Opinion: Media’s house of cards

The foundation of today’s media planning revolves around reach, frequency, GRPs, CPRP and reach curves, something which both agencies and Clients’ alike are all too familiar with. Conflicts, arguments, heated debates and the occasional sacking of agencies have revolved around these foundations. With the much ballyhooed discussion around video neutral planning, once again such foundations are re-examined under new lenses focusing on online. Terminologies that seem familiar but not quite the same, like iGRPs, are dotting the media landscape.

Every media professional has been trained, brought up, and indoctrinated around the methodology of calculating R&F, GRPs and CRPRs. At the heart of building efficiencies of the average FMCG client is TV, where it is epitomized by a reach curve, a demonstration of efficiencies of an audience on a sliding scale of budgets contextualizing the reach it achieves. Something which requires a tedious amount of work by media planners but is useful in determining the laws of diminishing returns and hence the efficiency of TV budgets for a given audience - a good point of reference for both clients and agencies in determining the efficiencies in today’s world of greater accountability for budgets.

Hypothesis – What if we could build a common Reach Curve for both TV and Online?

To build on this requires a common framework of reference such that both media can be evaluated as cleanly as possible. For this idea, purely quantitative assessment will be done, not qualitative, as a book could literally be written on the pros and cons of both media and would be highly subjective at best. The selection criteria have been chosen to reflect a broad base, as one would expect out of an atypical FMCG Client.

1. Common Audience Match – Female 25+
2. Unique Reach – both sides must be unique and reach must be de-duplicated
3. Format – similar 30sec TVC spot/video ads
4. Rate card rates

Data – comScore Media Metrix and Nielsen TAM.

Figure 1 – Reach Curve – TV vs Online, Female 25+

At every given budget level for this hypothesis, Online builds reach at a quicker pace and at much lower budget level than TV.

However, fair is fair, the absolute bases for both TV and Online do differ, to contextualize the next point, we would need to reference this audience relative to their total base size in a de-duplicated unique fashion, arguments on unique browsers vs unique viewers’ aside.

Figure 2 – Absolute Curve – TV vs Online, Female 25+

Up to a budget level of RM135,000 (US$42,300), both TV and Online builds reach in a similar fashion and after that, TV does a better job in building unique reach.

Something which is to be expected considering that this audience is very broad based and until Malaysia’s internet penetration reaches the same penetration as TV, it is hardly a fair fight. For those digital enthusiasts, the rate card for video based inventory was uploaded with an additional premium of about 30 per cent to ensure that it is a premium, yet solid and achievable number. Hard core planners who likes cheap as chips can uplift the above budgetary number by a good 30 per cent.

However, most Clients don’t buy such a broad based audience, due to distribution points, product price points and other key marketing factors. In fact, most would have an urban filter to represent more accurately the audience they are looking for. However, to ensure accurate like-for-like audience matching, today’s data capabilities can’t match an urban filter. The next best step is adding Central Region to the definition. In figures 3 & 4, you can see their reach and absolute audience impact on Central Region Female 25+.

Figure 3 – Reach Curve – TV vs Online, Central Region Female 25+

Figure 4 – Absolute Curve – TV vs Online, Central Region Female 25+

For women in the central region, online builds reach faster and more cost efficient than TV. There is no comparison, reach-wise or absolute audience-wise.

However, most audience reality lies somewhere in between the two audiences bandied about here and once greater nuances in the audience data exists, a stronger analysis can be made to match up of TV versus Online.

What’s the Point?

Quantitatively speaking, online can reach most audiences cost efficiently and build reach too, especially in urban sectors but have yet to command the advertising expenditure appropriate with it. Data already exists on its cost efficient merits versus newspaper but yet it has failed in the Malaysian market to come anywhere close to newspaper ADEX.

Media planners are trained to professionally analyze TV audiences as part of their vocation. When applied to online, cynicism and skepticism abounds. Why? It’s not the data, it’s the people behind it. People are comfortable with status quo and change is really hard work. So much so that even when faced with empirical evidence to the contrary, most people would still take the well-trodden and familiar path. It’s like the guy placing the latest card on a house of cards for fear that it would crumble around them once they place it. I for one think it’s about time to make changes and apply media fundamentals to these “new media”. After all, aren’t we all media neutral?