Tuesday, May 21, 2002 #5297

I am writing a POV for a client on radio frequency levels. Are there any guidelines or general principles on weekly and 4-wk frequency goals for national radio? I haven't been able to find anything through the RAB.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, May 26, 2002 ):

There are many theories. Other than buying 12 spots per station per week, in local radio, there are few standard points of agreement, and even the 12 spot theory is not absolute.

For example, in some situations, such as Black or Hispanic radio, where ratings levels can be 8 or better; GRPS for 12 spotrs can be 100 or more and you are really buying reach more than frequency, attitudes about frequency will change.

Then, are you talking about spots-per-week frequency or average frequency of exposure? The answer will again change depending on what other media are in the plan.

The Guru feels that all this and more need to be taken into consideration, rather than look for general rules.

---

Wednesday, March 20, 2002 #5162

How many ads does it take to make an impression? to generate a response or action?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, March 21, 2002 ):

The media term "impression" means one exposure of one ad to one member of the universe.

Tradition says it takes three exposure to genrate recognition and action.

It really varies depending on category, medium, message, copy quality, and other factors.

---

Thursday, February 21, 2002 #5104

Dear Guru, how can I appriciate the effectiveness of media mix (TV, press and Radio)?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, February 23, 2002 ):

The Guru is unclear on what you mean by "appreciate."

Among the benefits of media mix are

• Gerater reach
• Better distribution of frequency of exposure (flatter quintiles)
• Ability to focus on different elements of communication; e.g. the immediacy and impact of full sight, sound and motion through tv plus the detailed descriptions of print

---

Friday, January 11, 2002 #4998

Broadcast planning; I work in the digital space and was trying to learn more about how broadcast is planned, specifically television.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, January 15, 2002 ):

Planning is a process of matching media choices to advertisng goals.

The biggest differences for traditional media versus digital are

• Planners don't think in terms of a single medium; the plan is theoetically open to any medium at the start.
• Audience measures are typically more detailed and finite, especaily in regard to reach.
• Outside of direct response planning, audience exposure estimates, rather than any analog of clicks is key.

See media planning texts in the AMIC Bookstore (in association with Amazon.com)

---

Friday, August 24, 2001 #4675

Dear Guru! Is there, to your knowledge, a "role of thumbe" when it comes to number of exposures necessary for one ad-observation in different media; for example 4+ in TV, 2+ for newspapers etc.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, August 26, 2001 ):

The Guru deosn't think there is a valid "rule of thumb" in this case. One could evaluate the schedule in each medium according to the 'Ostrow Model'

---

Wednesday, August 01, 2001 #4626

Could I have information about print, tv and other media in the following countries maldives,nepal,sri lanka, bangladesh Information would be in terms of media exposure number of vehicles and so on Also would help if I have information on demographic and psychographic profiles of population for these countries Where would I find such info ? Thanks Andre

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, August 01, 2001 ):

Try International media Guide

---

Wednesday, July 25, 2001 #4607

Hi ! Two questions 1. how do you decide which cume (1wk or 13 wk or 52 wk etc) to choose. 2. where can I find the details of the ostrows grid actual one with the scales etc. Thanks and regards

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, July 25, 2001 ):

1. Four week R&F is standard. Otherwise, if you need to examine a specific time period related to your marketing, use the closest cume.

2. The Ostrow model aims at establishing the minimum level of frequency to be deemed effective so that the plan can maximize reach at that level of frequency. The model can be traced back to his speech, "Effective Frequency" at an Advertising Research Foundation Key Issues workshop, June 4, 1982.

Typically, the model involves evaluating a series of relevant factors on a scale of say, 2 to 6, and averaging the factors to determine the appropriate level of frequency to set as effective.

In the 1982 speech the factors discussed were of three kinds: marketing, message / creative and media.

Marketing

• Established brand vs new entry
• Brand share
• Brand loyalty
• Purchase cycle
• Usage cycle
• Share of voice
• Target group learning capacity

Message / Creative

• Complexity
• Uniqueness
• New vs continuing campaign
• Image building vs specific sell
• Message variation (copy pool)
• Wear out
• Copy unit size/length

media

• Clutter
• Editorial / program environment
• Attentiveness
• Continuity vs flighting
• Number of different media
• Repeat exposure opportunities

.

For the full speech, the transcript proceedings of the workshop are available from the Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter For details about the InfoCenter, call 212-751-5656, extension 230.

---

Monday, May 14, 2001 #4396

Is newspaper used as a reach or frequency vehicle?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, May 20, 2001 ):

Reach. With only one daily exposure opportunity in most cases, the frequency possibilities are far less than broadcast, online or out-of-home media.

---

Monday, April 30, 2001 #4348

Have a client that questioned the use of Recency planning for a packaged goods product launch in spot market television. I've read all questions/answers from 2000 in the archives and found it curious that no one questioned the fact that the levels used for standard recency planning of 60-80 TRPs per week refer to MEDIUM exposure not ADVERTISING exposure. Considering that probably only 40% of the commercial message will even register, aren't these levels low (clutter factor), even if they are spread across multiple weeks (in this case 9)?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, May 01, 2001 ):

A: Medium exposure is the readily available planning metric.

B: Recency has been keyed to measured results from media exposure levels.

C: The media exposure levels referenced in Recency are -- and this is important -- REACH, not GRP. The reach threshhold is thought to be about 30 - 35, which might tie to various GRP levels, depending on media mix.

D: If best sales success is tied to sustained reach minima of 35, then that is the metric to connect with. The fact that the less readily available ad exposure or attentiveness-weighted GRPs are some other number is an artifact of the process, not a contradiction to the theory.

---

Thursday, January 04, 2001 #4078

Within the plethora of recency documents you've reviewed, have you found any that plot effectiveness based on timing prior to the purchase decision? Phrased differently, if you have a leisure product for which the purchase decision is time-sensitive (e.g., a television show or movie with limited release dates), how much more effective are ad exposures immediately prior to air time vs. 1 day out, 1 week out, etc.?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, January 05, 2001 ):

Recency is about continuity and non-time-sensitive purchases. No doubt there are studies which have genrated scales base on time elapsed between exposure and purchase.

Try The Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter. For details about the InfoCenter, call 212-751-5656, extension 230.

---

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. Erwin

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, November 16, 2000 ):

Erwin;

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.

---

Monday, November 13, 2000 #3965

Can you give a definitive explanation of media quintiles (radio, tv, newspaper)?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, November 16, 2000 ):

Quintiles are used in two key ways:

• Quintiles of media, and
• Quintiles of schedules

Quintiles in either case involve dividing the people under consideration into five (quint-) equal groups for analysis. Why five? Why not? it has become the established method. Three groups would often be more useful: "average," "above average" and "below average" are easier to conceptualize. And some advertisers have considered "nine-tiles."

In media quintiles, the users of a medium, like radio, are divided into five equal groups, arrayed according to their heaviness of use, for example, the 20% of the population who listen to less than 3 hours of radio per week, those who listen to 3 to 6 hours, up through those who listen to 50+ hours. The range of hours of listening are set so that each range takes in 20% of the population. Then, other aspects of the behavior of these groups may be evaluated and lead to media or marketing decisions.

For example, if the lightest radio listeners are also light TV viewers, but the heavy newspaper readers, newspaper may be the best way to add reach to a radio plan and more evenly distribute frequency of exposure across all the people reached.

