Selecciones - Webs

Belch: Advertising and
Promotion, Sixth Edition
IMC PERSPECTIVE 10-1
V. Developing the
Integrated Marketing
Communications Program
10. Media Planning and
Strategy
© The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2003
Media Companies Expand and Improve Their Services
Advertising costs are determined by how many people
can be reached through the medium. In print media,
such costs are based on circulation and readership figures;
in broadcast, the basis is ratings. As in any industry,
firms compete directly to provide advertisers with
these audience numbers. Because so many billions of
dollars are spent on advertising each year, the figures
the services provide are critical. One would expect
that competing firms’ information would be valid and
consistent. Those in the magazine and newspaper
industries believe that it isn’t, and they are unhappy
about it.
The two primary providers of information on magazine
readership are Mediamark Research Inc. (MRI)
and Simmons Market Research Bureau (SMRB).
Because of the importance media buyers place on the
figures, they have become crucial to individual publications.
As the vice president of one top ad agency
noted, “If the readership numbers shift just a hair,
there is a big shift in the number of ad pages.” Yet
MRI’s and SMRB’s numbers rarely agree, causing many
to question their validity.
In the late 1990s both MRI and SMRB came under
attack. USA Today and The Wall Street Journal were
unhappy with MRI, while Hearst, Times Mirror, and
Condé Nast were dissatisfied with SMRB. The issues
involved the research methodologies of the two companies.
The Magazine Publishers of America research
committee noticed what appeared to be illogical numbers
in the SMRB research materials. Like MRI, SMRB
said it would change its research methods—to those
previously employed by MRI.
In 2002, SMRB announced another improvement
based on internal research that indicated usage of
color logo representations improved reporting accuracy.
As a result, color magazine logos replaced blackand-white
images in an attempt to improve attention
and the ability to differentiate between potentially
confusing titles.
MRI also responded and made significant changes
of its own. One such change was the addition of diary
data to the existing methodology. Borrowing from
Nielsen Media Research—the TV audience measurement
counterpart—approximately 12,000 respondents
were asked to maintain diaries recording their magazine
reading habits on a day-to-day basis. MRI claimed
that the study would allow magazines to present more
coherent and precise quantitative readership measures
showing exactly when readership takes place
and how magazine audiences grow. The company also
added 35 questions from the VALS program to help
agencies and publishers identify consumer groups
that have the greatest affinity with their products.
MRI also announced a partnership with Nielsen to
share data to produce a “share-of-voice” report that
combines national TV ratings with magazine readership.
The new report allows media planners to compare
ad schedules in national TV, cable, and 200 magazines
based on audience delivery, expressed in gross rating
points and cost-per-thousand figures.
You would figure that this would make everyone
happy, right? Well, not exactly. Recently media buyers
have criticized MRI’s reporting of Sunday magazines
that appear in newspapers, arguing that MRI overestimates
the readership. The MRI method uses newspaper
circulation figures and assumes that everyone
who reads the Sunday paper reads the magazine section
as well. Magazine competitors contend that this
gives Parade and USA Weekend an unfair advantage.
To add validity to the MRI numbers, Parade
announced that it was undertaking its own five-month
study to ensure the accuracy of the MRI figures. Who’s
next?
Sources: Tony Case, “By the Numbers,” Mediaweek, Feb. 4, 2002,
p. 32; Katy Bachman, “Data Upgrades,” Mediaweek, Mar. 25, 2002,
p. 41; “Mediamark Probes Consumer Psyche,” Mediaweek, Feb. 26,
2001, p. 48; Jon Fine, “MRI Arms Magazines with Diary Data,”
Advertising Age, Oct. 23, 2000, p. 4.
Difficulty Measuring Effectiveness Because it is so hard to measure the
effectiveness of advertising and promotions in general, it is also difficult to determine
the relative effectiveness of various media or media vehicles. While progress is being
made in this regard, the media planner may have little more than an estimate of or a
good guess at the impact of these alternatives.
Because of these problems, not all media decisions are quantitatively determined.
Sometimes managers have to assume the image of a medium in a market with which
they are not familiar, anticipate the impact of recent events, or make judgments without
full knowledge of all the available alternatives.
While these problems complicate the media decision process, they do not render it
an entirely subjective exercise. The remainder of this chapter explores in more detail
how media strategies are developed and ways to increase their effectiveness. 305