38 matches were found
- Wednesday, May 19, 2004 #6499
We are currently purchasing local broadcast television combined with local cable television in a large number of markets. We have been grappling with the question of how to report the ratings achieved by each medium. Our initial thought was to add the broadcast DMA ratings to the DMA equivalent ratings of the cable activity in order to keep the figures "apples to apples." How do other agencies report cable ratings back to their client? (Local cable reports their audience delivery a number of ways including: DMA ratings, cable universe ratings, cable zone ratings within cable universe, etc.).
However, there are some cases where we may be purchasing select cable zones in a market, rather than the entire market's cable interconnect. In these cases, the cable television activity probably won't be efficient when compared to the broadcast TV DMA CPPs. On the other hand, purchasing the entire broadcast television DMA probably isn't an efficient way to reach just the geography surrounding a few stores. How do other agencies rationalize purchasing select cable zones (surrounding store locations) to their analytical clients? In these cases, the DMA CPP comparison probably isn't realistic.
what this boils down to is a basic question--is local cable forced to compete on exactly the same playing field as broadcast television? Are both forms of media judged against the same CPP goals or is cable allowed to compete based on a different CPP (based on the cable universe or percentage of cable penetration)? Does this answer change if purchasing an entire market's interconnect versus a single zone or multiple zones?
How is cable television posted when buying an interconnect? When buying a zone or zones?
what other factors should be considered in this analysis (i.e. are we overlooking anything)?
How is the budget (or trp goals) allocated to between cable and broadcast television?
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, May 20, 2004 ):
The Guru reports ratings on the basis that makes sense for the clients' marketing needs. If the client is a retailer, ratings localized to cable zones in store trading zones make sense and will reflect the efficiency of this localization, while also put the waste of DMA ratings into perspective. On the other hand a national consumer goods marketer with interest in entire DMA's should use DMA ratings as a comparison basis.
- Wednesday, April 07, 2004 #6455
I have heard of a 4 wk TV flighting strategy of 50% of the total trps week one, followed by a week off followed by 25% of the total trps for the last 2 weeks. Supposedly the TV spot recognition is way higher. Have you heard of this? what do you think?
- The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, April 11, 2004 ):
The idea here is that enough frequency is built earlier in the campaign so that consumer response begins earlier and the later exposures penetrate better.
This is more relevant in higher level campaigns with more continuity.
- Friday, July 18, 2003 #6087
what is trp?
- The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, July 19, 2003 ):
Click here to see Guru discussion of trp
- Friday, January 10, 2003 #5727
I need to support a network TV buy with spot radio. The network buy is at 700 trp over 6 week flights (frontloaded for each flight). HOw do I determine the appropriate levels of weekly radio weight?
Thanks for your help.
- The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, January 12, 2003 ):
Determine what you want to accomplish. If it's a certain communication level, for example, Reach and Frequency, it easy to use an R&F system to "back into" required radio levels. Your radio sales rep is one source of this kind of analysis.
- Saturday, December 21, 2002 #5699
Dear Guru, what's the difference between GRP & trp? Thanks, JR
- The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, December 21, 2002 ):
Click here to see past Guru responses
- Tuesday, October 22, 2002 #5574
Dear Guru, I am interested in the perfect values of the following media parameters for one TV campaign of beer product (May be there is some standards):
1. Number of flights per year
2. trp’ s per week
3. trp’ s per campaign
4. OTS per campaign
5. Reach 1+, 3+, 5+ per campaign
I am interested which are the effective frequency and the effective reach.
Thank you very much for your answers.
- The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, October 27, 2002 ):
There are no perfect answers. Within whatever budget you have, you must consider what is possible. If you can afford 5,200 GRP per year, is it better to have 100 GRP per week every week or 146 GRP for 9 four week flights?
Part of the answer depends on how you set the effective frequency goal. Perhaps seasonality tells you you need the 150 in the summer but only the 100 the rest of the year. what level do the competitors run? what is your brand awareness? what are your awareness goals, sales goals, share goals?