Quintiles of schedules are similar, but only consider those reached by a media schedule. For example if you had a radio schdule of 500 GRP in four weeks with a reach of 70 and a 7.1 average freqency, you might find that the lowest frequency 20% of your schedule reached (14 reach ou of the 70) had an average frequency of 1.0 and the highest frequency quintilehad an average frequecy of 19.8. When you add newspaper to the plan you can examine each quintile of the combined reach and will likely find the least reached group of the new total has a better average frequency.

---

Wednesday, November 08, 2000 #3954

Hello media Guru, I work for a franchise organization that purchases general market network radio. A small percentage of the stations on the radio networks are Hispanic. Our creative is, naturally, intended for the general market and thus does not air in Spanish. We have had several complaints from our field offices that this offensive to our Spanish-speaking consumers. I have heard that there is a way to "block" those stations from airing our message. However, I need to first verify that this is truly considered offensive, as some believe that it can't hurt and just adds exposure of our message. I have reveiwed sources that show a language preference, but do you know where I can find information that might support the argument that the field offices make? Thank you for your help!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, November 12, 2000 ):

There are numerous sources which demonstrate that Spanish advertising is more effective than English advertisng among Hispanics, but the situation you describe is a bit odd.

The Guru wonders why a general market radio network would have Spanish language stations in its lineup? And why would Spanish language stations carry an English language network? But if that situation existed, and Spanish speaking consumers were hearing English language programming, it is not likely that they would be "offended" by English language commercials within that programming.

And, if you are making an "un-wired" buy, that is merely time on stations with no programming involved, then you should be able to substitute Spanish copy on the relevant stations.

---

Saturday, July 29, 2000 #3663

Dear media Guru I am a media planner from Pakistan.I need to ask what are the possible comparison tools that we can use while planning for different programs on television.At the moment while planning i calculate cost index, rating index, efficiency index, Avg GRP's, Maximum reach, and avg.viewing miniutes for each time slot. Normally i advertise in time slots with high effeciency index, is this a good comparrison tool for planning or not. Normally the decay factor that i take is 10% is this OK or not. What are the different possible ways to break the adverising clutter on television and increase the possibility of high ad exposure. Thax in anticipation Sarwar Khan media Manager R-Lintas (Pvt.)ltd. Lahore Pakistan

 

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, July 29, 2000 ):

It always fascinates the Guru that countries sharing a common language can use it quite differently when applying it to the jargon of a particular business or interest.

What you are describing as "planning" seems to the Guru to be what he would regard as a buyer's selecting a schedule after a plan has been approved. You haven't mentioned what goals you are pursuing with your schedules. Selecting spots with the best efficiency index (audience versus cost) will get you the greatest total number of impressions, but possibly not the greatest net reach. The best rating is more often likely to lead to high reach, but perhaps not without due regard to efficiency and duplication.

"Decay factor" is an unfamiliar term to the Guru. "Maximum reach" and "average viewing minutes" don't seem relevant to assessing individual spots as the Guru understands the terms.

Overall, the Guru believes you should be comparing possible schedules, rather than individual spots to accomplish planning goals.

Optimizers serve this purpose, but running reach analyses of several schedules can get you there, as well.

---

Wednesday, April 26, 2000 #3424

I'm doing a campaign for a small restaurant chain with a relatively small budget. The goal is to drive traffic for lunch. I'm going to run in the AM and afternoon drives. Is it really necessary to have a 3 frequency if I'm going to be on the top 3 stations on the same programs each day at the same time over a period of 8 weeks? The schedules that I'm getting back show in the low 2's.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, April 27, 2000 ):

The common reference to a goal of "3 frequency" which you may have heard stems from century-old learning theory which found that 3 repetitions of information were required for it to be "learned" and acted upon. Many media planners use this theory and so specifically consider how many members of their target they are reaching at least 3 times.

You, however, seem to be looking at the average frequency of a schedule, which is different. Any schedule with at least three annoucements will have some portion of its reach exposed to 3 repetions. You need to decide what portion of your audience should be reached three times. YOu need to judge this by looking at the combination of all stations: you may be looking at individual stations reach and frequencies.

Finally, you may consider the full 8 week schedule. A station may be reporting to you only the one week reach and frequency, if you haven't specified, all stations, full cume.

With a schedule of just two dayparts on three stations you are probably getting a fairly low reach at high frequency and this is a completely different sort of consideration than the "3 frequency" issue.

Many planners today are abandoning the effective reach (3+) approach in favor of "recency," the concept that the exposure closest to a purchase decision is the most effective one. You plan might agree more with this approach if it has enough weekly reach.

---

Monday, April 10, 2000 #3383

For an "Impression Advertisement" what is the time that the ad must be available for viewing. Can you place 6 banner ads for 10 seconds each and have each 10 seconds be credited with an impression ? Thank you

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, April 10, 2000 ):

In broadcast, where presentation is linear, time of exposure doesn't change how we count GRPs and impressions. However, limiting display time of a banner means that there is less chance of exposure, as the user may have scrolled away from the active portion of the page. As a media buyer, the Guru would not give full credit to this method of display.

---

Monday, March 27, 2000 #3341

Hello I am currently enrolled in the 3-year advertising program at Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In response to a class project and of great interest to me, I am in search of answers to the following questions regarding obtaining a career in the Internet advertising field. 1. What programs are used in the creation of Internet advertisements? 2. What are the job titles and descriptions of jobs within Internet advertising? 3. What are the specific qualities looked for when hiring a person for Internet advertising? 4. How does Internet advertising differ from other forms of advertising? 5. What should a student keep in mind and focus on while attending school in order to further their changes in Internet advertising related career? 6. Is there an organization solely devoted to Internet advertising? 7. What forms of Internet advertising are offered? (Ex. WebPage design yes, banners, etc) 8. When should a company inquire about Internet advertising as a form of advertising? 9. How long has Internet advertising been around and how has it grown throughout the years?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, March 27, 2000 ):

Since this is the media Guru, we will address those of your several questions which relate to media issues.

1. Not a media question
2. Other than "webmaster" all internet advertising media titles are approximately the same as in other media: General manager/publisher, sales manager, sales account executive on the website side; media Director, media planner, media buyer on the buying side. Some companies may have invented special titles either to reflect their individuality or special business structure, such as "Channel manager" when selling multiple sites that can be grouped topically
3. There should be no specific qualities sought in hiring media people for internet purposes rather than any other media, other than possibly better computer skills and internet familiarity. It was not unusual, in the early days of internet advertising, for employment ads to be signed only with a website or email contact information, so that those who didn't understand such information wouldn't apply.
4. The chief differences of internet advertising versus other media include:
   Interactivity: Any consumer action in response to an ad generates a reaction by the internet
   Combines the full animation potential of TV with the detail capability of static print
   Consumer action in response to an ad 'place-marker', i.e. the banner, is required before the full ad, i.e. the click-thru target, is exposed
   Unlike other media where the medium's full audience is attributed to each ad, the internet allows us to count actual ad exposures

   A student should take any internet courses offered in addition to the full standard advertising curriculum, if working in internet media is the only goal.

