The Power of Context of TV GRPs

Advertising on Television comes naturally to every advertiser. It must be a rare advertiser who has the money to do a TVC but doesn't. In this note though, I am not debating the merits or de-merits of TV advertising. I want to focus on those who do decide to advertise on TV - and how do they thereafter use the Television medium.

Now, there are various ways of interacting with target consumers on television, But, I am not going to discuss the possibilities and the pros and cons of the options. We will  just talk about the most widely used method  - of airing the Brand TVC in the commercial break. I believe that over 95% of the monies spent on TV advertising are on the TVC so, that is what we should try to unravel.

It starts with a client brief for airing the TVC and all sorts of action start at the media agency end to propose the operating levels, edits to be used, phasing of the edits, weeks on air, genre structure, etc etc. While, all of the above decisions have a rationale and a process - all science here is based on the aggregation of thousands of TVC exposures. 

The TV Spot
Each insertion of the TVC is termed as a "spot". Each spot has views, termed as "impressions". The number of impressions depend on the number of people watching that channel at that point of time. These impressions expressed as a percentage of the total size of the target group are termed as the "rating or TVR" of the spot (simplistic view). So, there are multiple spots in a campaign, each resulting into impressions and delivering some TVRs and the sum total of these TVRs are what we call the GRPs (Gross Rating Points). As these GRPs accumulate over the campaign period, depending on the unique number of people who have seen the TVC and how many times each has seen the TVC, we derive the reach and frequency of the campaign. The rate at which a campaign reaches new people gives us what we call the reach build-up curve for the campaign.   

You see that in all of the measures above, there is no qualitative value attached to an exposure. Each exposure is like a grain of sand - each one same as the other. And, that is what I think needs to be fundamentally understood and realized before we start debating on the operating levels of any campaign.

The Right GRP
And, this is where the dilemma lies as there are different schools of thought about this. On the one hand, is the belief that each exposure is the same while, on the other hand the difference of each exposure is appreciated. 

For those who believe in the former, life is easy and it is all simple arithmetic to build a campaign - the objective often being to get the maximum GRPs or Reach@Frequency in the minimum cost. They are ignore to the nature of the GRPs as long as the aggregate of the GRPs delivers to them their campaign operating levels. In achieving the cheapest - their is a conscious disregard to an extent to spillovers, extent of over/under exposures, market intricacies, etc.

If we look at the school of thought that recognizes the difference in the GRPs - their life is certainly more complex.  The value delivered by each exposure depends on various dimensions of the exposure, such as the nature of programming, time of day, day of week, etc. These dimensions provide what we call "Context" for the exposure.

Understanding Context
The deliverable that we want from a TVC exposure is that it should be seen by the desired people and that these people should understand the messaging. So, the selection of the context should be based on whether it targets the right kind of people required for the brand in the right state of mind. The premise being that if the viewers are engaged in the context, they will also be engaged in the advertising and hence the probability for them to notice the TVC and to understand the TVC will be higher as against an exposure in a context which is not of high interest to them. Just like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - the right context is worth a whole lot of non-contextual GRPs.

Of course! there is always the pricing argument as most often than not, getting the right context is a compromise between cost, reach and quality.

The Measurement Challenge
But, all such discussions are limited by the nature of the syndicated TV measurement study which only provides data on the demographic audience so, one really does not know the equation between cost, reach and quality for the right brand audience. So, for an advertiser to have the right media plan one has to resort to planning metrics beyond what are provided by the syndicated TV measurement system.

The current TV system never advocated absolute reliance on its metrics for constructing the TV plan. All it provides are measures that are an aid to creating and measuring the TV plan deliveries, and on limited dimensions. These dimensions are adequate for trading of TV GRPs as the currency. However, it would be an injustice to media planing to rely just on this data for arriving at the construct of the plan.

Thus, the plan is only as good as the logic for its construct. And, once we have the construct one needs to translate this construct into a plan based on the limited dimensions available in the TV planning system. While, many attempt to do this but, in an effort to optimize investments in the TV planning system they often loose the construct of the media plan.

To illustrate - do we optimize on reach for the demographic audience as available in the measurement system or do we build in a factor of the reach among the real brand audience? Do we evaluate the efficiency of the plan on the cost per rating in the demographic audience or the cost per rating in the desired audience?  

Optimizing the Construct
The plan optimization needs to go beyond the TV measurement system to draw a balance between - total plan GRPs, total cost of the plan, cost per desired audience (not just the demographic audience) of the plan, reach and reach build-up in the desired audience, the engagement score of the plan, spillover in terms of audience & over-exposure, etc.

Unless, we build beyond the demographic measurement, we may be very happy with the plan deliveries but, what the campaign delivers for business is quite another matter - often not measured, if measured not calibrated and if calibrated, often based on the same belief of sameness of GRPs. Those who have been able to unravel the power of the context of TV GRPs are the ones who will get the most out of TV advertising.

The rest will keep rolling the drum without achieving the real objectives of the brand.. at least not in the most efficient way.

TAM to BARC - Evolution in Progress!!

As I sat through the BARC presentation today when the new TV measurement system was revealed to the industry; it was a very happy feeling. It was a proud moment to be witness to such a significant step forward in the evolution of the media industry in India. The media industry has evolved extensively over the past decade to respond to the changes happening in the media consumption behaviour of the Indian consumer. 

