Hyperbole aside (see my comments earlier this week) things are changing in the media world. Last month, Bloomberg News reported that advertising in online airings of hit shows like “The Simpsons” and “CSI” is commanding higher rates than those viewed on TV. This is just one sign that brand budgets are shifting away from broadcast TV to the online environment. But since overall media budgets are not getting any bigger, media companies online and off are busy trying to augment traditional reach and frequency metrics in order to grab a bigger piece of the pie. The question is, which of the new models will really work for your brand?
In February, an article in The New York Times by Tim Arango forecast a tough time ahead for network TV broadcasters. Tim suggested that the network strategy of raising ad rates in the face of falling audiences was finally coming home to roost. The strategy relied on advertisers’ desire to reach a mass audience, and it worked because the networks still had bigger audiences than anyone else (though they’ve been shrinking).
However, tough times have forced many advertisers to divert their media budgets to online. As a result, the price of broadcast TV spots has declined. People suddenly realized that the value of what they were buying no longer justified the price. Online, the relatively small supply of premium programs available on Hulu and other video sites enables those slots to command high prices, while space in other online programs may fetch little more than a typical static display ad.
Neither online nor offline media companies are content to stick with the status quo. Last March, an Adweek article by Brian Morrissey reported that online vendors were seeking new models to reflect the superior engagement levels achieved through online channels, saying
Instead of looking at ad impressions, they are putting more weight on time spent with a brand, downloads of applications and their spread, and user-initiated views of videos. The hope is to find a way to prove to brands that advertising in these environments really works, and at a time when marketers are cutting budgets and have little patience for campaigns lacking direct evidence of success.
This approach reflects a desire to move away from the legacy measurement of cost-per-thousand impressions to a new one which they believe better reflects the ability of online media to engage consumers beyond a simple impression. (For more on the issue of engagement, click here to read Gordon Pincott’s Point of View titled “Rules of Engagement.”)
Recently some broadcasters seem to have recognized that they need to fight fire with fire. In an effort to bolster the value of their programming, Time Warner’s CNN and Walt Disney’s ESPN are considering supplementing figures on program reach with a measurement of how much word of mouth is generated. (Click here to read more.)
On the surface this makes sense to me. If some programs attract more people willing to talk about your brand, shouldn’t the broadcaster take some credit for that multiplier? Provided that program performance is benchmarked to a baseline level of how much people are willing to talk about your brand without the stimulus of advertising (this varies a lot by brand), then the differential could be attributed to attracting the “right” audience.
Another idea being discussed does NOT make sense to me, and that is the desire expressed by MediaVest to add a secondary guarantee to its TV deals with select networks. As reported in AdAge on July 1 (sorry, but the article is now available to subscribers only), the secondary guarantee will be based on the percentage of consumers who are heavy purchasers or “swing purchasers” delivered, based on new data from media and marketing research company TRA and TiVo.
As I suggested in this post, targeting heavy users is not a guarantee of success, but targeting switchers or “swing purchasers” sounds like a recipe for disaster. Let me get this straight, we are going to pay more to reach the most fickle consumers in the category? The ones that may buy and then switch away as soon as a better offer comes along? I would really like to see how the return on investment works out on that one. It seems that what scanners began, media measurement may end. (To read how scanned sales data led to a tectonic shift from brand-building advertising to brand-destroying price promotions click here.)
So what do you think of these attempts to go beyond reach and cost per thousand? Will brands benefit from the new models? What metrics should advertisers demand? Please share your thoughts.
(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
July 30th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Any improvement/addition to the metrics funnel is to be commended, Whether any particular metric has relevance to the brand, category or business problem is a subsequent matter that is left for them to ascertain
reach and cpm make sence if you are satisified with awareness but as you noted the buzz around achieving brand engagement (however that is defined) is what brands strive to achieve.
So the first part of the problem would be to define and agree on a heirarchy of engagement and from there map out the relevant behavioral/attitudinal indicators as is possible by the granularity of the medium’s data capture( individual vs segment profile)
As I create this heirarchy on the fly, please pardon any logic lapses
1. passive engagement:
a.watching/listening to the message
2. active engagement
a. acting on the message
i) seeking more information
ii)sharing the message (WOM -Level 1)
iii) advocating the message (WOM- Level 2)
iv) discussing/debating/reformulating the message (WOM- Level 3)
b. buying on the message
i)self
ii) self+others
I think if we are honest with ourselves, most consumers dont even have a passive engagement with many brands as they either zap through commercials or flip through the radio dial or scroll past the computer screen, walk past the street markeitng ‘event’.
Flat world symmetry between the impact of brand choises help sustain habitual purchase patterns punctuated by purchase continuity incentives and promotional events.
When a brand breaks through the mold (usually with some form of game changing event*), we stand in awe at the results as push becomes pull
*be it with a commercial that merits attention, a larger brand event in support of some cause or a new differentiated value propostion
so the greater challenge i suggest brands face is the foundational one - how does one get people to take in the message? and what are we doing to create the conditions for pull?
Not sure this is the answer you were looking for, but i think trying to tweek metrics (however long overdue and necessary) without adressing the core is akin to a front row seat at Nero’s violin recital.
Cheers
Miro