   There are several organizations devoted solely to internet advertising: The Internet Advertising Bureau, which is the Web site owners trade group, C.A.S.I.E. (The Coalition for Advertising Supported Interactive Entertainment) which is primarily, if not exclusively internet focused, is the advertiser/agency internet trade group. Of course there are numerous internet sales representative organizations and ad agencies/media services.

   Internet advertising forms include websites, banners (meaning any less-than-full-page ads displayed on websites) interstitials, and e-mail advertising. Within e-mail advertising are three principal types: ads as sponsorships, inserted into subscription email newsletters and discussion group posts, Opt-in email, where the recipient has actually agreed to receive by email commercial information from the sender, and SPAM, or Unsolicited Commercial Email, which is commercial messages posted to newsgroups or sent by direct email. This last is completely disreputable and banned by most consumer ISPs.

   An advertiser should consider internet advertising alongside all other media when selecting media for any plan. Internet media should be used when it offers an advantage in efficiency (quite rare), an opportunity to reach an otherwise difficult-to-reach prospect, or the opportunity to deliver a message of a kind or in an environment which enhances message impact.

   Internet advertising of one sort or another has probably existed since the early days of the internet. As a real medium, internat advertising is traced to the beginnings of the commercialization of the World Wide Web at the end of 1994. The year 2000 will generate over US$5 billion online ad revenue

---

Tuesday, February 29, 2000 #3260

Guru - internet CPM models do not appear to involve the issue of how much time each banner is displayed. Is there any numbers on this (i.e., average stickyness) that is expected?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, February 29, 2000 ):

Nor do CPMs in other media relate to the duration of exposure unless time is the unit of sale, as in broadcast. The Guru considers stickyness to be about time spent on a site, perhaps viewing several pages with different banners, and not related to the amount of time a banner is visible. It would be a tricky concept anyway, since banners are not neccessarily visible the entire time a visitor is on a given page, depending on screen-size settings and scrolling behavior.

---

Friday, February 25, 2000 #3248

Looking for ideas on unique media vehicles in the Southwest US. Unique as in non-traditional.

Traditional being: spot tv, spot radio, bulletins, posters, transit shelters, bus wraps, taxi tops, wall murals, kiosks, print, aerial advertising (blimps, airplanes, etc.) trailer panels, mobile video displays, in-airport displays, in-transit exposure, direct mail, flyers, sponsorships.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, February 27, 2000 ):

When you rule out the traditional mass media, "new" electronic media, direct mail, most forms of out-of-home, and require geographic specificity, you have pretty much come down to untried out of home, such as painting the sides of mesas in the desert or putting logos on souveniers, like arrowheads.

What you want probably isn't in place yet, but the world is waiting for you to invent it.

---

Wednesday, January 05, 2000 #3097

Dear Guru Please can you tell me how I know when x% reach is enough? From going through the archives it seems as if your answer will be "that this is a judgement call" but surely there must be something more scientific than that?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, January 05, 2000 ):

Yes, the Guru has often answered such questions with that phrase, but went on to list the considerations to review in making the judgement.

You need to build toward a reach goal, not pull it out of your hat. There is no piece of science that makes one specific reach number correct as an abstraction.

If some level of ad awareness is your real goal, the reach must be at least as high as the awareness level desired: people must see an ad before they can become aware of it. If you believe that it takes three exposures to a campaign before the consumer is consciously aware of the campaign then the awarenes level becomes the 3+ reach level, and a total (1+) reach level may be inferred from that.

If you follow recency theory, you will evaluate the continuous levels of reach delivery affordable in possible media options.

So "enough" is not simply "enough," it must be enough to accomplish a specifed goal of awareness, sales, image change, etc.

---

Tuesday, November 16, 1999 #2977

Details of Ostrow's effective frequency model

 

The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, November 21, 1999 ):

The Ostrow model aims at establishing the minimum level of frequency to be deemed effective so that the plan can maximize reach at that level of frequency. The model can be traced back to his speech, "Effective Frequency" at an Advertising Research Foundation Key Issues Workshop, June 4, 1982.

Typically, the model involves evaluating a series of relevant factors on a scale of say, 2 to 6, and averaging the factors to determine the appropriate level of frequency to set as effective.

In the 1982 speech the factors discussed were of three kinds: marketing, message / creative and media.

Marketing

• Established brand vs new entry
• Brand share
• Brand loyalty
• Purchase cycle
• Usage cycle
• Share of voice
• Target group learning capacity

Message / Creative

• Complexity
• Uniqueness
• New vs continuing campaign
• Image building vs specific sell
• Message variation (copy pool)
• Wear out
• Copy unit size/length

media

• Clutter
• Editorial / program environment
• Attentiveness
• Continuity vs flighting
• Number of different media
• Repeat exposure opportunities

.

For the full speech, the transcript proceedings of the workshop are available from the Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter For details about the InfoCenter, call 212-751-5656, extension 230.

---

Tuesday, November 09, 1999 #2945

I have chosen to do my thesis( post graduation in communications) on exposure distrbution models in print and television media. I am really keen on finding out more about the following topics: Beta Binomial Distribution Sequential Aggregation Distribution Dirichlet Multinomial Distribution Hofmans Beta Binomial Distribution Conditional Beta Distribution I have been through " Reach/Frequency Estimation for the -the Internet World Wide Web" by Jongpil Hong . I do have access to journals on campus but am facing a problem gathering information on conditional beta distribution ( Kim Heejin,1994) and sequential aggregation distribution (Lee, Hae Kap, 1988). On surfing the net i also visited - http://www.utexas.edu/coc/admedium, checked out the demo on frequency distributions. To further my study in this area i would be grateful if you could guide me as to how to access these doctoral dissertations.Also any help and guidance on other information sources will be deeply appreciated.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, November 09, 1999 ):

The Guru would expect to find doctoral dissertations available at the universities where they were delivered.

Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter For details about the InfoCenter, call 212-751-5656, extension 230. has the best compilation of advertising research studies.

The New York Public Library's Science, Industry and Business Library also has a great deal of this material.

There is also a dissertation abstract and search service at UMI

---

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.

---

Tuesday, September 28, 1999 #2831

Is there a documented research/ benchmarks followed which indicates a) how long (in units of time and GRPs) should a TV commercial last before fatigue for that commercial sets in. b) Is this likely to be different for FMCG or durables? if yes, how much? Thanks, Praveen

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, September 28, 1999 ):

There have been many studies, most of them proprietary. The variables are too many to be generally applicable: Commerical length, quality, recall, enterntainmnet/annoyance value, number of executuions in rotation, etc. The differences in cultures and media environments probably also have an effect.

Some set a standard based on quintiles of exposure, others on GRPs.

The major compilations of publicly available research are at ESOMAR, the European Survey, Opinion and Market Research Organization and Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter.

---

Monday, September 27, 1999 #2830

I have read all your responses regarding recency. If you wouldn’t mind answering a few more, this is a multiple question predominantly regarding recency as a planning theory. 1) What Telemar program deals with TV R&F on a weekly basis? 2) Do the same audience accumulation formulas work for a one-week cume vs. 4wk or 52 wk? 3) When now planning an a weekly basis rather than a flighted basis are frequency guidelines or goals a consideration in the recency planning theory? 4) Has there been a clear industry swing relative to EF or recency yet? 5) A 1997 JAR article by Erwin Ephron cited some minimum target reach guidelines like 35 weekly, 65 four-week and 80 quarterly. Has there been anything more definitively determined since then (I noticed reply 2631 7/14/99 lowering the weekly reach to 30)? 6) For those espousing recency, is the trend to a 52 presence or extended flighting like 8-10 continuous weeks of each quarter? 7) On the Effective Frequency side, where the defacto goal has centered around the 3+ level, has the time frame shifted to anything other than a 4-week period?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, September 29, 1999 ):

1) media Maestro and TV Buyer handle TV R&F.

