Recency in Media Planning-Re-Defined

WALTER REICHEL
The A-to-S LINK,
Incorporated
LESLIE WOOD
The A-to-S LINK,
Incorporated
Recency in Media Planning-Re-Defined
Recency tells us that an ad exposure has more sales potency when it occurs close to
purchase occasion. The database that gave rise to recency also shows that time
frame and frequency of exposure operate together to determine a given marketplace
outcome. To do justice to these dynamics when developing the most effective media
plans, it is necessary to use a sophisticated modeling solution. This is contrasted
with a reductive approach which attempts to apply a simple formula solution. This
paper compares the media planning approaches of Erwin Ephron, John Philip Jones
and A-to-S Link’s Adlmpact Model in addressing recency.
“ONE EXPOSURE IS ENOUGH?” Who said that. what
does it mean?
It’s hard to track down the exact source of this
formulation or its precise meaning. You may rec-
ognize it, however, as do we. It seems to be in the
air these days as one of the new “rules of thumb”
associated with the recency philosophy of media
planning. One exposure when? Every four
weeks . every week or what?
Merely as a practical media matter, how does
one schedule one exposure? How does the poor me-
dia planner assure that each targeted individual
gets exactly one exposure-no more-timed at pre-
cisely the moment when that exposure is most
likely to effect a sale?
There’s a certain romance in the one exposure
concept and a decided incoherence as well. The
concept offers a neat handle for those seeking a
rationale to further reduce budgets. However, the
difficulty in deciding how to apply the one-
exposure-is-enough concept in actual practice only
serves to betray how difficult it is to make any
sense of this idea in the first place.
RECENCY-AND THE CHALLENGE POSED FOR
THE MEDIA PLANNER
The principle of rrcency-stressing the importance
of positioning exposures close to purchase occa-
sion-is gaining wide acceptance and is replacing
the 3+ effectivefrequency threshold principle as a key
guideline to help determine media weight levels
and scheduling.
66 JOURRRL OF RIIUERTISIRG RESERRCH July � August 1997
Recency emerged out of work conducted by A-
to-S LINK in the early ’90s using a single-source
data base (preliminary findings were first cited in
Papazian, 1992). A key summary conclusion dis-
tilled from the A-to-S LINK analyses is:
� A single exposure in close proximity to purchase
occasion exerts a powerful influence on sales.
The key issue is: how to best apply this principle
in actual media practice.
The “weekly reach” approach to media planning
For Erwin Ephron (1995), the idea of “scheduling
for weekly reach” and the “one-exposure-is-
enough” concept are tied in with one another, as
reflected in the following passage:
The usual reaction to scheduling for weekly
reach is “How can one exposure, even if it’s in
the week before purchase occasion, be
enough?” The answer is it’s not enough in all
cases, but it does appear to be the most cost-
effective use of the money.
Ephron’s syllogisms-and we paraphrase-
connect roughly as follows:
� A single OTS is sufficient-particularly when
delivered close to purchase occasion.
� It is important to optimize weekly reach and
� It is
ously
adde’
This
and-1
source
of rece
to lead
(i.e., e:
certair
indust
thougl
recent
In t
demo
LINK
medi:
utilize
fully
camp
tising
onstr
proac
fer ir
will
suit f
asses
wou
place
CON
A 1~
brin
we:
higl
bet\
T
full
nuir
crei
the
cur
sur
ch:
on
(

� It is important to advertise continu-
ously-rather than flight for the sake of
added frequency.
This line of reasoning oversimplifies
and-we believe-misreads the single-
source findings which give rise to the idea
of recency. It also, as we shall see, seems
to lead to and to justify planning solutions
(i.e., extremely low weekly TRP levels in
certain circumstances) which many in the
industry still find somewhat unpalatable,
though they may at the same time regard
recency as just “common sense.”
In the following, we will outline and
demonstrate an alternative (the A-to-S
LINK) approach to applying recency to
media planning This is an approach that
utilizes modeling-and is designed to more
fully recognize and take into account the
complex dynamics inherent in how adver-
tising and sales interact. We will also dem-
onstrate and compare how Ephron’s ap-
proach and the A-to-S LINK approach dif-
fer in actual practice. That is to say, we
will demonstrate how different plans re-
sult from these approaches and attempt to
assess how each of these respective plans
would perform in terms of actunl market-
place effectiveness.
