Home Page The Advertising Media Internet Center

Telmar Home Page


Media Guru

Guru Search Results: 10 matches were found

Monday, May 23, 2011 #7901
explanation of equivalization

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, May 23, 2011 ):
Click here to see past Guru responses explaining equivalization.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 #7841
Dear Guru, my question is about 30sec GRPs, how can we convert GRPs into 30 sec GRPs. Let suppose i have aired 20 spots of 20 sec each and got 25 GRPs how can i convert these GRPs into 30 secs. is there any formula regarding this? is it fine if i divide each spot;s GRPs by its duration and than multiply the result by 30 to find 30 sec GRPs (spot duration is 20 sec, its GRPs are 2, 2/20x30)?

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, April 05, 2011 ):
You need to establish a standard; what is the reason for your analysis?.

Most simple is the linear conversion you propose, where a :20 is worth two-thirds of a :30, but in what context? If you are concerned with pricing or "equivalization" issues, this is appropriate.

However, in absolute measurement, or for reach estimation purposes, a GRP is a GRP. It is simply reflective of a number of pairs of eyeballs exposed (impressions) divided by a population universe.

By the way, in the early days of :15s, recall measurement showed :15s were "worth" 77% of :30's and some people used that factor in some analyses.

Sunday, March 27, 2011 #7840
In regards to this question yesterday...would grps stay the same or would I halve the :15? Saturday, March 26, 2011 #7839 I am working on a national cable buy and I have to split 20% of impressions into UNequivalized :15 spots from :30. How do I calculate the conversions? The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, March 26, 2011 ): If you mean split 20% of the impressions you would have had if you had bought all :30s, then Assuming all spots deliver equal impressions look at the number of spots you would have bought deduct 20% of the spots and buy double that number of :15s

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, March 27, 2011 ):
The context of your query was explicitly UNequivlized. In this context, :15's and :30's have the same GRP. Thus the :30's you have spilt would then turn into doubled GRP.

Saturday, March 26, 2011 #7839
I am working on a national cable buy and I have to split 20% of impressions into UNequivalized :15 spots from :30. How do I calculate the conversions?

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, March 26, 2011 ):
If you mean split 20% of the impressions you would have had if you had bought all :30s, then
  • Assuming all spots deliver equal impressions
  • look at the number of spots you would have bought
  • deduct 20% of the spots and
  • buy double that number of :15s

Friday, December 31, 2010 #7822
Q1- What is the difference between media planning audience & media buying audience & how do we measure these if we are working on one brand then how can one brand has two audiences ( buying & planning audience )? Q2- Is media Planning audience & media planning TG is different?

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, December 31, 2010 ):
The Guru sees two ways to answer your question:
  • Sometimes a brand's true target is something of an oddball;. Nielsen measures age cells in 3 or 4 year blocks, e.g 18-20 / 21-24 / 25-29 / 20-34, etc. Yet media is typically sold in broader demographic segments like 18-24 or 24-49.. So, your brand may be really aiming at 21-29, but buying 18-34 which is more readily available.
  • OR, Planners use simple GRPs, based on impressions ÷ population. Commercial length is irrelevant to this calculation which might be used to develop Reach and Frequency, etc. However, buyers typically "equivalize" to account for the relative value of :15s vs :30s vs :60s. So a :15 is treated as if it had half the impressions of a :30 when buying. Thus a half-the-:30- price :15 has half the :30 impressions and the same "equivalized" cpm.GRPs are usually not equivalized in this connection.

Thursday, November 18, 2010 #7817
30 sec equivalent CPRP and prime time %. For a given campaign, I have calculated my 30 sec eqiuvalent CPRP's but now need to know my prime time % i.e. the % of my total GRP's that appeared in a defined prime time segement. Can I use gross GRP's to calculate this or should I use 30 sec equivalent CPRP's - does it make any difference. As the 30 sec equivalents are theoretical I am not sure how they can be ascribed back to an actual rating? Many thanks I love the site.

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, November 18, 2010 ):
Typically ":30 equivalent" GRP are arithmetically simple: if a spot is a :15 it's worth half, if a spot is a :60 it's worth double.

Daypart is not a factor at all. Nothing in equivalizing should give any indication of daypart mix.