2) No, formulas differ for one week, 4 week, and long term. 400 GRP, spread ove differend programs might come close to exhausting the reach potential of one week's TV audience, but not if spread over 4 weeks or longer.

3) Recency planning is focused on weekly reach, and incorporates the concept that every exposure after the third one is at the 3+ level.

4) Some have adopted recency, some cling to effective reach. The Guru is not aware of any polls of agencies or advertisers, but suspects that recency is still growing in acceptance, but is a minority approach.

5) The reach minima are a bit loose, and 30 vs 35 is not a major point of contention.

6) The idea of recency is that being there whenever a purchase decision is made is ideal. Flighting, when continuity is affordable and there is no major seasonality is contrary to the principle.

7) Four weeks has always been somewhat arbitrary, likley stemming from the one-time dominance of monthly magazines. But it is a convenient benchmark. A logical approach can set a level other than 3+ or other than 4 weeks, etc.

---

Wednesday, September 22, 1999 #2814

Hi Guru The ad agency I work for has a theory that cable GRP's and radio GRP's effectivenesss are significantly less than network and spot television. On our flow charts we only calculate 1/2 half of these points. I have heard this theory before but I've never seen a plan that cuts the GRP's in half. What do you think?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, September 23, 1999 ):

The Guru has been aware of theories that use effectiveness factors in comparing media. Sometimes GRP are adjusted on the flow chart, but since the flow chart often serves as the buying control document, more often the adjustments are shown in reach and frequency comparisons.

There can certainly be an argument that radio has less effectiveness than TV, commercial exposure versus commercial exposure, all else being equal. But, the argument doesn't seem to be rationale for cable TV. The commercial is the same, the presentation is the same. Unless there are objective measures of attentiveness or clutter or recall used, why is cable less effective? Individual commerical audience size is not relevent to message effectiveness of the medium; one consumer is not aware of how may others are watching the same program.

---

Monday, September 20, 1999 #2808

Hi Guru!For maintainence level of advertising for an established brand, on TV why is an OTS of three considered to be a minimum ? Or does no such rule of thumb exsist?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, September 20, 1999 ):

The 3x rule-of-thumb is based on studies dating back over 100 years to a researcher named Ebbinghaus. He determined that it required 3 repetitions of a string of nonsense syllables for them to be retained by experimental subjects.

Advertising researchers extended the research to posit that only after three exposures to a message would a consumer understand, recall and be prepared to act on the information. media planners then started using an average frequency (as in "Reach and Frequency") of 3 as a minimum.

More recently, the concept of effective reach has used the theory that only those exposed at least 3 times should be counted as "effectively reached." So, for example, a media plan with an average four week reach / frequency of 76 / 5.2 might reach 50% of the target 3 or more times.

Some planners will evaluate several issues surrounding the copy, competition and media options to decide what effective level is appropriate and set a level of 4 or 6, etc. Of course, this is meaningless without also setting a reach goal at the stated frequency level. A plan that delivers 50 reach at 3+ might also deliver 42 at 4+, 33 at 5+ etc, so there is an issue of the goal versus the level at which the plan is examined.

---

Sunday, August 15, 1999 #2719

Those selling web advertising cite recall statistics --- recall of web advertising versus television advertising. I personally do not think that you are able to make an apples to apples comparison between the two as the mediums are so very different. Those who are surfing the world wide web are there for a reason and more inclined to tune out much advertising --- as opposed to television which is more a passive medium. Are there any studies or statistics that speak to this subject?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, August 16, 1999 ):

The Guru agrees that web users more readily tune out ads than do TV viewers. But that is why recall is a useful measure. It lets you know what the person exposed retains from an ad exposure. If the tested exposures are "real-world" and not in a an artificial laboratory situation, the Guru believes recall is a valid metric. AOL did some research along these lines and the results should be posted in their media kit area. It was also reported in Ad Age.

---

Wednesday, July 14, 1999 #2630

I am looking for research / answers to the question: "How affective is Airport Advertising?" In particular with reference to Business Class

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, July 14, 1999 ):

The Guru doubts that effectiveness research has been done which segments the Airport advertisng audience according to the class of service used on the day of exposure. If ant exists it would probably be available from the Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter For details about the InfoCenter, call 212-751-5656, extension 230.

Othe possible sources are ESOMAR, the European Survey, Opinion and Market Research Organization or the airport advertising media mentioned in past Guru responses

---

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.

---

Saturday, May 29, 1999 #2543

dear guru, i have a few qs regarding print advertising what is the meaning of the term 'far forward positioning'? the fps or the front page solus position of a newspaper is supposed to have very high OTS, is there some solid research evidence backing this claim? like the fps are there any other postions in newspapers that pull best? if there are once again what evidence is there in this regard?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Saturday, May 29, 1999 ):

Far forward positioning very simply means a postion in the first few pages of the issue, at least first third. It is assumed there is a better chance of exposure in these pages. It's a common U.S. usage, but the Guru is concerned about semantics, since you are writing from India and most of the terms you are using appear to be U.K. media jargon.

Covers, opposite back cover, opposite table of contents and opposite first editorial feature, are all considered good magazine positions.

In newspapers, section front pages and section back pages are considered valuable. For research, visit The Newspaper Advertising Association and Newsweek media Research Index or their equvalents in India.

---

Friday, April 16, 1999 #2454

What would you say are the three keys to determing timing and selecting geography, when developing a media plan?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, April 16, 1999 ):

Timing:

• Seasonality: Is there a time when the product is more likly to sell?
• Is the purchase cycle of the product such that low level continuity is more likly to deliver the exposure closes to purchase decision?

Geography:

• Determine the level of media weight needed to be effective, however you have defined effective.
• Rank markets by opportunity to sell -- this can be merely size or based on development index, efficiency indexed to size, etc.

Build up the coverage area geography from the top of your opportunity list down, as far as you can afford the media weight you have set, within the timing you have set.

---

Tuesday, March 30, 1999 #2421

The need: I am looking for a way to factor 'page exposure' data into mainstream media metrics such as CPM or GRP. MRI tracks and calculates page exposure using the following: (#_of_days_magazine_is_read * #_issues_read * %_of_pages_read)= avg_page_exposure I believe such data would not only provide a more accurate picture of a readers exposure to the ad pages but could alter CPM & GRP rates. My Reasoning: CPM=(ad_rate/audience); audience=(circ * readers); 'readers' is thenumber of different set of eyes per issue (single exposure). This number does not take into account how long or to what extent the reader looked at the publication -- it could be the mailman delivering the magazine who remebers the cover or it could denote a subscriber who reads the issue cover to cover. Enter the issue of page exposure. Suppose I am considering a magazine with a CPM of .01851 = 40,400/(704,000 * 3.1). However, if this same magazine provided me with a page exposure rate of .99 = (3 * 1 * .33) -- which says that the audience takes 3 days to read the issue and reads about 33% of the issue a day (which I know is unrealistic, but hear me out). Now suppose I take the .99 exposure rate and add it to the 'reader' and recalculate CPM --- 40,400/(704,000 * (3.1 +.99))= .01404 -- I get a much lower CPM. My Question: Why can't I make this type of calculation with page exposure data -- where is the break down in my logic or math? Any insights would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks in advance!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, April 01, 1999 ):

First, overall, yes it is a reasonable and not unusual concept to adjust CPM according to additional measured factors reported for magazines. However, there are some minor and some major issues with your process in terms of labels and decimal places, etc.