Over the years, technological development in products has given us so many new and improved media formats which we can see in print, radio, television and most visibly in digital media. The advent of HD TV, DTH, IPTV, Hi-tech Print Technology, FM Radio, Mobiles, Smartphones, Tablets, Broadband, Interactive Outdoor and many many more has then led to a revolution in Content for these new formats. The media houses brought in new content, expanded across formats and improvised business models thus challenging the existing norms of advertising and media planning. 

Since then, Communication Planning too has been totally revamped in agencies and is far more elaborate encompassing the characteristics of the consumer, the brand and the intricacies of media with accountability at its core.

At the final frontier of this evolution is where the media measurement systems need to change to respond to all the changes above and that is what we are seeing happen now. The IRS has been renewed and now the TV measurement system is also taking on a new avatar. This will lead to further development of the craft  of media strategy, planing and trading and build increasing value in the media ecosystem.

The curtain-raiser that we witnessed today is not just about one research over another but, has to be seen in a far more broader sense. TAM was the messiah at one point of time and it has served the industry well but, as we discussed above, the media landscape has changed and TAM has probably not responded well enough to these changes and so has had to make way for BARC.

Of Course! there are going to be many schools of thought on the ratings that BARC delivers. TAM had its limitations and while BARC TV ratings are set to improve on these limitations; BARC ratings will have its own set of challenges and limitations too. Some will swear by the ratings while, some will contest them; some will revel in the new software while, some will want for the comfort of the old system; some will derive new learning from the fresh data while, some will get caught in its apparent flaws... but, with time all will find their own method to embed this new system into their business practices and move on. 

I will not evaluate the impact BARC will have on the industry on the basis of the TV ratings that it will deliver now or in the near future but on the design of BARC and on the future potential of BARC that its design empowers.

The construct of the BARC research is revolutionary. The distributed ownership; the federal approach to control of the system; the conjunction of multiple superlative services and technologies; the scope for scalability required for India and most importantly the potential to grow into a multi-media multi-platform system are the dimensions of BARC that ensure its long-term success.

The fact that BARC is based on the new NCCS system is great but, that is just a matter of its panel design. What makes BARC exemplary is its future-readiness which is a crucial need-gap in the media industry. I will dwell a little more on this aspect that will allow BARC to be far more responsive to the changing media landscape in the future.

The water-marking technology though a simple technique (theoretically) is inherent to the algorithm that the BARC system uses. I am not aware of the exact scope of the code embedded in the current water-mark but, it has the potential of building in  not only the Channel ID but far more information related to each element of the content being telecast such as the program ID, the ID of the TVC and much more. Water-Marking content with such ID codes can enable a totally automated measurement system for every element being telecast. 

Once this ID is embedded in the content then irrespective of when or on what media or format the content is played this code can be identified and hence can make BARC agnostic to the media and the format. This gives BARC the potential to provide measurement of the content on any kind of TV input signal and any digital device too -  such as Laptops, Tablets, Phones, etc. 

Of course! the challenge will be of setting up systems and regulations to ensure water-marking of content beyond TV Channels and of setting up a panel of (so called) meters for media formats other than Television. These two challenges are political as well as that of research design. Difficult but do-able. As this happens, we will realize that BARC should not be called only as a TV Measurement System but, a Universal Measurement System for audio-visual content. 

But, yes.. while, it was a good feeling seeing the BARC TV Research and realizing the new era in media measurement that it is heralding; I do realize that the next few months are going to be a period of intense work to redefine the TV Planning process and benchmarks. We will have to burn a lot of midnight oil as we transition from one system to another making decisions on crores of investments for our brands.

The key learning that is reiterated as we look at the TV research changing hands is that "Evolution is not a Choice" and if we dont evolve fast enough.....!!

To know more about BARC and its implications on media planning go on to the BARC website http://www.barcindia.co.in or send in your queries to me at premjeetsodhi@gmail.com.

Media Research - Connecting v/s Counting

The IRS counts how many people read a newspaper or a magazine or whatever other media is covered; TAM counts the number of people who watched a program; RAM counts the number of people listening etc. We debate how while dailies should be counted; but for magazines we should do less of the counting and do something else because they can never beat the dailies in the counting. All the media research that we use is mostly about counting - whereas they all should actually be about connecting.

I keep saying that the era of 'limited media' is over and it was in that era of limited media that counting media was of import. But, now in days of 'over-supply of media' its naive to be still only counting. What really matters is for us to understand how the media-vehicle and the consumer connect with each other. So if we can understand what makes them connect - we can enhance the experience further also by creating opportunities for brands to participate in the 'connecting'.

'Connecting' is about understanding what the media does to the consumer. A media vehicle is not just the masthead or the content - in consuming a media vehicle the consumer experience is a net result of the feelings associated with the medium from the past, the content and also the manner of presentation. This is the same as it is for any other product or service for the consumer.

The research done so far has served us well. But, now the markets have evolved and the same research is in-adequate. The existing research besides being revised needs to be supplemented with research that aids understanding and connecting. Each brand has a different relationship with the consumer and hence for each brand the manner of engagement via media  would be different. From an advertisers perspective therefore, the research needs to advise the brand on the best manner to engage with the consumer. The media brand itself needs to understand what affect the brand has on the consumer so that it can further orient itself to enhance the experience of the consumer.

So far, with the syndicated research available - we know how many people read a newspaper/ magazine or how may people watch/ listen to a broadcast, etc but we have no idea how their interaction with the media makes them feel. Without this kind of information about the relationship between the media and the consumer; the manner in which the brands utilize media to communicate with the consumer often ends up being very trivial, superficial and irrelevant to the consumer.

To enable brands to build a meaningful connection with the consumer - the media research must be recrafted to focus on Connecting rather than on Counting.