12: Customer Consumption of Communication
Historically, the approach to media was to consider each medium separately: newspapers, magazines, radio, and television were considered in isolation. While it was acknowledged that customers might use more than one of these, it was not considered a significant factor, as it was believed that customers gave single-mined focus to the medium at hand, did not compare different messages in various media, and that the amount of overlap in audiences was insignificant in any case.
Only recently has there been much competition among the media for marketing dollars, which arose from acquisitions and mergers of the media companies into large corporate entities (as opposed to private firms in local markets that worked collaboratively) that faced financial pressure from investors to grow their advertising revenues. Shortly after, the "threat" of the internet and mobile media to their audiences and revenue became apparent, sparking greater competition among media, and causing marketers to consider media as a whole, rather than each medium in isolation.
Media operators have long used the audience metrics as a method of pricing their advertising space: the more people, the higher price they can command. Other factors may be considered: the affluence of their readers, catering to a specialized audience, and being influential, all were factored into media pricing - but the primary metric has long been size of audience.
Since audience size affected price, metrics were contested, an independent research firms sought to arbitrate by providing an objective, third-party perspective, and expanded the breadth and depth of their analysis. The author mentions a number of firms and goes into detail about their history and services, and some of the techniques used to attempt to measure consumption, with the implication that they are all a bit wonky.
MEASURING THE AUDIENCE AND EFFECT OF ADVERTISING MEDIA
The author seeks to explain the metrics and some of the key differences in the most common media:
Nielsen Media Research has used a variety of methods for monitoring television usage, from behaviors to mechanical devices that determine what programming is being watched by which members of a household. It divides the viewership into geographic markets (53 metro, 210 local, and 157 small- to mid-size) and uses a large sample size to get a cross-section of the general public. There are often questions about what is actually being measured - whether the devices and, especially, the surveys are accurate, whether the viewers are actually watching the program, etc. has been debated. Nonetheless, the Neilsen ratings are considered the gold standard of metrics for the television medium.
The Arbitron Company is the leading provider of radio market information, and uses sample groups of consumers in 270 radio markets, who each keep a one-week diary of listening habits during a few periods each year. As with Nielsen, there are doubts about the strict accuracy of this technique, and alternate methods have been attempted (with no widespread use). OF particular concern is that more than 80% of the listening time is believed to be in automobiles, where users channel-surf to avoid commercial messaging, and may not have accurate recall of exactly which stations were listened to, or for how long.
Print media audiences are measured primarily by circulation, as it's fairly straightforward to determine how many copies of a publication are sold. Periodic reader surveys are used to augment this basic metric, determining how much of the publication is read, how often, whom else it is shared with, etc. Aside of self-reporting, there are surveying companies such as Scarborough and Mediamark that ask about reading habits in general (what newspaper you read yesterday, what magazines you read in the past month, etc.) Of particular interest in the industry is the skimming habit (users skim the publication and read a few articles, generally not the entire content)
Display advertising (billboards, posters, transit signage, etc.) use various techniques, but are usually based on the "flow" of people past the advertisement (such as traffic on a road), which measures the potential audience, not the number of people who read the advertisement, or even noticed it. Likewise, surveying can be done in metro areas, where outdoor advertising on public transportation is common, and it's not unheard of to use a human or mechanical observer to observe and record traffic.
The Internet, while relatively new, provides far more precise measurements of audience by analyzing file downloads (via server logs, bugs, and other techniques). This can be observed by the site owners, or audited by a service such as Nielsen/Netratings, which loads software onto participating computers to detect usage. It is not without its drawbacks, in that actual "people" can be difficult to detect, and one may determine that a file was downloaded, not that it was read, sued, or fully seen. Many advertisers have turned to click-through as a measure of effectiveness, both in terms of measuring the percentage of people who (allegedly) saw a message to those who clicked, as well as using click-through itself as a method for compensating publishers for actual referrals.
(EN: Much more can be said here, as the internet advertising model is widely regarded as "broken" by advertisers who suspect falsified click-through and publishers who feel undercompensated by not receiving payment for brand exposure when users see the ad, but do not immediately respond.)
MEASURING THE AUDIENCE AND EFFECT OF OTHER DELIVERY SYSTEMS
While the author's on the topic of measurement, he feels it would be useful to address audience measurement for other forms of advertising that don't quite fit into the typical definition of "media."
Direct Marketing includes mail, telephone, and e-mail solicitation to individual customers, in a way that the response can be measured directly. It's fairly simple to determine the number of messages sent (fliers mailed, calls placed) against the response rate from consumers. Infomercials are also considered to be direct marketing, though it may be difficult to measure their reach (one can use estimates of the number of viewers at a given hour) and response may be delayed.
Public Relations work is generally gauged by "impressions" alone: when a PR marketer can get a story or press release into a publication or broadcast, he can count the audience of the primary medium as the reach of the PR effort. PR has also moved online, in the form of blogging, where viewership can be measured by Web site traffic.
Sponsorship is less common than it once was in media, but is still a common tactic in image marketing. "Sponsoring" a program can give an advertiser exclusive control over messaging, even in channels where advertising is not permitted (public television, for example), as well as in-program promotion. It's largely measured in the same manner as traditional advertising, but sponsorship creates greater frequency of exposure over a short amount of time.
Event sponsorship is another matter. This is likewise done for image-building purposes, and the metrics may vary, as they depend on how often the message or logo is splashed (event signage, distribution on programs, mentions on the event Web site, event advertising, the event may be televised, etc.) It's noted that there has been significant growth in nontraditional forms of marketing, such as event sponsorship, due to its greater effectiveness in getting consumers attention in an unobtrusive way.
Product placement involves integrating branded products into entertainment content, the most obvious form of which is the use of products as props in movies. By integrating the brand into the entertainment experience, it gains associative value, and the brand is displayed in a context in which the viewer is unlikely to ignore it. It even extends to mentions of the brand name in dialog and lyrics. There is ongoing research into the effectiveness of product placement as a method of marketing, though there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest it can be effective in building brand awareness.
OMNIBUS ISSUES IN MEDIA AND AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT
It's noted that, in spite of the medium in question, the common factor seems to be a desire to count the number of viewers, and the number of impressions per viewer, which goes back to the traditional marketing goals of reach and frequency. However, it remains a gross measurement: one cannot be sure if the message was effective, or received, or even noticed.
However, because of differences in media consumption, the metrics are not analogous across all media - a magazine reader is not the same, in terms of behavior or impact of messaging, as a television viewer or a Web site visitor. This is not a problem when considering media-first, but when planning media based on consumption, the count cannot be effectively amalgamated.
There is also the inability to track visitors across media. If a newspaper ad reaches 30,000 people, a radio spot reaches 50,000, and a television add reaches 100,000 in the same demographic market, the marketer cannot say that he has reached 180,000 people, as there is overlap in the audiences that cannot be estimated.
The gross estimations of reach also do not distinguish between foreground or background messaging. For example, radio is very often a background medium (listened to while driving, working, shopping, etc.) whereas a newspaper is a foreground medium (few people, if any, read snatches of a newspaper while performing another task).
Traditional metrics also fail to consider the impact of media. Reaching a gross volume of people is less effective, hence less important, than reaching a specific target market via the appropriate media, at a time when they are receptive, and with a message to which they will be responsive.
Underlying this problem is that traditional metrics seek to track activities that may not be fruitful - as if having an advertisement seen is important in and of itself, regardless if it results in any positive impact to the company - increased sales, either immediately or as a result of improving the image of the brand.