Yes, CPM is ad rate ÷ readers. Readers is circulation times readers per copy (refer to the explanation of MRI information which the Guru did for you in query #2403).

So the basic CPM -- cost per thousand impressions -- in your example is actually $18.51, assuming you mean $40,400 is your ad csot, 704,000 is circulation and 3.1 is readers per copy.

The exposure rate is a factor, not an add on. So the adjustment would be 3.1 times 0.99 or 3.069 or virtually no change. The cpm is now $18.70. If there was a very different page exposure factor it would make a difference. It is a valid way to reaxamine CPMs.

---

Thursday, March 25, 1999 #2412

1) Are the terms OTS, impressions, hits and exposures interchangeable? 2) Are there media industry norms (or even studies) that indicate a correlation between a number of OTS or exposures and audience (reader) behavior. I understand there were a number of Politz studies conducted in the 60s which suggested that one exposure produced a dicernible response and two exposures produced about double that response. Also there are European reports stating that a magazine ad should provide at least 5 OTS in order for the reader to digest or understand the ad message -- is '5' the number? Are there industry norms, and if so, do they differ by media vehicle? Thanks in advance!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, March 26, 1999 ):

1) Other than "hits," you may generally consider those terms interchangeable. "Hits" is a much abused term peculiar to the internet. Some people do use it when the mean impressions, but technically "hit" is defined as "an entry in a server log."

Whenever a visitor requests a page on a site, as by clicking on a link, the server log records a "hit" for the text of the page, and hits for each frame and hits for each little bullet or other icon and a hit for each ad. A single page on one of today's commercial sites may consist of several dozen items which would all create "hits" in a server log when only one page impression is happening. The internet is also unique in its ability to serve content with a different ad each time a new user arrives at a page. So page impressions and ad impressions will not agree as they do in magazines or broadcast.

"Hits" originated in the early days of the world wide web, when browsers read text only, like the venerable "Lynx," and a page was just one block of text, so "hit" then equalled "impression," more or less. Hits include server log error messages as well, which are of no value to anyone.

2) The study of effective numbers of exposures goes back at least as far as the scientist Ebbinghaus (1883) who tested how many repetitions of nonsense syllables were required to achieve learning. This was the origin of 3 as a magic media number there have been infinite numbers of other studies, more advertisng and sales focused since.

Note that European media and Europe's media environment are different than the U.S. It is a common trap to assume that media perform the same tasks with the same effectiveness when used in different cultures. The U.S. Hispanic market is a good exanple, with TV, radio and print all delivering very different reach / frequncy, reach potetial and overlap than do the parallel general market media.

The best source of studies on the topic are: Advertising Research Foundation InfoCenter, Newsweek media Research Index and ESOMAR, the European Survey, Opinion and Market Research Organization. The Guru has discussed this frequently.
Click here to see past Guru responses about "effective frequency"

---

Tuesday, February 09, 1999 #2315

Do you have an opinion on the media weight required to revitalize an ailing brand (a former success story which has been performing poorly of late). Should we stick to conventional weights, or heavier weight to try to make more powerful impact?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, February 09, 1999 ):

Questions like this come up so often, and lead the Guru to ask more questions:

• How sure are you that the Brand's troubles stem from the advertising weight rather than the advertising copy or product attributes or competitive pricing or competitive quality?
• What levels are competitors using?
• What media are competitors using?
• What media will you use?
• etc.

A simple answer, when you believe advertising weight or exposure of a new message is the core issue, is that you must deliver more impressions than the competition, by a noticable margin, say 20%.

---

Friday, January 22, 1999 #2285

Dear Guru, This is a bit of a theoritical problem.I am currently working on a shaving cream brand which has been on decline for a few years now. Currently it has a market share of 3.9% and is ranked 7th.The markets where it is doing relatively better are actually the smallest markets, but here too, it is not better than 5th on market shares. It has a media budget which is about 1/5th of the biggest spender, which incidentally is not the market leader. My dilemma is - in the given scenario, for a relaunch, where should media focus be - on the overall smaller markets but where the brand is but marginally stronger or on the bigger markets for the category, where a greater potential lies ? The distribution strength is the same in all markets and no directions have been provided by the marketing team on priority markets. Thank you Guru. My name is Abu Huzaifa and i am media planner in Bombay, India.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, January 22, 1999 ):

Firstly, these are really marketing issues, not media issues, but to try to look at it from a purely media perspective, consider:

Think beyond the "bigger opportunity of the larger markets," because the impact you can deliver in a market is important. In other words, do you get more consumer response to 100 GRPs against 2 million people or 200 GRPs against 1 million people?

For example:

1. Assume that every impression delivered, no matter the market size, has the same potential to generate sales and / or share growth - where will your budget buy the greatest number of impressions?

2. Assume that the ability of the impressions to generate sales growth is influenced by current share of market. Estimate the value of this effect, plus or minus. Apply this weighting to the impressions you can buy and recalculate sales potential, according to paragraph 1.

3. Or assume that every exposure after the third one (or a level of your choosing) is some degree more effective. How many "effective impressions" can you deliver to each market set?

---

Monday, January 18, 1999 #2275

Dear media Guru: How would I go about analyzing the benefits of advertising on national cable TV vs. spot TV? For example: a retail store has locations in only 8 DMAs and therefore only buys local time in those markets. Is it feasible to compare the out-of- pocket costs of a local buy vs. a national buy? Would the wasted exposure outside of the 8 DMAs outweigh the cost efficiencies of a national buy? Are there any - simple - models that do this? Thanks for your help.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, January 19, 1999 ):

This should be very simple. According to your question, only impressions delivered within your 8 DMAs have any value.

So, for a given amount of money invested in national cable and the same money invested in local cable, which will put more impressions into your 8 markets?

If the 8 markets are fairly large, it could be easy for the national buy to be less costly.

It also depends on the system structure of the markets. Some markets are served by just one or two systems and can be purchsed more efficiently than markets, like NY, for example, which has dozens of systems. By the same token, it can be more expensive, out-of-pocket, to buy just a segment of the NY market, like northern New Jersey, than to buy all of the DMA, because of price structure oddities.

At any rate, "waste" isn't your issue, the issue is what value do you get for your investment.

---

Friday, December 04, 1998 #2198

Dear Guru. Thank you for your answers - they are very helpfull to me. My question is on "recency". 1.What groups of products best fit for "recency" planning. 2."Recency" planning needs continuity. But it is not evident what frequency level is needed at every moment of such continious ad campaign. It seems reasonable to set more frequency at the launch period and then decrease frequency for mantainance. Also we should take into consideration seasonality. Thus our campaign becomes pulsing but not continious. What are your comments? Thank you very much.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, December 04, 1998 ):

1- Recency seems to best fit common products that are bought regularly; in other words, a purchase is stimulated by running out of the current supply. This means food and HBA products, primarily. More "considered purchase" products, like automobiles, may not be a good fit.