CONTINUITY
A look at the issue of continuity helps
bring to the fore some of the difficulties
we see in Ephron’s concept of recency and
highlights critical differences in approach
between Ephron and A-to-S LINK.
The principle of recency argues power-
fully for presence and, therefore, for conti-
nuity. Spreading exposures over time in-
creases the number of likely “hits” (i.e.,
the number of times an exposure will oc-
cur in close proximity to when the con-
sumer is ready to make a category pur-
chase-and thus is ready to be influenced
on his or her product choice).
Granted that a high priority should be
accorded to continuity (A-to-S LINK and
Ephron agree on this)-but are there no
countervailing considerations? No other
trade-offs for the planner to weigh?
The syllogisms representing the “weekly
reach” approach lead to a narrowly deter-
mined course of action. Continuity is the
prescribed nnsiuer, regardless of circum-
stance. Following this line of logic, it ap-
pears the planner could easily rationalize
52 weeks of continuous advertising
(whether or not affordable) even at
weekly levels of, say, 20?, considered sub-
liminal in the not distant past.
In truth, almost no one is entirely com-
fortable with the fact that the chain of
logic outlined above and now popularly
identified with recency leads to such a
conclusion.
As will be seen in the following, A-to-S
LINK directly questions certain of the ba-
sic assumptions inherent in the above-
quoted syllogisms. We will, in our discus-
sion, return to the data base and develop a
restated definition of recency that is di-
vested of other concepts (in our view)
wrongly associated with it. In our ap-
proach to applying recency to planning,
we will take into account additional con-
siderations we regard as critical, e.g., the
effect of frequency and the carry-over
sales effect of an ad exposure from one
week to ensuing weeks. Factoring in con-
siderations such as these will help us
come up with different planning solutions
than those that issue as a result of the
weekly reach approach and that are more
defensible.
Ephron avoids prescribing media plan
options that feature extremely low weekly
TRP levels. However, he never explicitly
countermands the logic that leads to such
solutions. Instead, he introduces a consid-
eration that serves the purpose of mandat-
ing threshold TRP levels while bypassing
the issue of eifictiveness. Thus Ephron in-
troduces the idea of adequate veach. “The
RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
caveat,“ he says, “is we need to do this
while maintaining adequate weekly,
monthly and quarterly reach levels, so we
talk to enough people with the cam-
paign.” As will be shown, this amounts to
going around in those proverbial circles,
for in practice reach never comes unac-
companied by frequency. In the end, as
we shall see, it becomes difficult to distin-
guish schedules that are developed in ac-
cordance with Ephron’s planning criteria
from those that were crafted in the heyday
of effective frequency.
Back to the data
The single-source data base mined by A-
to-S LINK and later by John Philip Jones
(1994) for relationships demonstrating the
short-term sales efficacy of advertising is
extraordinarily rich and revealing. What
is of particular interest is: this data base
enables us to qtlant& the impact of adver-
tising on short-term marketplace sales.
Specifically, it enables us to take into ac-
count and assess the marketplace sales im-
pact of such variables as (1) frequency of
exposure, and (2) timing of exposure rela-
tive to purchase occasion.
In the following, we will go back to the
data base, i.e., review key findings, and
discuss how these findings can best be
adapted and applied. Our objective will
be to determine approaches that help as-
sure the development of media plans which
maximize marketplace sales effectiveness.
As will be shown in the following, the
single-source data base enables us to de-
velop and employ a modeled approach to
media planning that reflects and takes
into account the actual marketplace dy-
namics at work in the transactions occur-
ring between advertising and sales. The spe-
cific model we will utilize analyzes and
evaluates plans based on their ability to
generate projected simulated marketplace
sales. The critical components of this
model are: (1) it is based on couevage of
July . August 1997 JnvRnik Of !!wnlSln! RE!&!RCH 67

RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
purchase occasions, not reach and fre-
quency, and (2) it incorporates single-
source-derived values which reflect the
sales potency of an exposure(s) depending
on timing (relative to purchase occasion)
and frequency.
