|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE SONG OF THE SIREN
It’s Wise to Consider What’s Seaworthy
Before We Abandon Ship
By Erwin Ephron
|
|
Like the Argonauts we are pulled by the promise of the new and the unknown, but it’s wise to consider what is still seaworthy before we abandon ship. Certainly Television isn’t going away. Most ad dollars are spent on traditional media; so much of our effort should still go to making them work better. That’s what this Newsletter is about. ____________________ BACKGROUND Call us Schizoid, but buried in the mind of media planning there’s a conflict. Reach and Targeting, planning’s dominant personalities, just don’t get along. For example, buying only Golf magazines to sell Golf Balls will reach Golfers, but not most Golfers. That requires using less targeted media like Sports Illustrated and Television, many of whose readers and viewers don’t play Golf. Moving off target is the price you pay for Reach, and the Internet and behavioral targeting won’t change it. In recent years the efficiency of targeting has been no match for the inclusiveness of reach and most brand dollars have gone to Television. But today there may be a better solution in a new idea called “Duplication Planning.” To understand its value we need to start with an old idea called “Media Mix.” MEDIA MIX Today Media Mix, for all its press, is not as important a concept as Reach or Targeting. It is strictly a tactic. A means to an end.[1] Most media plans mix media for three reasons: Continuity, emphasis or reach extension. Some examples:
But those are just the old cut-and-paste mechanics of media. Duplication
planning is the larger reason for media mix. It is a way of rethinking both
Reach and
Targeting that helps clarify and solve some of today’s stickier planning
issues. DUPLICATION PLANNING We all know about Reach Planning, but in our reach-centric world planning for duplication is almost never done. Yet there are excellent reasons to do it. The first, paradoxically, is Reach itself. Reaching people with advertising messages is the reason for buying media and once-upon-a- time a rating meant “people seeing advertising.”[4] Not true today. [5] For reach to represent “persons seeing advertising” requires on average, more than one exposure, which makes even moderate TV reach goals far less affordable. For example, a 30 2+ reach will cost three times as much as a traditional 30 1+ reach. The reason is 40% of viewers do close to 70% of viewing so the higher frequency goal spends most of the TV dollars exposing that small group of heavy viewers, 3, 4 and 5 times. The following table shows the cost implications of moving from a one exposure-equals-reach to a two-exposure-equals-reach model in Television. (For simplicity these are called 1+ and 2+ Reach.) [6] THE EFFECT OF A 2+ FREQUENCY ON THE COST OF REACH
A traditional 30 1+ reach of target costs $270,000 in this example. A 30 2+ reach costs $865,000. That’s over three-times as much. [7] But there is a solution. Since people who watch a lot of TV tend not to read a lot of magazines or listen to a lot of radio, it is far more cost-effective to combine TV with other media and use duplication to achieve frequency goals. So the first benefit of duplication planning is it can guarantee “sees (or hears) the message” Reach at an affordable price. [8] The second benefit is it reinforces Targeting. THE SWEET SPOT Target groups, no matter how defined, are not completely homogeneous. Their members have different probabilities-of and frequencies-of purchase. Said another way, target consumers vary in their value to the brand advertised. A good media plan covers the target, while concentrating messages against the best prospects. Television tends to reach more of a target group than selective media like magazines. But TV’s reach is against the broader target. Magazine reach tends to focus on the target’s more valuable core. [9] Here planning Print and TV for duplication works beautifully. It still extends reach, (there will always be a Magazine Only group), but it also guarantees more messages will reach the best prospects. (That’s the TV/Magazine duplicated group.) The difference between this and our current “add a key segment medium” is selecting print for duplication makes targeting work better. SYNERGY Synergy is that old saw about the “Total being greater than the sum of the parts.” Add blue paint to yellow and get a beautiful green. Synergy has an intuitive appeal. And there is evidence to suggest it works.
But Synergy, also called the “media multiplier,” has a hustler’s reputation. It has been the argument of last resort for the “have not” media, trying to get on the schedule, stoutly defended against by the “have” media not wanting to give room. The nice thing about duplication planning for Synergy is it’s a “Buy-One-Get-One-Free.” Duplication planning certainly improves targeting. Duplication planning lowers the ever-growing cost of attentive reach. And, for those same dollars, duplication planning may help brands communicate better. ______________ Call us Schizoid, but buried in the mind of media planning there’s a conflict. Reach and Targeting, planning’s dominant personalities, don’t get along. Duplication planning could be just the big enough couch.
[1] One of the as yet unsolved problems is data equivalence. [2] There’s a bit of a con here. The weekly Print weight is never as high as the TV it replaces and Print’s generous publication intervals occupy more weeks on the flow chart. [3] Even with reach media like TV, past about a 30 reach, most of the money goes to build frequency. [4] The 1978 ARF definition of a TV exposure was eyes open confronted by a live TV screen. [5] That’s what the new ANA/ARF/AAAA engagement research is about. The press release says the goal is to “substitute engagement for frequency,” but the task force will also be forced to redefine Reach. [6] Table is from “Teaching Tap to The Elephant.” Erwin Ephron and Melissa Heath, in this archive. [7] A 2+ Reach goal assumes an exposure value of 50%. The cost of the schedule for an exposure adjustment of 60% would be close to double. [8] The use of other media to guarantee exposure gets us past the first hurdle of data equivalence. Even a partial exposure can do the job. [9] I believe this can be demonstrated with data like MRI volumetrics, Magazines versus TV. - September 5, 2005 -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Their song was irresistible.
It promised success, ripe wisdom and a new life to any man who came to them.
And so the Sirens of Greek legend lured sailors off course to their destruction
on the rocks. 
The reason is obvious. Reach has too big a heart. It likes everyone.
Targeting is narrow-minded. It turns most people away. Planning’s predicament
is it needs both.
In Television for a variety of reasons including non-compliance, viewer inattention
and commercial avoidance, a Nielsen exposure is no longer an ad “attended
to.” If 60% of the commercial audience pays attention, an Nielsen exposure
has a value of less than one. That means a rating isn’t reach anymore.
The final reason
to mix media may be the most important and yet the least measured – Synergy.
But since you can no longer do it all with Television today, Synergy is certainly
worth a try. It would have other media run concurrently to achieve the amplified
effects of multi-source communication. 