Perhaps you have an ideosyncratic system? Prime will be the same percent as it was un-equivalized, unless the unit mix varies by daypart, e.g. Prime is all :15 and Day is all :60. If so, you simply have to know these facts.

Thursday, October 14, 2010 #7806
Hi..Greetings from Egypt. I went through your archive and searched all over the internet to desperately find an answer for this question, so please help. The diary gives equal ratings to the spot regardless of its length. Simply assuming that a :5 GRP is the same as a :30 is unrealistic. Also assuming that the :5 is 1/6 of the :30 GRP does not seem right and will ruin the CPP. Is there any formula out there to used by a credible source to convert the GRPs based on duration?

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, October 14, 2010 ):
GRP, like impressions, is simply an audience size measure, so duration is not a part of it.

Many buyers use "equivalized" GRP, which do allow for weighting by length. This is based on using :30 as a standard, and as you surmise, taking a simple ratio based on relative length.

Even in this scenario, it is common to leave the GRP untouched and just manipulate the impressions / cpm.

When :15s were new and various metrics showed they were about 70%+ of the recall value of a :30, that was used as a factor.

If GRP are being used in projecting reach, then the idea of holding GRP equal makes perfect sense; 100 GRP of :05 reaches the same number of persons as 100 GRP of :30, albeit much less effectively. You need to make a judgement call as to relative effectiveness and apply it logically. The Guru is not aware of an established standard for :05s.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 #7240
Dear Guru, My client currently splits their media budget at 50% spot tv and 50% natl cable/synd. They have asked us to cut all of their spot tv (in 30+ mkts) and reallocate some of the spend to natl cable/synd. In doing this exercise, they've asked us to show how many TRPs (by mkt) they're losing in spot tv and how much they will gain back (by mkt) in natl media. I've tried to explain to them that natl and local trps are not equivalent and we cannot equate natl TRPs on a local market basis (we're not even buying similar programming/stations). I'm not getting through to them - do you have a concise, easy explanation that I can give them as to why we can't equivalize natl trps on a mkt by mkt basis? Or am I totally missing something? Thanks!

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, December 10, 2006 ):
You're missing something. It is a quibble to say you can't equivalize TRPs because the programming is different. Don't you treat spot TRPs from game shows the same as soaps in the same market?

. Converting market TRPs to national equivalents is arithmetically simple. 100 TRP in a market that is 5% of the US equals 5 national TRP. Simply take the TRP in each spot market and multiply by the markets' per cent of the US. Then add the results to get total national TRP. Similarly, cable programs have ratings in each market, which are reported in the same ratings studies you use to buy spot tv. These can be treated in the same way to look at them on a national equivalent basis.

Thursday, January 03, 2002 #4973
Can you please explain the difference between TV network and spot buying. What is the equivalize and non-equivalize concept. Why is it used in network buying and not in spot(units are not equivalized). Also can you please explain the reweight concept. How do you come up with reweight cpm. Why can you just do a straight year cpm comparison.

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, January 04, 2002 ):
Click here to see past Guru responses about equivalizing. "Why use it?" is a good question regardless of the network versus spot element. The use of equivalence is an artifact of mass buying by corporation wherein large numbers of :15's and :30s are bought but need to be readily comparable. In spot, this type of buying is less common. Also, network :15s are almost alwasy priced at 50% of :30's making equivalence simple. In spot the ratio is usually higher, and inconsistent.

In network, the geography for CPP / CPM is consistent, so that CPP and CPM can be converted back and forth based on simple multiplication or divsion by the relevant demographic universe. In spot however, while CPP is based on the defined DMA (or occasionally metro) geography, CPM is based on impressions generated anywhere, so there is no simple mathematical relationship.

For other network buying concepts use the Go to the Guru Archives Search Engine.

Thursday, November 15, 2001 #4894
Will you please explain the math and rationale for equivalizing :15s in broadcast tv? I keep hearing the term, but my buyer couldn't clearly explain it. She also said she didn't believe in doing it. Do you? Thanks as always!

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, November 15, 2001 ):
Buyers and planners look at this process differently. In actual fact, a :15 and a :30 in the same program have the same audience, but different costs.

To planners the audience is more important, in its relationship to reach, etc.

Buyers, however are more cost and efficiency focused at the program level. They will simplify avails by assignninig everything the :30 price and using a factored audience to reflect the :15 efficiency.