The model is not a black-box-
incorporating hidden assumptions and
obscure formulae. It allows the planner to
input, test, and verify the effect of certain
“what ifs,” such as:
� What happens with different patterns of
flighting?
� What is the effect of reducing the mini-
mum TRP level?
Interestingly, the model itself puts forth
a variety of optimized plans-depending
on how the parameters are stated. Thus
the model is responsive to the planner’s
judgments and does not produce the same
set of cookie-cutter plans for any given
budget/seasonal situation, as happens
when such formulae as the 3+ effective
frequency threshold principle or the op-
timize one-week reach principle are
imposed.
In what follows below, we will look at a
set of budget/seasonal requirements for a
given hypothetical brand, show the
“Ephron solutions” as against various op-
timized plans put forth by the model, and
make some comparisons and evaluations.
HOW ADVERTISING WORKS
To reiterate, the following conclusion was
distilled by A-to-S LINK based on perus-
ing single-source data for 167 brands
across 9 categories:
� A single exposure in close proximity to
purchase occasion exerts a powerful in-
fluence on sales.
This statement expresses the concept of re-
cency. However, it is just as important to
recognize what sweeping conclusions are
not drawn in the above. One cannot read
into this statement-or, for that matter,
draw from the base data-such conclu-
TABLE 1
Value of Exposures: Effect of Timing and Frequency
Measured by % Increase in Brand Share
Days Before Purchase Occasion
. . . . . .
Exposures 1 2 7 14 21 28
. . . . . . . . . .
l+ 23 16 13 10 10 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2+ 27 11 17 10 11 11
. . . . . . .
3+ 23 27 15 14 14
. . . . . .
4+ 32 24 20 19 16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5+ 21 22 20 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6+ 28 21 23 18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8+ 38 29 26 22
. . . . .
lO+ 24 28 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12+ 31 29 24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20+ 45
. . . . . . . . . . .
68 JllURilRL OF RllUERTlSlRG RESERRCH July � August 1997
sions as: “one exposure is enough,” or
“frequency is of no importance,” or “no
significance need be attached to an expo-
sure occurring in the second or third week
prior to purchase occasion.”
Table 1 illustrates how advertising ex-
posures impact sales over time for a pro-
totypical brand. The findings are ex-
pressed as “scores” reflecting share
changes attributed to one or more ad ex-
posures occurring within a specified num-
ber of days before purchase occasion.
Thus the “23” in the upper left hand cor-
ner is a score reflecting the sales value of
one or more ad exposures occurring one
day before purchase occasion. (A literal
translation is: a 23 percent higher brand
share results among category purchasers
receiving at least one OTS for the brand ad
one day before purchase occasion.)
Again, the “23“ expresses the very po-
tent sales efficacy of an exposure occurring one
day before purchase occasion. Recency is fur-
ther corroborated when we observe how
the sales efficacy scores increase as we pe-
ruse from right to left, i.e., as we move
from scores reflecting the somewhat more
distant past to scores more closely reflect-
ing the present.
However, it is critical to note that the
exposure accounting for the strong “23”
sales score by no means stands alone. As
this chart reveals, many of the same
households receiving an exposure one day
before purchase occasion also received
one or more additional exposures over the
past tzuo days as well as over the past seven
days as well as over the past twenty-eight
days, etc. Thus a considerable proportion
of “exposed“ households included in this
sample received multiple exposures over
the 2%day period shown; and these expo-
sures (as revealed in Table 1) accounted-
both individually and collectively-for a
decided marketplace sales impact.
What, then, of the “one exposure is enough”
conceit? It is difficult-statistically-
Al
M
th
CE
m
fo
of
le
th
sa
10;
vi:
an
thi
“n
beI
ad
of
Wf
sin
co1
bet
ten
ovc
1
tin
is r
tier
see
disl
dat
(19’
car1
imy
thal
the
sing
adv
ules

sugh,” or
” or “no
an expo-
ird week
ising ex-
x a pro-
areex- g share
e ad ex-
?d num-
:casion.
md cor-
value of
ing one
L literal
* brand
chasers
*and ad
1
‘cry po-
,ing one
is fur-
e how
we pe-
move
t more
eflecf-
at the
“23”
le. As
same
e day
zived
:r the
seven
-eight
rtion
j this
over
xpo-
zd-
or a
lgh“
Y-
to isolate a single exposure and its sales
effect (just as, in the phase of media imple-
mentation, it is difficult to assure that a
prospect receives one exposure and only
one exposure during some particular time
span). “Enotlgh” said?