In short, budget, and many circumstances need to be considered rather than any quest for abstractly 'perfect' answers
- Wednesday, August 14, 2002 #5463
I would like to know if there is a general rule of thumb for R/F goals on political/issue advertising for local markets. Also, the politcal strategist running the campaign for which we are buying media has stipulated that we must place 1000 trps against each television spot. what are your thoughts on that?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, August 14, 2002 ):
No general rules. Levels should depend on competition, and other specific factors. Budget not least of all. Without knowing the rationale for the 1000 trp, it is difficult to comment. 1000 does not seem at all excessive.
- Friday, June 07, 2002 #5332
Is there absolutely no difference between TVR and trp (and how about GRP...)? I have looked your though recent responses, but haven't found exactly what i need. thanks an advance!
- The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, June 08, 2002 ):
Click here to see past Guru responses about TVR and here for trp & GRP
- TVR applies to single units and to TV
- The other two are accumulations
- trp and GRP may be used in any medium
- trp is not used in reference to households
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 #5217
what are grp's
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, April 11, 2002 ):
Click here to see past Guru discussion of GRPs
- Wednesday, April 03, 2002 #5190
what is a trp?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, April 03, 2002 ):
Click here to see the Guru's description and definition of trp
- Tuesday, March 05, 2002 #5134
what is the difference between trp's and GRP's? Thanks.
- The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, March 05, 2002 ):
The Guru has addressed this question often. Click here to see past Guru responses
- Friday, October 12, 2001 #4785
what is the difference between 100 GRPs in Canada and 100 trps in US? I've heard that it is harder to reach Canadains than it is Americans through television, is that true? If so, why?
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, October 15, 2001 ):
100 GRPs means a quantity of impressions equal to the size of the population. So in Canada, 100 GRPs represents about 11% as many impressions as in the US, since Canada has 11% as big a population.
'Harder to reach' might mean many different things. Perhaps the major programs in Canada have lower ratings than in the US, or there are more different program choices. Or cume patterns are lower for whatever reason. Or cost per point is greater due to less economy of scale.
- Thursday, September 27, 2001 #4737
Are there any rules about how long a creative spot should run on radio before there are adverse effects on the targeted audience? We have a client who has run 2 spots on 3 stations with an average of 100 trp's per week for 16 consecutive weeks. what are some of the advantages/disadvantages to running the same spot over such a period of time? Thank you for your insight.
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, September 27, 2001 ):
Repetition has value in awarenss building. At some point, the commerial wears out. The best rule the Guru has encountered for this is "when sales begin to fall off, the commerical is worn out."
Guru responses about wear out.
- Wednesday, August 15, 2001 #4658
Could use some help framing questions for my agency relating to the effectiveness of a media campaign. We recently ran a test cell for a new campaign (our first)in which the agency provided information on total trps, total reach and total frequency over the life of the test. I need to determine how the frequency builds over time. Are there any formulas/rules of thumb for calculating build over time? If not, what specifically should I ask them for?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, August 15, 2001 ):
Reach relates to GRP in a curvilinear function. Frequency relates to GRP in a straight line. This doesn't mean that each week adds the same amount of frequency, merely that it's fairly easy to work with.
The easiest thing however, is probably to ask the agency to calculate cumulative reach and frequency, week by week, over the course of the campaign.
- Friday, May 04, 2001 #4365
what is the minimum trp level ONE creative execution should
have allocated for a campaign? For example, if I have
3,000 trp's total (NATIONAL) for different products, shouldn't
there be a limit on the number of commercials we run,
in effect because none of the spots would have enough
weight attributed to it?
Thank you so much!!
- The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, May 05, 2001 ):
These decisions should be based on communications goal for each product, not numbers of commercials.
3000 GRP per year is about 60 per week. This is an adequate sustaining level for a brand, especially within recency concepts. If you are allocating this to products which have mutually exclusive selling periods of one month each, you could support 12 products comfortably.
Competitive climate should also be considered.
