Man & his Media!



Photo Credit: Ravi Kiran



A picture is worth a thousand words.. but here I want to add a few words to this photo. I am sure this picture by Ravi Kiran caused many more to ponder than only those who left their comments on his post. Different people may have seen the picture with a totally different perspective and I was just thinking of all the different perspectives that could have been possible. Here I would want to comment on possibly what thoughts this photo would have germinated in the minds of professional related to media.

What does a professional (media) think when he/she sees a person of this profile reading the TOI?

Now, when I say "this profile" I am not being judgemental nor do I want to hurt any sentiments. By the looks of it (note, the words) the person is a of lower SEC, probably has no shelter, is low on means of subsistence and hence not really a desired target for most branded products and services. For anyone who has a different pov on the above profile, it may be futile reading further as the difference in our perspectives will only get wider.

Of course! maybe the person in the photograph may have just got the newspaper from a passerby and it was just a coincidence that Ravi captured him on camera with the newspaper. Maybe, the person is not a regular reader at all.

But, then as I said, for arguments sake let us just look 'at' the picture and not try to look 'behind' the picture and continue the discussion further. 

The newspaper is a product and like most products is designed to cater to a certain profile of audience. If the newspaper defines, its desired audience in terms of demographic characteristics (Gender, Age, SEC, MHI) then the man in the photo may probably not qualify as the desired audience. But, if the newspaper defines its desired profile in terms of a mindset, in terms of an attitude - though the picture does not tell us much about that but, the person may well qualify.

However, if I may take a guess, the demographic profile of the person in the picture does not match the desired profile for over 90% of the advertisers in the newspaper. The advertiser may wonder if the perception (possibly supported by research data) that he has about the profile of the readers of this newspaper is correct?  And, he would only hope that there are not many others of a similar profile who read this newspaper.

The advertiser is bound to give his media agency a tough time when next he sees his media plan.

The media planner will quickly rationalize that yes - 6% (say) of the readership of the  newspaper basis the IRS does come from the lower SEC and hence this person reading the newspaper is not surprising at all. Going a step further, the planner may start qualifying that while the man is seen reading he may still not be an 'average issue reader' and hence may not be part of the CPT calculations in the plan.

If the query reaches the media researcher, I am sure the researcher will be able to explain how the said profile is an exception and even if counted in the research it would not have enough weightage to skew the overall profile of the reading audience. Besides, since the research is a masthead recall research if the person is not a regular reader - he may just not recall the masthead even if he is part of the research sample.

Each, in their own world thinking of just what concerns them - but they all miss the big picture.

The 'Man' and the 'Media' are not just 'eyeballs' or 'mastheads' - these are two in a relationship. There is a bond between them. Imagine the hardships and challenges that the man must be facing in life - but, he makes time for his media. He is as immersed in it just as much as you and I would be - in the luxury of our rooms. The newspaper gives him something he cherishes, it does something to him which he finds very valuable. As a media, as an advertiser, as a planner or as a media researcher - unless we understand this relationship we cannot make a judgement on what is depicted in the picture. Whatever, would be the demographic profile of the man; whether the man is on a pavement or if he were reclining on a luxury yacht - it is the relationship between him and his media - that is of interest.

Yes, reaching an audience of a desired profile is important; but, engaging with the audience is critical. Just knowing that a certain person identified a masthead is not enough to know how to build an engagement with the person by using some space below the masthead.

And, all of us - involved in the business of media have nothing with us to understand this relationship. Unless we understand the relationship we cannot partner with the newspaper to deliver to the consumer a 'facet' of the advertising brand and hope that the consumer will engage further.

The research we currently have is just like this 'long-shot'; we know that the person most probably is a reader and that is about all that we know from the photo/research - rest all is left for us to hypothesize.

Rationalizing Readership Research

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.

Print has to evolve!!

The custodians of media got together many years ago and set up a research system called the readership research in India. It borrowed a lot from what was being done in the area in other countries. This research became the backbone of media plannig in India and subsequent rounds of this research were used by media as a barometer of their growth.

However, recently (for about past 5 years) this barometer has been indicating clearly (for those who want to see the truth) that the print media is not growing. The average issue readership has been going down for most publications; an increase in circulation is not resulting in a corresponding in readership; the average timespent on the media has been reducing marginally but surely; sole readership of major publications has been dropping; and so on.

The overt reaction of most leaders has been to deny, discredit, doubt and debate the same barometer. But, that is not helping and the metrics continue to go down.

Please, do not conclude that I am saying that there is no future for print media. All I am saying is that the print readership is not lying. By the metrics that have been in use over the past decade or more - yes the publications are in trouble. But, then should we continue to measure print media by the same metrics. Now, when I say different I am not referring to the recent naive attempt by some influential people to replace 'average issue readership' by 'total readerhip'. I mean a fundamental change in the measurement metrics.

The informationn provided by the current design of readership research should be used for whatever it is worth instead of discrediting and debating it. However, it is also time to realize that just the size of the publication in terms of the number of readers is not the only metric that defines success for a publication. The manner in which consumers read publications has changed and the important thing is the relationship that the publication (and different segments of the publication) has with its readers. The value of the readers and the nature of the realationship will define worth of a publication for brand communication.

Print media custodians have to rethink what they are delivering to consumer and brands and hence what they need to measure. With this understanding they need to evolve to deliver and market the new measures and success will be theirs.

Hope to see some changes in their perspectove soon!!