Advertising support level requirements
We return now to an observation stated at
the outset of this discussion: while “re-
cency” is just plain common sense to
many, it is nevertheless viscerally difficult
for the same individuals to accept the idea
of employing extremely low weekly GRP
levels-whether or not it might appear
that such levels can be justified for the
sake of maximizing continuity. Does the
logic or the evidence exist to override this
visceral resistance?
In the preceding, we revisited the data
and overturned some of the assumptions
that have become identified (falsely) with
“recency.” Frequency does matter, as has
been shown (added frequency results in
added sales-albeit at a diminishing rate
of return). And, as we have also seen,
when we speak of the sales efficacy of a
single ad exposure, we have to take into ac-
count that this efficacy has most likely
been affected and determined to some PX-
tent by advertising activity taking place
over preceding weeks.
What, then, of the belief so many con-
tinue to hold that some base support level
is required to assure effective communica-
tion in the marketplace? This belief-it
seems to us-has not been conclusively
disposed of by single-source findings to
date. As Helen Johnston has pointed out
(1995), in an environment in which “the
corporate rule is that a minimum GRP be
imposed, very few brands will run less
than that minimum.” Certainly, during
the 1991-1993 lifetime of the Nielsen
single-source data base, the majority of
advertised brands were running sched-
ules that adhered to certain guidelines on
REGENCY IN MEDIA PLANNIb
The planner’s task is to manage an outgoing flow of aI
exposures in such a way to intercept these purchase oc
casions and maximize the number of “hits” or “neal
hits.”
minimum weekly GRP levels. Thus one or
another tkwskold level of support is imp2icif
when findings on the sales efficacy of ad-
vertising are reported out of single source.
Colin McDonald addresses this issue
with great delicacy (McDonald, 1996). Mc-
Donald refers to fhe value of “clustering”
exposures. He also shows that confusion
still reigns when we discuss “optimums”
and concludes “we are still thrown back
almost wholly on ‘judgment.’ ”
We will not address this issue further
in fhis discussion or attempt to arrive
at a judgment on one side or the other.
Our view is: in the absence of clear-cut
and conclusive evidence, this is an area
where informed planner judgment
should prevail. Arbitrary strictures or
formulae should not be imposed. Thus
the model we will later demonstrate
has been designed to advance t-he de-
cision-making process by providing
ways to evaluate the “what if’s”-and
to weigh the consequences of different
possible courses of action as regards
“minimums” (McDonald, 1996).
A COMPLEX TASK
As we now turn to examining different
plans and different planning approaches,
let’s review again the complexity of the
task faced by the media planner.
Purchase occasions present themselves
in an on-going flow. Each day, each week,
one household or another will be in the
marketplace making a category purchase.
The planner’s task is to manage an outgo-
ing flow of ad exposures in such a way tc
intercept these purchase occasions am
maximize the number of “hits” or “near
hits.”
Figure 1 helps us visualize the market.
place situation that exists in varying forms
in myriads of households. In this particu-
lar instance-illustrating a four-week pe-
riod in one particular household--the
purchase occasion occurs in week four
and ad exposures for a particular brand
occur in weeks one, two, and three. Keep
in mind that, as we have already learned,
each of these exposures has a difleyent sales
value. Thus the exposure in week three-
occurring closer to purchase occasion-
has a stronger sales value than the expo-
sure in week one. Already it becomes ap-
parent that the planner has much to
conjure with.
Now let us consider the special role
played by frequency as illustrated in Fig-
ure 1. On the one hand-and as tradition-
ally understood-frequency plays a role
in reiterating the message, i.e., it provides
continuing message reinforcement. On the
other hand, it can also be seen now-
given our understanding of the recel?cy
principle-that frequency provides spread,
i.e., higker levels offYequency increase the
likelihood that an exposure will occur
close to purchase occasion.
Recognizing the marketplace complexi-
ties just illustrated, A-to-S LINK has, as
we have said, developed a modeling ap-
proach to come to the aid of the planner.
