Telmar.com Telmar.com eTelmar.net Home Page The Advertising Media Internet Center

Telmar Home Page Telmar.com

 

Media Guru

Guru Search Results: 10 matches were found

Tuesday, October 09, 2007 #7427
What is the Starch Study? How can I get access to some of its findings?

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, October 09, 2007 ):
Gfk Starch measures several aspects advertising response, best known for print ad "noting" and readership measures.


Tuesday, September 04, 2007 #7411
I have recently heard about "noticeability" value to compare media, in a paradigm shift from CPT (cost per thousand) to CPNP (cost per noticeability point) thereby creating a new currency for press planning and buying. Can you shed some light on this and are there "noticeability" values generally agreed upon by media buyers for specific media? For example, I kow a media buyer who uses 37% of traffic counts as her noticeability value for a given billboard. Thanks Guru!

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, September 05, 2007 ):
The concept is not new. Under the name "noticeabilty," it seems to have some currency in India, promoted by Lodestar.

Overall it is a matter of developing factors to adjust GRPs based on measures of noting, or awareness.

That is, an ad in a given magazine has the same GRP whether it's 4-color or black and white, whether it's a spread or a quarter page. GRP is only an audience measure.

Obviously, the 4-color spread has a better chance of being noticed than the b/w quarter page. Measures like Starch AdNorms have historically been the primary scale for this concept in print, and can allow planners to build adjustment scales for noticeabilty points if they desire. Since judgement is involved, the Guru doubts this will become an actual currency for media negotiation, but it can be a useful planning tool. The media already sell 4-color spreads for a different price than b/w quarter pages, but the price difference may be far out of proportion to your noticability scale.


Monday, July 26, 2004 #6550
Can you give me some rationale on why spreads are better than full pages. Thanks.

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, July 26, 2004 ):
From a media viewpoint, there is little justifcation in light of the price; creative issues are key. The noting is better. Creatives often act as if twice as big is twice as good, but from an empirical perspective, no measure increases in proportion to the price difference vs a single page. noting in better, the impact is better, the reach / frequency is no different. Intangibles of "impact" are the primary argument. Sometimes brand positioning issues support some large units.


Thursday, August 08, 2002 #5456
Do you know of any research that would show which is more effective in gaining audience attention: a medium length schedule with larger ads (6x with spread ads for example), or a longer schedule with smaller ads (12x with full page ads). Any insight is appreciated.

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, August 10, 2002 ):
There will be many studies of this nature. The key is your definition of "audience attention." Reach will be greater with the greater number of ads. Recall or noting is likely to be greater with the spreads. Ad or brand awareness might be the more decisive difference.

Try The Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter. For details about the InfoCenter,


Wednesday, January 23, 2002 #5030
Hi Mr Guru. Just wondering : in the basic (reachxfrequency)xCPM/1000 formula, I have a question about reach. Are we talking about the number of people who see the ad, or who might see the ad ? E.g. the 500,000 people who drive by a billboard every week, but who don't necessarily see it. Thanks a lot.

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, January 31, 2002 ):
There is a term - "opportunity to see" - more commonly used in Europe and probably more descriptive than our own "impressions." Each research measurement has a standard for inclusion in the reported audience. For outdoor it may be something like: the number of cars passing a billboard each day time an average of 1.7 passengers per car. In magazine, the number of persons who say they looked into the most recent issue. There are arguements about why each overstates the numbers actually exposed to the ad. However, reach and frequency systems are usually built to deal with the reported audiences fed to them. Most sytems have allowances to adjust inputs or results based on attentiveness, noting or other refinements.


Tuesday, July 24, 2001 #4602
Where could I get more information on Print Reading and noting studies. This research attempts to arrive at factors that determine visibility of an edit or an ad. For example edit/ads that appear before the fold of a newspaper , or right hand vs. left hand.

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, July 24, 2001 ):
Visit Starch and The Magazine Publishers' Association.


Monday, February 07, 2000 #3195
I recall that there were starch tests comparing the noting of ads in Magazines , measuring the relative noting of front vs back of book , noting of left vs right hand page , OBC's , and different sizes of ads . Do you have access to this info , or do you know where I can source it ?

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, February 07, 2000 ):
Go to Starch


Monday, October 04, 1999 #2843
Guru - I have been put in the situation of planning, negotiating and buying online advertising. I'm having difficulty in determining the appropriate number of impressions to purchase for a two week flight of an entertainment property. I understand every site is different, but is there a benchmark to follow? Someone once said that the minimum level of impressions to be effective is 10% of the site's available impressions. This seems high. Also, is there a syndicated source that lists the total number of impressions available per month? Can online impressions be purchased against a specific demo (i.e. Men 25-54)? Thank you for your help.