2- Erwin Ephron, principal proponent of Recency, has commented to the Guru that about 30 reach on a weekly basis is a threshold level. This might mean 50-60 GRP depending on the media used amd target.

Part of recency theory, in relation to frequency levels and effective reach, is that after three exposures have been delivered, every subsequent exposure is supported by adequate frequency. Recency generally applies to brands with established awareness; when you raise the issue of product introductions, it is a different situation.

Seasonality is the principal exception to recency. There is no point in delivering the most recent ad exposure at a time when no purchase is likely. It is important to distinguish products with seasonal fluctuations, like deodorant, from products with very specific seasons, like barbecue charcoal.

Also consider that Recency does not mandate even levels in its continuity. The weight can be raised above the threshold when appropriate.

---

Wednesday, December 02, 1998 #2194

Dear Guru, can you name any media analysis tools and media predictive tools that media planners use on a regular basis without being too technical, of course. Many thanks

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, December 03, 1998 ):

Here are several:

• Reach: the number of different target households or persons exposed to a campaign (most often expressed as a percentage of the target universe, and most often calculated over a 4-week period).
• Frequency: The average number of exposures of the campaign to those reached.
• Gross Rating Points (GRP) / Target Rating Points(TRP): Essentially interchangeable terms for the sum of the audiences of all the ad units in the campaign, expressed as a percentage of the target universe.
• Gross Impressions: Same audience count as GRP/TRP but expressed in whole numbers rather than percents.
• CPP / Cost per GRP and CPM / Cost per thousand impressions: should be self evident from the previous. These are referred to as the "efficiency."
• Effective reach: Those in the "Reach" who experienced a specified minimum number of exposures (effective frequency)

All the above stem from the audience research tools and investment figures. So called "reach and frequency" systems typically generate all these figures.

Other tools, especially in print media are also occasionally used. These may include "time spent with" media vehicles, "page openings", attentiveness, etc.

---

Tuesday, October 06, 1998 #2074

Dear media Guru, Please refer me to articles on media models to arrive at optimum desirable frequency / OTS / # exposures. Thanks. softcheries@hotmail.com

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, October 06, 1998 ):

Try the Advertising Research Foundation library or Newsweek media Research Index.

---

Monday, July 06, 1998 #1937

Dear Guru, I'm trying to find info on the relationship between reach and frequency known as the prime axiom in media planning. Such as, what it is, why is it useful and how is it directly or indirectly measured? Also, I need research on the volatility of broadcast media. For instance, how can broadcast media avoid law suits if they fail to run a commercial. I'm frantically completing a take home exam for a graduate class and can't find research on these topics. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. I'll let you know if we get an "A."

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, July 07, 1998 ):

One wonders at the sort of course where these terms matter but are not thoroughly taught. Reach and Frequency are the weights and measures of a media plan.

• "Reach" tells you how many different people are exposed to an advertising schedule. It is commonly expressed as a percentage of a target group's population. E.g. 75 percent reach among women 18-49.
• "Frequency" tells you the average number of exposure to the schedule experienced by the people reached.

The usefulness should be obvious: no matter how great or impactful an ad may be, it will not sell product unless it reaches enough people and reaches them frequently enough to have an effect on their behavior.

The various research tools media planners use which measure the audience of TV shows, radio stations, magazines, etc can also tell us how many people are reached by schedules of several uses of theses programs and books. From these direct measurements, statistical models are built which can estimate the reach and frequency of schedules being planned. media Planners can therefore compare alternate schedules to determine which ones will best meet reach/frequency goals.

Thinking of pure arithmetic relationships, reach and frequency are linked with GRPs -- Gross Rating Points. When the ratings (audience as percent of target group) of all the individual ads in a schedule are added up, the resulting total is GRP. GRP divided by reach = frequency and reach X frequency = GRP. 2. Mistakes happen. Fine print in contracts protects broadcasters against liability if they inadvertently miss airing a commercial, or deliberately do so because a higher paying advertiser comes along, or because the decide to air a news special. etc. Their only obligation is typically to give a "makegood," another commercial location with equal or better quality.

---

Wednesday, June 03, 1998 #1882

how much more effective is an exposure on print compared to TV in case of consumer durables?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, June 03, 1998 ):

A TV exposure is generally more effective than a print exposure. However:

• There can be very bad TV executions and very good print executions, which outweigh the general rule.
• A TV :15 may not be more effective than a 4 color bleed gatefold off the 2nd cover.
• media plans don't usually operate in an exposure vs exposure mode. A given budget might buy 25 TV exposures for every print exposure or vice versa, depending on ad units, programming, geographic coverage, etc.

---

Saturday, April 11, 1998 #1564

Dear Guru, could you please tell me how can I calculate the frequency(exposure) distribution of an advertising media schedule using the Sequential Aggregation, Cannonical Expansion and Conditional Beta Distribution models? Thank you in advance for your answer.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, April 17, 1998 ):

A good university or public business library should have statistical or advertising methods text books with this information.

For example, in NY City, the Public Library's Science, Industry and Business Library has such books and might even give you the specific references to locate copies near you, if you inquired by phone or e-mail.

---

Monday, October 27, 1997 #1445

Dear Guru, We have been talking (within the Agency) about a new concept which is median frequency ( not average!): The goal of this mesurement tool is to determinate the wear-out level of commercials. Have you ever been across with this subject? Thanks!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, October 27, 1997 ):

First, let's define "median Frequency"

You seem to mean one would array all those exposed to the commerical in order of their frequency of exposure.

Then find the person at the exact middle of the line; one half of those exposed have less frequency and one half of those exposed have more.

It would actually be "less than or equal to" and "more than or equal to," since we are now dealing with discreet individuals, who therefore have a whole number (an integer) of exposures. In the thousands of people exposed, many will be at the median level of exposure

The Guru has not seen this metric used for wear out analysis before, but it seems neither better nor worse than the more common use of quintiles, i.e. looking at the top 2 quintiles, or most heavily exposed 40% of audience.

---

Thursday, June 19, 1997 #1366

Dear Guru, I have a set of urgent questions to ask of you. I have a meeting tomorrow, and need your help! 1. How is effective reach calculated? 2. Reach v/s Frequency -- when should one be given priority / importance over the other? 3. Is there any way of taking creative into account while analysing competition? If yes, can a system of weights be worked out? 4. How do you reconcile to the vast difference between reach/frequency deliveries from a Peoplemeter system as opposed to the Diary system? My client refuses to accept a 4+ reach of 30% being accustomed to levels of 70% for the same plan! Would greatly appreciate your immediate reply.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, June 19, 1997 ):

1) In any schedule of several commercials, some of the target group will see only one, some will see two, some will see three, some will see four, some five, etc, etc.

The actual measurement is based on tracking the cume of several different advertisers schedules in a single measurement period such as one month of the PeopleMeter.

A mathematical model that will match the measured GRP/Frequency is calculated so that plan deliveries can be predicted. Going more deeply into the actual measurement, it can be determined how many people of each demographic group were exposed to each commercial in the schedule and a model calculated which will predict that performance for a plan.