This modeling approach is designed to
take into account the effect of exposures
July . August 1997 JOUAllRl Of RDUEATlSlRG RESERRCH 69

RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
Weeks: 1
Purchase occasions
2 3 4
E E E
Exposures
Figure 1 Flow of Exposures and Purchase Occasions
occurring in the past week, the past two In the following, we will contrast these
weeks, and even the past 12 weeks prior approaches and show how-given the
to purchase occasion. The model encom- same budget and marketing input-they
passes the complexities outlined above by result in quite different media plan solu-
assigning different sales values depending tions. In comparing these approaches and
on the timing of an exposure relative to their corresponding solutions, we will
purchase occasion and the frequency of ex- also try to demonstrate the special benefits
posures. The model then evaluates and that accrue from modeling-at least in
scores a given plan based on estimated cases where a sound basis for such an ap-
simulated sales. proach exists.
Modeling aside, another possible ap-
proach to dealing with such complex
planning issues is to try to simplify them
and deduce easy-to-apply, formula-based
courses of action. This is a time-honored
approach, but one that carries with it cer-
tain dangers.
The “weekly reach” approach adapted
by Ephron represents such an attempt to
simplify. Thus Ephron focuses on the sig-
nificance of the interactions between ex-
posure and purchase occasion that occur
within the course of a single week. He dis-
counts the significance to the planner of
exposures occurring in prior weeks-
whether in terms of the role these expo-
sures may play in providing added rein-
forcement in the form of frequency or in
exposing the message to households not
reached during the specimen week. He
treats frequency as being of no practical
significance to the planner whether it oc-
curs during the specimen week or not.
“In practice” versus theoretical
As we have said, for Erwin Ephron the
idea of “scheduling for weekly reach” and
the “one-exposure-is-enough” concept are
tied in with another. Thus Ephron ex-
presses at least a qualified adherence to
“one-exposure is enough” (i.e., “it’s not
enough in all cases, but it does appear to
be the most cost-effective use of the
money”) and sets up “weekly reach“ as
the practical approach he favors in the
implementation phase of planning.
Ephron identifies two “media goals”
for “weekly reach planning,” as follows:
� “the highest 52-week total of weekly
target reach points,” and
� “a target reach of 35 for the average
week, 65 for the month, and 80 for the
quarter”
70 JiURR!L Of Rl.lUERTlSlllG RESEARCH July . August 1997
Ephron also says: “The cost effective
way to buy the highest 52-week total of
P
weekly target reach points is to limit tar-
get rating points to between 60 and 85 a
week, disperse the schedules, and adver-
tise for more weeks.”
Of course, in establishing a threshold
range for weekly TRPs, Ephron is also,
whether second-handedly or not, estab-
lishing a broad threshold range for four-
week frequency. And at a weekly level of
60 to 85 TRPs, the threshold frequency
level Ephron in effect sets definitely
ranges in the 3+ area, that is to say, very
much in the neighborhood of the goal that
would have been set by a planner pursu-
ing the “old” effective frequency thresh-
old philosophy.
After the rhetoric, what’s changed?
Ephron calls for “more weeks, less
weight,” but it is hard to see where this
solution comes into play in actuality.
The critical test cases occur with brands
that have relatively low media budgets
when the planner is faced with acutely
difficult trade-offs in evaluating whether
toflight at comfortable weekly TRP levels or
opt for moye continuity at lower weekly TRP
levels. How to decide? So far as we can
tell, in following Ephron’s “media goals,”
the planner makes roughly the same deci-
sions in these cases as he or she would
have made before recency. Ephron’s pro-
scriptions and remedial warnings appear
to apply only at relatively high budget lev-
els, where they operate to prevent plan-
ners from choosing flighting options sim-
ply for the sake of piling up extra fre-
quency well above traditional threshold
levels.
And the model tells us
We will examine three prototype plans in-
tended to illustrate differing representa-
tive approaches. The annual budget in
each case is $4,000,000. The target audi-
ence is women 25 to 54. Sales decline pro-
nouncedly in the summer. For each repre-
sentative plan, we have programmed a
F

specific daypart selection to optimize one-
week reach: the elements included are
prime, day, syndication, and cable.