- Tuesday, February 06, 2001 #4162
Hallo, Dear Media Guru! Can You please help me to solve the
1 - I know that my TVcmp should get effective reach of 50%
with effective frequency 4+. How can I get(count) the number of GRP I need
to buy and trp I need to reach?
2 - what concrete methods do can You recommend to define the levels of reach&frequency for concrete product's/brand's TV cmp. Thak you a lot.
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, February 07, 2001 ):
The Guru is not clear as to what distinction you are trying to make regarding GRP and trp.
To determine the GRP/trp needed to achieve a specific reach / effective frequency goal, you need a media software like that provided by Telmar or eTelmar.
Click here to see past Guru discussion about establishing levels.
- Wednesday, November 15, 2000 #3972
I'm a newcomer to the site and I very much enjoy your bright responses.
Re recency, you write >a core concept of recency is that once the third exposure is delivered, all additonal exposures are at 3+.<
That concept belongs to Herb Krugman, ("Why Three Exposures May Be Enough.")whose work was misread as supporting effective frequency.
The corresponding core concept of recency is a single exposure within a short planning interval is most cost-effective.
These results in moderate TRP's and more weeks of advertising. When heavier weight is called for (i.e., new product introductions), instead of accepting random frequency, recency shortens the planning interval and maintains a solus reach goal. Planning for continuous reach produces a better distribution of frequency.
My apology for this somewhat truncated explanation. I can provide greater detail if you'd like.
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, November 16, 2000 ):
As the leading industry writer on the topic, your comments are greatly appreciated, and you'll have to excuse the Guru for using your own writings in his reply.
Maybe "seminal" concept would be a better term than "core" concept when the Guru cites this Krugman principal, since it is more part of the evolution than structure of recency.
Perhaps connecting the concepts himself, but gathering them from your own articles, such as Learned Any Ads Lately?, the Guru sees the concept that all additional exposure are at 3+, as part of the underpinnings of Recency. Because this idea gets us past the effective frequency issue, the -- superior, in the Guru's opinion -- Recency theory surmounts objections from the effective frequency camp.
- Wednesday, August 23, 2000 #3737
I am trying to figure out the wearout for print. My target is African Americans 12-24 and 18-49. All I have is the FY reach, freg and trps. what would be my next steps?
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, August 28, 2000 ):
There are no accepted standard formulas for wear-out. By the nature of print, which tends to yield high reach adn low frequency, there is generally less concern about wear-out than in broadcast.
Some of the broadcast rules-of-thumb for wear out include "over 20 frequency in the second highest quintile" or "2000 GRP.
Niether of these are likely to occur in print. Custom research may be the only real way to evaluate this. Start with Starch.
- Thursday, July 06, 2000 #3604
I've mostly handled print and DM advertising and am trying to master radio. If a client is saying that their optimum trp level is 175, what does that mean?
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, July 10, 2000 ):
Click here for a definition of trp
Presumably, the client would be speaking of the trp level which has produced nest results for the budget.
- Tuesday, May 30, 2000 #3503
I'd like to clarify my question from last week about national media vs. spot media planning. Based on the marketing and communication goals of our client, we have determined that network television is a necessary part of our media mix. We are in the process of aquiring reach/frequency software for national media, but don't currently have it so I can't do a run to determine trp levels that will generate effective levels of reach/frequency. So, in order to get a feel of what other national advertisers planned, I looked at other plans that contained network television. In looking at those plans I noticed that the trp levels are significantly lower than spot television plans. Have you noticed that same descrepancy in media plans that you are familiar with? If so, why?
- The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, May 30, 2000 ):
You must be comparing all-TV plans where one is all spot and the other is all network for these comparisons to make sense, in the first place. If there are other media involved, naturally that will affect TV levels.
In national plans containing both media forms, the network will be mostly low-readh daytime and high-priced prime. So there are reasons to limit investment in each. Spot ususally is concentrated in fringe times, which offer better reach potential than day and better efficiency than prime, so that is one reason for higher spot levels.
In other plan where there is network as well as spot, spot may be used to give extra weight to markets with greater sales or greater sales potential or to fill in market that are underdeliverd by network versus national averages. In any of these cases, spot is typically used at higher levels, but in a short lis of markets.