For example, below is the typical output of a computer models' frequency distribution, showing what percent of the target saw exactly n commercials and what percent saw n+. (this example is from Telmar's ADplus):

                    Frequency (f) Distributions 
                           ------------------------------------- 
                                  % who saw
                                 ---------------
                          #seen exactly  at least     
                          ----- -------  -------
               Target:      f     rch    rch    
               P18-49      ---   -----  -----   
                            0     69.1  100.0   
                            1     11.5   30.9    
                            2      6.0   19.3    
                            3      3.7   13.4   
                            4      2.6    9.6   
                            5      1.8    7.1    
                            6      1.3    5.2   
                            7      1.0    3.9   
                            8      0.7    2.9   
                            9      0.6    2.2   
                           10+     1.6    1.6   
                           20+     0.0    0.0    

2) Reach vs Frequency: The determination of emphasis here can be a complicated analysis making up the greater part of a plan's documentation, under the heading of "communications strategy." A commercial so powerful that it's sell is overwhelming in one exposure might take the "Let's buy one spot in the Superbowl" route as did the Macintosh computer with the classic "1984" execution.

In more competitive situations, competitors' levels are taken into account, clutter in the media of choice, copy quality, etc. Obviously a balance must eventually be struck between reach and frequency based on judging all these factors.

3) There are several ways to take creative into account while setting up reach vs frequency goals;

The complexity or simplicity of the message

The number of commercial in the pool

how close your commercial is to the established "wear-out" level

The balance of :30 to :15

etc, etc. can all be assigned factors and totalled or averaged to give a reach vs frequency emphasis factor

a similar exercise can also set effective frequency thresholds

4) There should not be "vast" differences between effective reaches based on people meter and diary systems if schedule GRP and other aspects are the same. 5 or 10% would be the range the Guru would expect.

A plan with a 70 reach at the 4+ level would be delivering in the range of 98% total reach. It sounds as if your client may be confusing a plan with 70 reach and an average frequency of 4 with 70 at an effective frequency of 4. Or perhaps confusing 4-week reach with a long term cume?

---

Wednesday, March 19, 1997 #1015

What are the going numbers for total ad exposures per person per day? Is it possible tobreak down the average into the different media?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, March 19, 1997 ):

The Guru has seen estimates from a few hundred to many thousands.

The Guru tends to go along with one of the best accepted estimates, that there are about 245 ad exposures daily, 108 from TV, 34 radio and 112 print.

Others estimate 3000, 5000 or more. Even the 245 is "potential" and perhaps only half are real exposures.

The higher estimates probably include all marketing exposure including being in the vicinity of product labels or actual products with trademarks visible, such as your car, computer, fax, phone, shirt, pencil, paper towel in the bathroom, etc.

Just think, if we were really exposed to 3000 advertising messages per day, at an average of just 10 seconds apiece (accounting for radio :60's and brief exposure to billboards), these exposures would consume 8.33 hours out of our 16 waking hours per day.

The Guru is sceptical.

---

Wednesday, March 19, 1997 #1016

What are the going numbers for total ad exposures per person per day? Is it possible tobreak down the average into the different media?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, March 19, 1997 ):

The Guru has seen estimates from a few hundred to many thousands.

The Guru tends to go along with one of the best accepted estimates, that there are about 245 ad exposures daily, 108 from TV, 34 radio and 112 print.

Others estimate 3000, 5000 or more. Even the 245 is "potential" and perhaps only half are real exposures.

The higher estimates probably include all marketing exposure including being in the vicinity of product labels or actual products with trademarks visible, such as your car, computer, fax, phone, shirt, pencil, paper towel in the bathroom, etc.

Just think, if we were really exposed to 3000 advertising messages per day, at an average of just 10 seconds apiece (accounting for radio :60's and brief exposure to billboards), these exposures would consume 8.33 hours out of our 16 waking hours per day.

The Guru is sceptical.

---

Tuesday, March 18, 1997 #1017

What are the going numbers for total ad exposures per person per day? Is it possible to break down the average into the different media?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, March 19, 1997 ):

The Guru has seen estimates from a few hundred to many thousands.

The Guru tends to go along with one of the best accepted estimates, that there are about 245 ad exposures daily, 108 from TV, 34 radio and 112 print.

Others estimate 3000, 5000 or more. Even the 245 is "potential" and perhaps only half are real exposures.

The higher estimates probably include all marketing exposure including being in the vicinity of product labels or actual products with trademarks visible, such as your car, computer, fax, phone, shirt, pencil, paper towel in the bathroom, etc.

Just think, if we were really exposed to 3000 advertising messages per day, at an average of just 10 seconds apiece (accounting for radio :60's and brief exposure to billboards), these exposures would consume 8.33 hours out of our 16 waking hours per day.

The Guru is sceptical.

---

Thursday, February 27, 1997 #1031

1. Assume a multi-media presentation in a large metropolitan shopping mall drawing 20 million shoppers per year. How would you approach the valuation of advertising in such a forum for major brands? 2. If there were 20 Million visitors, what model would you use for calculating exposures to any particular piece of advertising - such as an illuminated interior billboard - or a ten minute show, which shoppers viewed with both entertainment and brand promotional content? 3. Finally, what would a major brand - such as a top athletic shoe or fashion concern - pay per year to have their brand creatively presented at the point of sale in a shopping mall with 20 million potential visitors, including children? Ballpark?Guru, I am a media novice. Please help. Thanks for your assistance.

 

The Media Guru Answers(Thursday, February 27, 1997 ):

Major Malls count not only total visitors, but foot trafficpatterns through the mall, and can usually give you traffic pastkey points.

The traffic past your display area, divided bythe time slice allotted to a piece of advertising will give areasonable audience estimate.

Out of home media may chargein the neighbourhood of $5 per thousand gross audience, whichgives you a $100,000 price.

Whether you can convince theadvertisers of the greater value of the multimedia element isquestionable. The Guru thinks you most difficult task isdemonstrating the entertainment value or stopping power of youradvertising, especially considering that the 20,000,000"visitors" to your mall may be just 1,000,000 averaging 20visits apiece.

---

Sunday, July 07, 1996 #1185

I am convinced that with a limited budget it is necessary to reach "effective" reach levels at a given period of time rathe than spread thos dollars throughout the year to achieve low levels but high coninuity. I am working in the Automotive field. Please help me. I need specific documented research studies on effective reach!!!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Monday, July 08, 1996 ):

It isn't clear what your query is. Many people continue to feel as you do. In recent years, many others have espoused the "propinquity" theory which advocates continuous low levels, based on the idea that the single exposure closest to a purchase occasion is the most effective.

There has been considerable trade publication comment on the matter, most often by Erwin Ephron, probably the leading proponent of propinquity. A recent Advertising Research Foundation workshop devoted considerable attention to this issue, and the proceeding of that conference should be available from the ARF. There have been opposing positions, in agreement with yours, published as well, one of the earliest by Abbott Wool in media Week shortly after Ephron's first publication of the theory.

The Guru has discussed this before, so using your browser's "find" function to scan this page and the Guru archives will provide additional material.

Surely the most archetypical exception to continuity is for the highly seasonal product, as automotive products may be.