The three prototype plans are as
follows:
1. “Traditional” (see Figure 2). This plan
is consistent with 3+ effective frequency
threshold requirements. Fifty-five weekly
TRPs are utilized, resulting in a four-
week reach and frequency of 74.0/3.0.
Fourteen weeks of activity are afford-
able, which are concentrated in four-
and five-week blocs during the higher
seasonal sales periods. (In Figure 2 and
the ensuing plan flow charts, media ac-
tivity is indicated via “bars” and sales
are shown via either a solid line [base
sales] or a dotted line [incremental
sales achieved as a result of planned
media activity].)
2. “Weekly Reach” (see Figure 3). This
plan is designed to meet Ephron’s re-
quirements: it employs 60 weekly TRPs
for the sake of adequate reach. It also em-
ploys “bloc” scheduling to meet
Ephron’s requirement for at least a 65
monthly reach. Activity is scheduled
during high seasonal sales periods. Av-
erage four-week reach and frequency is
76.0/3.2. (This plan meets most of
Ephron’s requirements, though not all.
It does not, for instance, generate an 80
reach in all advertised quarters-due to
choices made within the available
dollars.)
3. “Model” (see Figure 4). This plan em-
ploys 55 weekly TRPs-to test what
RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
happens if we respect “traditional”
minimums. However, plan scheduling
is handled differently. No restrictions
on maximum hiatus periods nor
any requirement to schedule in blocs
has been imposed. Instructed to allo-
cate in accordance with sales, the
Model interestingly schedules media
activity in the form of free standing
zueeks throughout the year. Lower
summer seasonality is recognized by
scheduling longer hiatuses during
these periods.
Comparison A critical comparison to take
under consideration is coverage of purchase
occasions (see Table 2). As expected, the
“traditional” plan and the “weekly reach”
plan perform comparably in terms of both
I 80 , 25000
Week #
Figure 2 Traditional/Standard Plan-55 TRPs Weekly Minimum
Week #
Figure 3 Weekly Reach Plan-60 TRPs Weekly Minimum
) Prlme/Synd/Da’y/Cable
- Base Sales
-- - - Incremental Sales
I Prime/Synd/Day/Cable
- Base Sales
- - - - Incremental Sales
July . August 1997 JIIURRRL Of RllUERTlSlRG RESEARCH 71

RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
80 ,
Week #
Figure 4 Model Plan-55 TRPs Weekly Minimum
TABLE 2
Coverage of Purchase Occasions
. . . . . . .
One Week
. . . . . .
Four Week
. . . . . .
Traditional
. .
Plan
. . . .
9.9%
. . . . .
21.0%
. . .
Weekly
. .
Reach
. . .
9.8%
. . . . .
21.4%
. . . . .
Model
. . .
Plan
. . . . . . . .
8.7%
. . .
29.0%
. . . .
one-week and four-week coverage of pur-
chase occasions. The “Model” plan, how-
ever, while not performing as well as the
others in terms of one-week coverage (due
to some media activity scheduled during
low seasonal summer sales periods), sig-
nificantly outperforms the “traditional” and
“weekly reach’ plans in terms offotlr-week
coverage of purchase occasions.
The Model, as we have said, first devel-
ops coverage of purchase occasions and
next applies the appropriate sales scores
to determine the “winning plan” based on
“simulated brand share increases (cume
basis).” (The qualifier “simulated” is used
because the Model abstracts such consid-
erations as pricing, couponing, promo-
tional activity, etc., in its analysis and thus
the “sales score” produced by the Model
cannot be taken as predictive of actual
marketplace sales.)
Simulated share increase scores for
these plans are as follows:
72 JIlURllRL Of RllUERTlSlRR RESEARCH July . August 1997
� “Traditional” +3.63%,
� “Weekly Reach” +3.68%1
� “Model“ +4.56%1
The “Model” plan wins-by almost a
one-third margin! Not surprisingly-since
they look so much alike-the “tradi-
tional” plan and the “weekly reach” plan
generate almost identical scores.
Commentary The Model “knows,” of
course, that frequency makes a difference
and that exposures in preceding weeks ex-
ert sales effects that carry over to the “cur-
rent week.” It therefore not only evaluates
all three plans based on these consider-
ations, it also designs “its own plan” in
accordance with them.