There is nothing inherent in spot versus network to make spot levels higher than network when either one is the sole medium.
- Wednesday, April 19, 2000 #3410
what is your opinion on using out-of-home (30-sheets or
bulletins) as a stand-alone medium for a brand-building
On a related note, are there any "rules" for adjusting
different types of media for their "impact" versus
other media (e.g., impact of an all-newspaper campaign
versus an all television campaign given the same trp
levels and the same "likelihood of use" by the target
- The Media Guru Answers(Friday, April 21, 2000 ):
The Guru has seen impact adjusments across media based on recall, on attentiveness and on an advertiser's proprietary research, but no general rules-of-thumb.
Unfortunately, such adjustments are too often based on one unit of the advertising, such as a TV spot versus a radio spot, and don't take into account the crucial difference in number of spots or GRPs per dollar.
As for brand-building in outdoor, there are two principal considerations in the Guru's view:
- Definition of "brand building:" The term, one of those nebulous buzz-words which seems to mean whatever the speaker wishes, implies, to the Guru, the creation of a brand image and positioning from a low-awarness start.
- Limited message: How much can a brand be "built" by the few words and large graphic allowable in out-of-home media?
- Yet, the Guru is very favorably inclined to taking advantage of the enormous reach and frequency possible via out-of-home
In short, the Guru's gut feeling is that outdoor can contribute greatly to brand building, but that the process needs at least one longer-form medium.
- Tuesday, February 15, 2000 #3216
what have you found to be the maximum weight one should put behind a specific television spot before it "wears out?" Assume 200 trps per week for 39 weeks of the year exposure. Thanks.
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, February 16, 2000 ):
For this question, asked in this specific form, the Guru would say 2000.
But it isn't so simple. Different daypart mixes will build different reach and frequency -- and it's frequency that's the issue. Some say 20+ frequency in the second heaviest quintile is the cut-off.
Even then, the qualities of the specific commercial and the size of the commercial pool are important factors as well.
- Thursday, October 28, 1999 #2918
could you please explain what should be the diffrent
between plan GRP and plan trp and the real resoult in trp and GRP terms?
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, October 28, 1999 ):
2. Some people use "trp" when referring to GRPs of a specific
demographic and say "GRP" only in reference to Household Rating
- Monday, October 11, 1999 #2865
what is the difference between a trp and a GRP?
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, October 11, 1999 ):
2. Some people use trp when referring to GRPs of a specific demographic and say GRP only in reference to Household Rating Points.
- Friday, October 01, 1999 #2839
We work with a client who is a franchise of a larger hospitality company. In previous years, their plans have consisted of heavy spot TV schedules in their various markets. In 2000, they are making a large jump into network, leaving minimal dollars for supplemental spot buys. They are not achieving total trp levels of previous years, and want to know the trade off of heavy spot vs. lighter, higher quality network. Besides anecdotal info, I'm at a loss. Please help!
Thanks in advance.
- The Media Guru Answers(Friday, October 01, 1999 ):
The key consideration is how close to national your client is. How much waste are you buying when you use national media versus media falling only within target areas?
You are using an assumption of "quality" here that the Guru couldn't justify. what is your definition of quality, rating size? First run versus rerun? The Guru doesn't believe those factors contribute much to sales. In either case, whether in spot or in national, you can chose your programs, air in prime-time, first run programs, etc.
If there are large parts of the country where advertising weight is waste, and if you must short-change good prospects in order to be national, what's the benefit? If your coverage area had been close enough national, you would have found economies of scale in moving from spot to network.
- Thursday, August 19, 1999 #2726
I buy a base level of 500 Ad 18-49 trp's per week; a typical flight will run 4 weeks --- for a total of 2000 trp's. From this base buy, we usually split the base buy in 1/2 trafficking in two different spots (1000 / 1000 trp's). At what level do you think that wear out will occur? Thanks for your help.
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, August 19, 1999 ):
what is your definition of wearout? A frequency level? A decline in ad awareness? A sales decline? There are may ways to set wearout.