---

Wednesday, May 08, 1996 #1224

I am composing my first interactive media plan for a regional bank client. It is a three month campaign. I am trying to set a monthly gross impression goal that would generate adequate on-line exposure for launching a pc based banking product. Any rules of thumb?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Wednesday, May 08, 1996 ):

You could try to "back into" your goal.

How many customers for the PC product would be considered a "success?"

What response rate can you expect from a web site?There may be some published infromation in the trades.

Suppose it's the 1 - 1.5% that's considered successful in some other direct response media. Divide your customer sign-up goal by the response rate to project needed site visits. For example, if you want 1000 pc accounts, 1000 divided by .01 (1%) is 100,000.

Is this realistic? If there are 10 million US households using the WWW (a mid range estimate) how many might be in the "regional" service area of your bank? We assume there is some need for a personal visit to the bank at some point in the process.

Let's take a generous estimate of 10%. So there would be 1,000,000 potential customers. You would need to draw 10% of them to your site to get the 100,000 vistors who would produce the 1000 accounts.

This certainly indicates that you would need a strong traditional media campaign to draw site visitors.

But, plug in your own numbers in the suggested process, and as the saying goes, "you do the math."

---

Tuesday, April 30, 1996 #1231

I'm working on a presentation on how media planning professionals go about determining a media mix, and how a percent of budget is allocated to each medium being used. It's a general presentation for a client who is not very familiar with media planning terminology or methods. So far my sources for info include a couple of similar documents that I and others that I work with have written in the past, and the media planning textbook (by Scissors). Do you know of any other RECENT sources of info, points-of-view, articles on this topic? Or have you answered a similar question recently? If so, please tell me the category under which your response would be filed (I have looked through several categories of your responses and did not see anything relevant to this topic). Thanks!

 

The Media Guru Answers(Tuesday, April 30, 1996 ):

In the broadest terms, the process may be thought of as

Marketing Goals ---> Marketing Strategies ---> media Goals ---> media Strategies ---> media Tactics, etc.

A very simple example:

A marketing goal of increasing the number of users of product X might lead to a strategy of converting users of competitive brand Y.

The media goal might then be to optimize reach at effective levels of frequency among a demographic group matched to current users of brand Y.

The media strategy to achieve this might then be built by examining various media mixes to determine which produce the best balance of effective reach for the budget, within the creative limitations.

Of course this is just one possible marketing goal, one possible strategy that might emerge.

There are many ways to set reach goals, to set minimum effective levels or decide to apply the recent "proximity" or "recency" theory of exposure.

In short, one doesn't decide on percents of media and see how it turns out, one decides which media will best answer the marketing and media strategies. Often, some creative decisons have precedence: if TV is designated as the "primary medium" because of communications ability, need to demonstrate, etc, then the strategy migh dictate putting all money into TV "until the effective reach curve is exhausted."

There are infinite ways to express and measure goals and their achievment. Some standard media planning software, such as Telmar's media Maestro, and Hispanic media Maestro, allow easy examination of various mixes, instantly showing how reach/frequency/effective reach change as budget or schedules are shifted between media by the planner.

---

Friday, January 19, 1996 #1781

I would like to know if in United State exist any research, about outdoor reaching people. If exist, could you give me an explanation, and any address to try to get more information. How an outdoor campaign is evaluated in U.S.? How many people reach, this kind of study. Thank you in advance

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, February 02, 1996 ):

There are measurement sytems and standards for outdoor media in the U.S. Outdoor (more generally called Out-of-Home media, to include buses, bus shelters, subways, etc) is measured in GRPs as are other media. Outdoor GRP's are measured on a per-day basis, while broadcast media are more often thought of on a per-week basis.

Therefore if one buys 100 Adult 18+ GRPs of outdoor posters, the daily audience exposures (circulation) are equal to the Adult 18+ population of the market area. So a 100 GRP buy is about 3000 GRP per month (100GRP per day x 30 days.

Typical reach systems will report that this level of outdoor delivers a reach in the 90% range with over 30 frequency. You may buy 50 GRP or 25 GRP, of course. Even at these levels reach is typically 80+.

Years ago we talked of "100 showing" or "50 showing" which was sometimes the plant operators rough estimate of 100 or 50 GRP and sometimes just a pricing basis.

Outdoor sales companies, such as Gannett (212) 297-6413 can provide scehdule-specific reach analyses.

---

Wednesday, December 27, 1995 #1804

what is the difference between general media and direct response television media? and would I ever recommend to my client DRTV as an inexpensive way of getting exposure?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, February 02, 1996 ):

General TV and DRTV are different in the way they are purchased and in key aspects of the copy used. To qualify for DRTV, the copy usually must be selling something through an 800 telephone number. Mail is also possible, but the immediate nature of telephone response is preferable (900 number ads are typically under a different rate structure).

DRTV rates are usually based on half of the going rate for the time period. The concept of "going rate" is hard to pin down with any certainty, unless you are buying the same schedule at the same time as "general media." These half price schedules are typically in remnant time or relatively undesirable times late at night or early in the morning or weekends. They are also instantly preemptible. You can't rely on delivering a schedule of "50 GRP per week in prime and 75 GRP per week in early fringe" through DRTV.

General TV schedules are used to build awareness through planned levels of reach and frequency or timely impressions delivery during specific promitions or campaigns DRTV schedules are opportunistic buys, with each airing anticipated to generate a certain quata of responses for a product ready to sell at all times without specific timing issues.. DRTV advertisers often track resonse minute by minute to associate each call with the specific commercial airing responsible. This is in clear contrast with the awarenes building aspect of general media.

When your client measures "exposure" in reach or effective reach terms than DRTV is not an efficient way to get exposure. Those remnant timeslots are not reach builders.

A DRTV advertiser is generally selling something worth the investment in inbound telemarketing expenses for each 800 number order, and assuming a certain minimum of orders per airing. (You cant make money if a $5 an hour operator has to spend 10 minutes taking address, size, flavor and credit card info to sell a $2 item, unless you add $3 shipping and handling). This means it doesn't work for toothpaste, floor wax, soap or cookies, unless you're selling the $29 bag-o-groceries special.

---

Friday, November 03, 1995 #1826

Which approach to planning Cable Television is more useful, by daypart or by cable network?

 

The Media Guru Answers(Friday, November 03, 1995 ):

You must first understand that Cable TV, unlike network free-air television, is broadcast, in most instances, live Eastern Standard (or Daylight Savings Time.) What is primetime in New York, i.e., a program running from 8-9pm, is airing during prime access in Chicago, 7-8pm, and early fringe in Los Angeles, 5-6pm. Therefore, National Cable TV dayparts have no real meaning or value because of live time broadcasting. There is a much better way to effectively reach well targeted audience segments based upon target audience exposure to programming. Use Cable TV network profiles as they appear in various research documents such as Nielsen Cable Ratings and mediamark Research, Inc.'s annual survey, to determine which Cable TV networks attract which audience segments. This approach will provide meaningful information based upon the measured Cable TV viewing preferences of the full range of demographic groupings. Furthermore, the daypart based Cable TV planning systems which are available, are built around the audience accumulation curves developed by The Cable Advertising Bureau, and as such they are general, so as not to play up the strengths or weaknesses of any specific cable network. In summary, if confronted with a daypart vs a network specific system for cable planning the latter is preferable.

---