The key strategic advantage of the
“winning plan“ is that it increases undu-
plicated average four-week coverage of pur-
chase occasions through the tactic of em-
ploying stand-alone weeks. Again, the
Model knows a given purchase occasion
25000
I Prlme/Synd/Day/Cable
-Base Sales
- - - - Incremental Sales
“hit” has value even if it occurs as a result
of an exposure in some preceding week.
Thus in this case a schedule of stand-alone
weeks-separated by a series of appropri-
ate Model-determined intervening hiatus
periods-maximizes the number of effec-
tive hits.
Again, it is critical to note that neither
the “weekly reach’ plan nor the “Model”
plan makes any attempt to extend conti-
nuity beyond the 14 weeks covered in the
“traditional plan.” Thus, in the following,
we will use the Model to look at plans that
exemplify the “more weeks, less weight”
principle.
We will look at two plans that provide
“more weeks, less weight,” as follows:
� 35 TRPs/week over 22 weeks (see
Figure 5)
� 15 (average TRPs/week over 52 weeks
(see Figure 6)
Comparison Coverage of purchase occa-
sions is shown in Table 3. It is very inter-
esting to note that no dramatic increase in
four-week coverage of purchase occasions
occurs as we move from 55 TRPs/wk/lS
wks to 15 TRPs/wk/52 wks.
Simulated share increase scores work
out as follows:
� 55 TRP minimum/week +4.56%
1
I
.
.
ii
0

c
RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
80 I 25000
60 20000
cn
B 40 15000 g
u
20
10000
5000
iI
0 0
Week #
Figure 5 More Weeks, Less Weight-35 TRPs Weekly Minimum
LZX Prime/Synd/Day/Cable
- Base Sales
- - - - Incremental Sales
60 20000
;
ul
40 15000 g’
10000 I
20
5000
0 0
Figure 6 More Weeks, Less Weight-15 TRPs Weekly (Average)
TABLE 3
Coverage of Purchase Occasions
One Week Four Week
. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
55 Weekly TRP Plan 8.7 29.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . .
35 Weekly TRP Plan 10.4 29.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................
15 Weekly (average) TRP Plan 13.0 30.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
� 35 TRP minimum/week +4.62%
@ 15 TRP/average week +4.78%
Commentary These results allow plen-
ty of room for the planner to exercise
judgment.
While continuity wins, the gains shown
in simulated sales for going from 13 weeks
of activity to 22 weeks to 52 weeks are
certainly not as great as might have been
expected-and probably not great enough
to override possible concerns over run-
ning schedules at drastically lowered
weekly TRP levels. (Again, among the rea-
sons why the Model comes up with this
somewhat surprising result are: it gives
some credit forfrequency-which can “pile
up” when advertising is concentrated
- Base Sales
- - - - Incremental Sales
over fewer weeks-and for carry-over ef-
fects-which somewhat mitigate the effect
of hiatuses.)
COMPETITIVE ADVERTISING
To date, the Model does not take into ac-
count competitive advertising and com-
petitive “share of voice.”
The issue of “share of voice” presents
itself for our attention, however, when we
go back and reinspect the “traditional“
plan (see Figure 2) as against the “Model”
plan (see Figure 4).
Suppose, for instance, we represent
advertiser A and run the “Model” plan.
Suppose further that our chief competi-
tor, advertiser B, runs the “traditional”
plan.
As can be seen, during “prime” sea-
July . August 1997 30URllRL Of ROUERTISIRR RESEARCH 73

RECENCY IN MEDIA PLANNING
sonal sales periods (weeks 1-17 and 46-
50), advertiser B seriously outguns adver-
tiser A due to much more concentrated
scheduling. On a “share of voice” basis,
advertiser A generates 385 TRPs (55
TRPs/week over seven weeks)-or 33
percent of the total-and advertiser B gen-
erates 770 TRPs (55 TRPs/week over four-
teen weeks) or 67 percent of the total. The
question is: Does advertiser A effectively
compensate for this by advertising during
lower seasonal periods when advertiser B
is not represented at all?