One of the oldest, and easier to use because it is defined entirely by media measurement, is a certain frequency level in the next-to-highest quintile, perhaps a frequency of 20.
Depending on daypart mix, this might mean wearout at about 2000 GRPs for a spot.
- Tuesday, June 08, 1999 #2562
I have an outdoor question. If showing size refers to the reach per day, i.e. 25# reaches 25% of a market per day, why aren't the estimated trps per month simply 25 x 28 = 700. Most studies I see quote a lower trp level for a 25 showing. what gives?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, June 09, 1999 ):
The Guru has come across this problem and found the answers.
There are two answers, one sensible, one nonsense, but both real.
Sensible: The "25 showing" is a standard number of panels, based on 25% of adult population. So if your target is Women 18-34, there may be a different number of women 18-34 GRPs in a showing actually bought as 25 Adult 18% GRPs. This is perfectly sensible, and happens ain all media, but the sellers and buyers of other media are fully conversant with these facts.
Now for the nonsense answer, which is most likely the basis of the number you were given. Various research companies, such as MRI have measured outdoor as part of multimedia reports and these generalized reports are being used to estimate target reach for a marketpace showing. Often a completely different source for average frequency is used and these two factors are multiplied to calculate GRPs. It seems invariably to be much lower than the GRPs you would get by the realistic method first described, and so makes outdoor seem less efficient than it should.
The misused sources could, instead be used to provide relative exposure indices between demographics, allowing a simple conversion of GRPs. The Guru hopes the Outdoor industry improves in this area.
- Monday, May 17, 1999 #2509
Media Guru -
I just read your responce to question #2507. Numerically, your answer may be correct that turning 200 pulsed trp's into 100 continous trp's may be more effective. (recency theory) It may not however be realistically the best course of action. Recency assumes that your advertising is ongoing reminder advertising and that your brand is well established. Also, purchase patterns and frequency are important. In terms of media, you have to consider what will 100 trp's afford you? If you are in 2 or 3 dayparts in TV you will have a handful of spots, that the prospect will be lucky to see. I think that recency has to be balanced out with other marketing and media factors, including impact.
- The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, May 18, 1999 ):
As the Guru said in that response, the concept applied "particularly if your product is something people are buying continuously or regularly."
Recency does not make assumptions about product establishment -- though some practicioners may. In fact the original statement of the thesis emphasized the point, for effective frequency adherents, that after the third exposure, every exposure was at "three plus" and looking at abstractions like three plus in a set time frame was not necessary. About 60 GRP per week has been identified as a workable threshold of effectiveness.
Regarding dayparts, any mix of daypart is likely to deliver an average rating in the 5 to 8 range. Unless you have frequency goals by daypart (why?), 100 vs 200 seems a moot issue.
The net effect on consumers, at the end of four weeks, whether you have run 100 GRP per week or 200 GRP in weeks #1 and #3 only, will be about the same, in accumulated reach and average frequency.
The biggest difference will be in average reach per week (or per day). Your point makes a big issue of a time frame called a week, which is just an abstraction and a common convenience in looking at schedules.
Thinking of the schedule you would select to run 200 GRP in 7 days, why must it differ if spread over 14 days?
- Thursday, April 01, 1999 #2426
what are the appropriate rating point levels for introducing a new grocery product into the New York Metro?
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, April 01, 1999 ):
The Guru has discussed this kind of question frequently.
Click here to see past Guru
responses about advertising levels
- Wednesday, March 24, 1999 #2407
How did the industry standard of requiring television stations to post at 90%
of the estimated trps on local spot buys originate?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, March 24, 1999 ):
Just because your agency and many others use this figure, it doesn't mean it's an "industry standard." But it is probably most common. The practice began in recognition of the statisical instability of the audience research, due to sampling issues. Two people, negotitating in good faith, and agreeing that a schedule should deliver 100 GRP, can find that, without anyone doing anything wrong, the schedule is reported to underdeliver because of "bounce" in the ratings. So to avoid arguements over probably half of all the schedules bought and sold, it became common to agree that if the schedule posted at least 90% of what was bought, it was "no harm / no foul." In fact, in most cases, schedules estimated in good faith should, statistically do better than 90%. And if a buyer finds that every schedule bought from a specific station came in near 90%, then there's something wrong; schedules should post over as often as under if statistical bounce is the culprit. Of course a buyer doesn't want all schedules to post 110% or bigger either, that would imply bad estimationg and overspending.
