My introduction into the world of media as a professional was through my involvement with readership research. I have been very fortunate to have been inducted into the science of media research by veterans in the industry and I will always be obliged to them for their input and guidance in life. Readership research being the first subject for me in the domain - is very close to my heart and I have some very strong views on the matter. Here, I want to place 5 points before all of you for your feedback and action.
1. Focus on Readership
Years ago, the readership research in the country took on the onus of providing a wholistic research database which not only provided readership data but also profiled the whole country in terms of demographics, usage/ownership/ consumption of products and services, etc. This research did allow a better understanding of the profile of readers but was used more for developing an understanding of categories and brands.
Over the years, I believe that readership itself has not get its due in this huge research program. The focus on readership needs to be revised as we move ahead.
2. Newspapers and Magazines are different
Newspapers and Magazines are treated absolutely in the same manner in the current readership research. The manner in which these are consumed by readers are different; the media planners and buyers study these differently and the role that they play in a communication solution is different too. But, in the research only the order of questioning (according to the periodicity) and inclusion in the state masthead booklets are the only decisions that treat magazines as different from newspapers.
A fresh view is required to building an approach for investigation and recommendation for newspapers and magazines.
3. Masthead readership is passe
In the era of limited media and advertising - masthead recognition (as a claim) was a good enough surrogate for readerhsip and hence ad-exposure. But now, masthead recall is a very inaccurate assesment of readership. Also, the probablity of exposure to an ad in a newspaper despite the newspaper having been read - is very low. Hence, readership as measured today is not a fair representation of OTS - the findamental metric for media planing and buying.
The readership estimates available in the readership research therefore are truly inflated. The actual readership and the probability of ad-exposure would be considerably lower. It is a totally different matter that Publishers now discuss business on "Total Readership" estimates instead of Average Issue Readership (AIR) estimates making this over-estimatation even more acute.
There is a need to revise the definition of "Readership" from the research perspective.
4. Beyond Reach and Rankings
In designing communication solutions, there is a lot of exploration to understand the manner of engagement and the extent and nature of the effect that the media/ media vehicle has on the consumer. The number of consumers who can access a particular media vehicle is of secondary importance. The current research only delivers on the "number of consumers" and nothing else.
Metrics beyond readership estimates need to be devised and measured.
5. Newsprint is getting digitized
Content is no longer only a "printed" entity. The same newspaper content is today accessed on the internet or through mobile phones and iPads. The same content is stripped by net-robots and delivered as part of other web pages. Content is shared and tagged and also re-purposed for rendering in other formats.
Do we only measure the print copy readership or do we measure the publications content exposure across formats. We need to look at a revised scope for what we term as Readership.
Change Ahead
Every year, industry forums keep discussing the future of print. The base for rendering the content may change from paper to a screen - but the rules of engagement with the consumers will remain. We need to get our readership research right to keep it continuously relevant to the changes so that it aids publishers, planners and buyers all to add long-term value to the medium and not just reap short-term results.
3 comments:
Very valid comments, Mr Sodhi. The issue is not just a decade old but has been around longer, particularly the definition of readership. Use of masthead per se is to help illiterate and semi-literate readers visually assess whether he as seen the title. Whether to equate their OTS to our OTS has always been moot. As far as engagement is concerned, there should at least be a simple, easy to administer question of time spent as an addendum to AIR qn. So if you have read or seen it yesterday, how many minutes did you spend on it? There is probably a case for page readership too though under the current method, it will be a killer (for the interviewer and the respondent)
PS: I too started my career in readership research. My first month at IMRB in '84 was spent at Ranken Xerox, run by late Siddhartha Roy, (later of Mediaware)supervising the printing of NRS III reports.
- Sankara Pillai, QED Research
Yes, Sankara I agree that the research design is far older than a decade. Was just being sensitive to some peole who may feel that a lot has changed. Though I dont think most of the changes in the past 20 years qualify as fundamental changes.
On the modification/ addition to the AIR question in IRS - Yes, such changes can be done but I am still referring to far more fundamental changes. I am suggesting we question the definition of readership itself not just qualify it. Why cant we look at the whole research from zero base?
I am aware of the vast experience that you have in the domain and feel that you can contribute a lot to this change.
Thanks for your comment and Best wishes,
I think #5 is far more critical going forward since the others will soon become extinct like dinosaurs.
Short term gains always outweigh long term ones unless a visionary comes along once in a long while.
Print, print, print is all its about without realising that its probably about readership more than anything else.
Post a Comment