"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)
No comments:
Post a Comment