The 90% figure shouyld be a negotiating point. Don't automatically expect a station to honor it unless it's your stated policy or by agreement. Many schedules are bought without guarantees.
The Guru recalls his own buying experience when one salesman would offer 90% guarantee and the next 95%. It made it too hard to compare proposals. So the said to all the sellers. Give me only numbers which are 100% guaranteed. Raise the cpm you are offering, if you must, to compensate, but all sales must be on the same basis.
- Wednesday, January 20, 1999 #2280
For a national product launch, what are "typical"
trp weight levels for network tv, say for a launch
that is scheduled for 8 weeks?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, January 20, 1999 ):
No such thing. It's a classic case of "it depends".
- what is the category?
- Who is the target?
- Is it a unique product or in a competitive field?
- Will there be any other media / PR / other marketing communications?
- what is consumer awareness of the category?
- Is it a high-involvement or low-interest category?
- Is it from a well regarded parent company or an unknown?
With a new product, you want to drive reach as high as possible with adequate supporting frequency. As a rule of thumb, few would start lower than 100 trp / week.
- Tuesday, December 22, 1998 #2232
We use a buying service for our media. I'm just
learning and was asked what seems a simple question,
but do I have all the elements and could you
help me to formulate the equation to learn.
We are running 125 trp's weekly in radio flighted
thoughout the year. 3,000 total trp's for the year.
$550,000 total budget. CPP ranges from $32 to $200,
average is $90.
Q. With 125 trp's a week, approximately how many spots
a week will this schedule produce?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, December 23, 1998 ):
The Guru assumes you are running 125 GRP in each market.
Depending on market and demographic, average ratings run from about 1.0 - 2.0 on top stations. Divide GRP by the average rating you will buy to estimate number of spots. At an average rating of 1.0, 125 GRPs represents 125 spots.
And you didn't need any of that cost or cpp data.
- Monday, December 14, 1998 #2220
How do you "Nationalize" spot tv trp's? In other words, if I ran 100 trp's in 5% of the U.S., what would this translate to on a national basis?
- The Media Guru Answers(Friday, December 18, 1998 ):
trps nationalize by multiplying them by the % U.S.
So, 100 trp in 5% of the U.S. = 5 national trp
- Thursday, September 03, 1998 #2026
Both we and our client agree to the recency theory. The
problem is that given the retraints of the budget,
we are only able to schedule "weekly" advertising for
about half the schedule while still achieving minimal
weekly trp threshold levels. Right now we are wrestling
with the dilemma of how to schedule these weeks for the
first half of the year while still following the
principals of the recency theory: (1)12 weeks straight through
then a 14-week hiatus (2)6 weeks on, 14 weeks off, 6
weeks on or (3)an alternating schedule of 4 weeks on
and 4 weeks off, etc. throughout the period. Do you
have any theory on what might be the best approach to
- The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, September 03, 1998 ):
Thinking about a "threshold level" of GRP's is instinctive, but at odds with the essence of recency theory. Review other Guru answers below about recency. Please also see a very interesting discussion of recency on our MediaPlanning e-mail list. The list archives are at Ad Talk and Chats . Why not subscribe to the list and bring your question there as well?
- Tuesday, August 25, 1998 #2014
Hi, I would like to know anything regarding setting the minimun level of trp's, or minimun reach goal. We know how to set the optimun level, but there is a minimun? One point where is better not to advertise at all. Thank you.
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, August 31, 1998 ):
Any GRPs generate some reach and frequency.
Any reach generates some consumer impact. Setting minima is a matter of judgment and logic.