Ephron answers the “share of voice”
question by setting it up as a comparison
between an advertiser who flights and
runs at high frequency levels as against an
advertiser who employs continuity at
more optimized levels. In such a compari-
son, the latter advertiser always “wins,“
as the added frequency piled up during
periods of concentrated advertising has
less value than continuity. However,
Ephron’s comparison assumes every-
one is playing by his rules as opposed
to running some of the more creative,
variegated schedules featured in this
discussion.
Again, at present, “modeling” tools are
not available to definitively answer the
question raised in the above: if the adver-
tiser has created an “optimized“ plan ac-
cording to the principle of uecency, will
this still be the best plan-the “winning
plan”-regardless of what competitors
do?
CONCLUSION
In redefining vecmcy, we have affirmed
again the critical importance played by
timing in determining the sales efficacy of
an ad exposure. However, we have sought
to show that other considerations play a
critical role as well and must be taken into
account when recency is applied in media
planning. Thus frequency can play an im-
portant role in reinforcing the message
and in spreading exposures over time.
Also, the carry-over sales effect of an ex-
posure from one week to another can pro-
vide message reinforcement as well as en-
hanced coverage of purchase occasions
and thus mitigate the effect of hiatuses.
The interplay of factors and consider-
ations such as these in the marketplace
presents the planner with a daunting chal-
lenge. What we have tried to demonstrate
in this discussion is how a modeling ap-
proach based on single-source findings
can provide the planner with a highly so-
phisticated tool to meet and cope with this
challenge.
We also feel that-in an area in which
one can rely on so few absolute certain-
ties-a great strength of the particular
Model demonstrated in this discussion is
that it enables the planner to balance and
weigh the implications of various what ifs.
And finally, in this regard, this Model also
offers the potential that we can extend the
frontiers of what it may become possible
to “play with.” Thus, to provide just one
example, the Model offers, as a possible
next step in its development, the opportu-
nity to play “what if’ games with how the
implications of vecency play out in the
arena of competitive advertising. @
WALTER REICHEL IS managing partner of A-to-S LINK.
Before this, he was executive vice president, world
wide dlrector of media and programming at Ted Bates
WorldwIde. In this capacity, he developed and
implemented what became known as the 5% solution,
a strategic research-based approach for allocatmg
dollars to cable to compensate for declming network
audiences.
74 JOURllAt Of RllUERTlSl~G RESERRCH July � August 1997
LESLIE WOOD is responsible for designing and
the Adlmpact measure. Utlllring the Adlmpact results,
she conceived, programmed, and enhanced the
Adlmpact Media Model, which provides a more
sophisticated measure than reach and frequency with
which to measure and optimize the Impact of
advenislng on sales. She has also developed a
measure of wear-out using currently available data.
Pnor to A-to-S Link, Leslie was senior vice president
director of media research at Backer SpIelvogel Bates
and senior vice president dlrector of media
information and analysis division at Ted Bates. While
there she was responsible for the first Introduction of
PCs to an adverilsing agency, created and
programmed many media plannmg systems, and
wrote extensively on the effects and proper response
to the new media technologies.
REFERENCES
EPHRON, ERWIN. “More Weeks, Less Weight:
The Shelf-Space Model of Advertising.”
Journal of Advertising Research 35, 3 (1995):
18-23.
JOHNSTON, HELEN. “Research and Media
Scheduling.” Journal of Advertising Research 36,
6 (1995): RC l-4.
JONES, JOHN PHILIP. “When Ads Work: New
Proof of How Advertising Triggers Sales.” In
Transcript Proceedings of fhe ARF Effective Fre-
quency Research Day. New York: Advertising
Research Foundation, 1994.
MCDONALD, COLIN. Advertising Reach and Fre-
quency: Maximizing Advertising Results Through
Effective Frequency. New York and Lincoln-
wood, IL: Association of National Advertiser
and NTC Business Books, 1996.
implementmg advertising research techniques for PAPALIAN, EDWARD. “New Scanner-Based
A-to-S LINK. Through extensive use of smgle-source Analysis System Tracks Sales Results for
data mcludmg IRl’s BehavlorScarFs ScanAmerIca’s TV Ad Campaigns.” Marketsezse, May
and NPD/Nlelsen’s single-source data, she developed 1992.
GI
UI
Ci