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, October 04, 1999 ):
There are many buying-minimum rules of thumb that seem arbitrary on first consideration, like '12x per week per station' in radio, but have a logic if someone clearly explains it.

However, this "10% of the available impression" idea is certainly not one of these. It's not only arbitrary, but relatively ridiculous.

Consider a site like Yahoo, which may generate well over 1 billion monthly impressions. 10% of that is 100 million. If you bought that weight at a $30 CPM, that would be $3,000,000 per month. Are there many advertisers spending at that rate? And, if you think about other top sites, it becomes even more fantastic.

According to Nielsen//Netratings, top, deep-pockets, online advertisers like Microsoft, Amazon.com. AOL and Yahoo each ran about 200 to 600 million impressions in August. And of course, they didn't do that on just a few sites.

What would a 10% rule achieve? Identification with a specific site? Perhaps some very targeted sites which fit your campaign creative very well are worth sponsoring at this level. Or do you think each person exposed is aware of how many other people are seeing other banners on the same site?

By the way, the Guru would be interested to hear anyone's justification of a '10% of available impressions' rule and will post here any that make sense.

It's also worth noting another point here: Bigness is of questionable value in selecting on-line media vehicles. Exposure isn't figured in the same way as for other media: In a magazine, each ad page is treated as if it had the average audience of the issue; within some tolerance, this is realistic. But in a popular web site with potentially hundreds of pages, neither the home page nor those within the site get all the monthly impressions the site accrues. Any one page might get less than one percent of the total, and a rotating banner might get less than one percent of the page where it's shown. One million impressions can be bought from a site with one billion to sell or with just two million. If the targeting is controlled, there is equal value.

Sometimes page or section content will allow targeting to be assumed. On some sites, registration data, or 'cookies', or IP tracking can allow ads to be served to specified categories of visitors.


Wednesday, June 09, 1999 #2564
Do you know of any studies that compare direct response television advertising to general rate/fixed position advertising? Specifically, the differences in the GRPs across the board? Thanks for your help.

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, June 10, 1999 ):
Assuming you are talking about the comparison of spots sold on a pre-emptable, ROS basis for direct response (often sold at 50% of "list price") versus ordinary "regular" priced spots in specific program or dayparts, why would there be a GRP difference? One can buy 100 GRPs either way; the price of a spot doesn't influence its rating.

If you are looking for the differences in GRPs purchased by typical campaigns of either style, the Guru isn't aware of any such compilation -- one can estimate dollars spent, but estimating GRPs requires and additiona source for ratings data and knowledge of the advertisers' targets.

One consideration worth noting is that direct response is often just bought as numbers of spots, with little regard for GRP delivery.


Saturday, October 18, 1997 #1438
Dear Guru Could you please give me your views/suggestions on the following: 1. How can you set media objectives for a banking client in a market with only two major competitors; both of whom do not have a clear-cut advertising campaign? Would a % above last years GRP levels be appropriate; in proportion to the market share desired? What other parameters should I consider? 2. Qualitatively or quantitatively, how can front page solus positions in newspapers be compared with inside pages and ear panels? 3. And lastly, how do you add TV and press GRPs; for a specific audience? Sorry about the long query. Thanks in advance

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, October 18, 1997 ):
As a rule, the Guru sets media objectives based on marketing goals, not competitors' activity. Some marketing goals do indeed lead one to comparsions with competition, and awareness of competitors' plans is always a consideration.

If the key marketing goal is share growth, then a proportional increase in weight is one approach. But consider that share, like reach, exhibits an asymptotic curve. In other words, it can't pass 100%, so the higher it goes, the more effort is required to "move the needle."

Consider: You first assume that "X" amount of GRP's are required just to maintain share, on the assumption that competitive activity doesn't vary (and that advertising is the only variable influencing share).

Have you considered whether current share is proportional to share of GRP weight among competitiors?

Would 50% more GRPs grow share by 50%? No, if only because it increases the size of the total advertising arena. Your 50% increase in GRP does not increase your share of GRP by 50%, so calculate the right number to increase share of GRP, if you follow that philosophy.

But since there are competitors, perhaps it takes 50% more weight to gain 25% more share?

Newspaper positions can be compared on a basis of noting, reading, recall, etc. In each country or culture (you are writing from India), the relative power of media and the way consumers relate to them are different.

In the U.S., for example, a front page ad in a newspaper would be quite unusual if not unheard of.

Contacting the U.S. Advertising Research Foundation or ESOMAR, the European Survey, Opinion and Marketing Research organization, or your own country's newspaper advertising association may turn useful up research on positioning.

The Guru treats GRPs of different media as simply additive. When there are established effectiveness factors, as some advertisers have developed, GRPs may be accordingly adjusted before adding, in comparing plans.



Back