If you are an adherent of the effective reach theory, you will determine what is your effective level (3+ or more) and what portion of your target you need to reach at that level, to make advertising worthwhile. This determination will tell you either how much time you can be active in advertising or across how much geography. The Guru favors 50% as the portion of target to set as minimum to reach effectively.
If you believe totally in the recency theory, any is a reasonable minimum, because each impression has its greatest chance to produce a sale this way, as it is more likely to produce unduplicated reach at any point in time. Yet, few planners can avoid feeling there should be a minimum, probably because they want to see measured sales movement for some period of time.
In either case, seasonality and purchase cycles will inform the decision.
- Monday, August 24, 1998 #2011
We are in the process of planning for a major TV client
where we have been applying the recency theory for
the past year. Because of the size of the budget we
have been limited to around 70trps weekly essentially
for the entire year. In Year II our client has asked
us to consider temporarily abondoning the recency
theory and to move dollars (and trps) out of the more
expensive buying months (April, May) to the relatively more
more inexpensive months (January, Feb)and to increase
our trp levels accordingly. Do you have any input on
which strategy should/could have more effect on brand
performance assuming all other factors are equal
(pricing, distribution etc.)?
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, August 24, 1998 ):
First we have to assume that the basis of recency theory is accepted.
Recency theory calls for reaching as many people as possible as close to the sale as possible. Thats's why continuity is emphasized for products with little seasonality and regular purchase cycles.
One of the essential elements of recency theory is that not all impressions or GRPs are equal, even in the same programming. You are focusing on cost per point. As you are probably aware, reach developed per GRP decreases with every added GRP in a schedule. There is therefore, a declining return on investment in reach at any point in time, which is why spreading out prospects reached produces the optimal return. The first 10 GRPs bought in a week generate more reach than the last 10 GRPs.
Hence, the added impressions bought when they are cheap produce less sales than the impressions lost from the more expensive times.
So now you have to evaluate what might be produced. Assuming you are lowering -- not eliminating --activity in higher priced periods how many more impressions, and how much more reach can you achieve in low priced times. If you cut back 10 reach points per week in July but buy 20 added reach points per week in March, perhaps the added reach can sell more than the lost reach, or perhaps not. The Guru would look for a 50% minimum trade up in added vs lost reach points to justify the change; i.e. if the plan goes down 10 reach points per week in one period, then it need to go up 15 reach points per week in the other.
- Tuesday, July 21, 1998 #1966
Sports radio networks rarely, if ever, give CPMs and
trps for the proposals presented. When asked to
provide this info, they cop-out saying "well, other
agencies (i.e., JWT, Bozell, BBDO) buy our network."
I understand there is a premium to associate yourself
with a high profile sports team, but at what cost?
Without having resources to evaluate each and every
radio station in the network, how can I accurately
present these proposals to my clients? Currently, I
figure: total market CPP x average rating x number of
spots x number of games scheduled + added value
= total package value. Am I accurate?
- The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, July 22, 1998 ):
When the Guru buys sports neworks, he gets audience and efficiency data. If you are saying that the networks give national data but not individual market rating, that's a somewhat different issue.If you are buying a team, its value is probably in its home market. If a network is only sold in total, what will you gain by identifying a weak station?
If you have all the data to execute your formula, you should do fine.
- Monday, July 21, 1997 #1376
I've been out of school, working for a large agency
for about a year. I would like for you to help me with
just one question: what is the difference between a
GRP and a trp? I don't think there is a difference, but
co-workers use trp and I've learned it as a GRP (Gross
Rating Point). Please help with any word origin or history
you may have.
Thanks for your help,
- The Media Guru Answers(Monday, July 21, 1997 ):
Until the late 70's, most TV advertising, especially for
major package goods brands, was bought on a Household GRP
basis. As demographic targeting became more common, "Target
Rating Points" (trp) became a term distinguished from
Household Gross Rating Points, which was especially useful
when a plan discussed both. Some people still use phrases
like Women 18-49 GRP when others would say trp. Except
that HH points are never trp, there is really no
what is important is consistency within any document and advertiser.