating media in terms of what is suitable for the target consumers, often the media professionals overlay their media experiences (or of their close family and friends) even though  their lifestyle may not be representative of the lifestyle of the supposed target consumer. These experiences and the derived leanings are at best anecdotal and do not have any statistical significance.
3. Offer Bias: At times, a media vehicle or property becomes a part of a media plan just because of the deal or the offer that is available on the buy. The attractiveness of the buy is just too strong and overrides any other logic that may indicate against buying the media vehicle or property.
4. Influencer Bias: This is very akin to the CEO bias that was talked of for hoarding buys earlier. As a result of this, one often ends up skewing buys to media vehicles that are more likely to be viewed by the influencers. The influencers often are the executives at the client side and the bias may often be just due to 'percieved expectations' and hence often unnecessary.
5. Visibility Bias: A majority of the plans are made only for visibility as the primary deliverable and hence most syndicated media research available is also structured to provide a measure of just visibility. However, often when a plan deliverable is not just visibility even then the planners include media vehicles in the plan from the perspective of visibility thus resulting in a visibility bias.
6. Format Bias: Just as in cricket a batsman sometimes commits himself to a stroke very early and plays that stroke irrespective of the nature of the delivery - the same happens in media if the planning team commits themselves to a specific exposure format too early without adequate investigation of the format options available across media. 
7. Competitor Bias: In an attempt to do outdo the advertising of its competitor a team may stray towards this bias and indulge in media interventions that are purely reactive and are not aligned to the media priorities otherwise defined for the brand or campaign.
8. Role Bias: Traditionally, there were some roles that were defined for each media which have been used as thumb rules for media mix decisions over the years. However, the nature of media have changed so much now that most of the classical theories of the role of each media can be challenged. Blindly following the traditional rules of media selection therefore may cause this Role Bias.
9. Success Bias: Some campaigns perform wonderfully and the success rightly or wrongly get attributed to some specific elements of the campaign. Teams may have the tendency to then replicate the same elements of the campaign for subsequent campaigns hoping for the same magic again ignoring looking at the facts relevant to the current campaign.
10. Novelty Bias: In an effort to be in with the latest happenings in media brands often align with anything that is new or is a novelty. Such investments may not always be the most optimal means of brand association though there may be other benefits of being such an adventurous brand.

The simplest way to avoid these biases is to just look afresh at every campaign and follow the structured process of media analysis and plan development. Do share with me if you feel there are any other biases or how you ensure that you avoid any of the above biases.

Happy planning, 

Media Strategists - To Be Hired

Media is evolving...changing.. adapting.. we all know that.. there is enough said and written about it and continues to be written.... That is not what I intend to talk about in this writeup. What is more interesting is what the 'stakeholders' are doing about these changes.. or maybe rather what they are not doing about it.

The Media Ecosystem is comprised of the Media Owners, Media Agencies, Creative Agencies and Media Researchers and some other emerging and secondary businessess too. For all of them these changes that are happening in media are affecting their business at the core and each is responding to the challenges in their own way. But what is affecting the lives of all of the above the most is the way in which the 'Advertisers' are responding to the changes in media.

The increasing number of brands catering to similar need sets with ever decreasing differentiation in the functional deliverables has consistently increased the imporance of creating brand value for the advertisers. Communication and Media have palyed a pivotal role in aiding the brands in strengthening brand value. Media is increasingly becoming an even more important ingredient for the brands. In terms of the spends on various elements for a brand in its marketing efforts - the percentage allocated to media has been gradually increasing.

As the leverage that media therefore has in transforming brands has increased what has also increased is the absolute amount of money being spent by the advertisers on media. And, it is the latter that has triggered off more reactions amongst the advertiseres as it is a more tangible effect. 'Increassed levarage on the brand' is a very debateable claim but 'increased media spends' is recorded in every balance sheet. Now, this increased media spending has kicked off a series of changes at the advertisers end.

1. With the increasing time and media knowledge required to manage the media purchase the advertisers created the position of a 'media coordinator'.

2. The 'finance/ procurement' departments of companies started taking an active interest in the buying of media

3. There is an increased involvement of the brand managers in the actual buy of media

While, I do have a perspective on how each of the above are dealing with the challenge of buying media and how they can do better, I will leave that for another day.

What is important to understand is that all of the above are genereally speaking intersted in the act of 'media buying'. However, there is an important aspect that needs more focus from the advertisers and that is the aspect of 'media strategy'.

I define media strategy as the role of structuring the right media solution to address the brand challenges. At present, this task of media  design is falling somewhere between the 'brand manager' and the 'media coordinator' and is in no way being aided by the transgression of the procurement department into the buying of media.

Media startegist as a role requires to take inputs from the brand managers, media coordinator, media agency, OOH agency, digital agency, creative agency, analytics team and other components of the marketing mix to deliver integrated communication solutions for the portfolio of brands. At present, this function which is inherent to a media agency is not getting its due because, there is no one on the advertisers side to resonate with this approach to media solution design. The current point of daily interaction for a media agency is the media coordinator who has a totally different KRA while the Brand Manager just does not have enough bandwidth to address this requirement.

So, while the advertisers continue to spend more and more on media, they are yet not reliazing the full potential of media. I look forward to advertisers addressing this and creating this role of 'Media Strategists' in their ranks.

In my subsequent posts, I will talk more of the current baises in making media plans and how the nature of media solutions can change with the intervention of media strategists.