|
Alan Wilson,
Managing Partner ATG, MindShare
The
proposition:
There is
not a single advertiser or marketer who would not agree that the world
of consumer communications has changed out of recognition over the last
decade.
Few would
argue against the proposition that media-neutral planning was the right
response to those changes.
So why
is it that so few people do it?
Introduction:
The rate of change in using new communication channels, or for that matter
traditional ones in new ways, has lagged far behind the consumer's behaviour.
This raises some huge issues for marketing companies, media companies,
creative agencies and media owners. So what do we need? An approach to
communication planning which starts with the consumer and considers media
channels neutrally and on the basis of effectiveness both individually
and in combination. Why is it important to get this right? The first problem,
especially in times of economic downturn, is that of efficiency: history
suggests that failure to invest in media that consumer's prefer is highly
inflationary (in the US in the 80's advertiser's dollars stayed largely
on the big networks whilst cable audiences boomed - result: double digit
media inflation). Current practices tend to favour the premium rated communication
option because that is what has worked in the past, but for advertisers
there is a price to pay in rising costs per thousand; particularly amongst
those highly sought after affluent and younger consumers.
A second
issue of course is lack of accountability: most advertisers, despite public
announcements, do not pay by results or invest sufficiently in ROI analysis
and media companies and creative agencies have a vested interest in not
promoting change. This arises in part from inertia: using traditional
media channels is what they are best at (and they produce the best cashflow).
But it
is not just inertia there is a constraint on investment: over the last
decade creative agency remuneration has fallen and so there has been less
incentive to invest in new skills. Encouragingly, but somewhat paradoxically,
during this period all the main players (advertisers, agencies, media
companies and media owners) have invested intensely in web-based activities
which will take a long time to show a return.
When considering
media companies specifically their constraint is even greater: their income
and new business performance has been increasingly governed by producing
discounts off ITV prices. This inevitably promotes a media channel strategy
from media buying companies and advertisers alike rather akin to rearranging
the deckchairs on board the Titanic.
What
are the issues?
Let us
consider the world-view of the main protagonists in the communication
process, a list of interested parties is a good place to start:
· Brand Owners (Advertisers
and Marketers)
· Media Owners (inc. Internet)
· Advertising Agencies (creative shops)
· Media Companies (planning and buying)
· PR companies
· Brand Consultants
· Direct marketing companies
· Market and Consumer Research companies
· Media measurement and evaluation companies (from BARB to ATG econometricians)
The common
force acting on the majority of these players is consolidation. It affects
them all from the contraction of brand portfolios to global power brands
(Unilever) and the merging of media companies into world-wide global operators
(Time Warner / AOL). Similarly advertising, marketing service companies
and Media companies are consolidating into powerful groups (WPP) who provide
a multiplicity of related services to the Brand Marketing Companies.
So the
conditions which should give rise to an integrated approach to the selection,
purchasing, and supply of multi media communication channels exist already.
But it
still rarely happens - EMAP have struggled valiantly for a number of years
with the proposition of a cross media sell of young adults on TV, on-line,
in magazines, and on radio but there have been precious few takers. Publishers
still invest copious quantities of money in research proving yet again
that mixed media scheduling reaches more people and has a greater effect
than TV only campaigns but still their share of advertising spend falls.
Direct marketing is in long term growth but integration with ATL campaigns
is a rarity. PR campaigns frequently operate in total isolation from paid
for media communications.
The overriding
question
How can
the advertising and marketing community embrace the fact of consumer centric
media-neutral planning?
Three
big issues:
1 The
Client - Agency - Media Owner relationship and money
It may
be that advertiser's views of accountability are a barrier: results tend
to be considered in the very short term. Perhaps if marketing and advertising
expenditure were seen more as an investment that required to be accounted
for and measured with the same rigour on the balance sheet as say raw
materials or distribution then the value of brands to a company would
be higher and brand investment support would not be such a hostage to
economic fortune.
More and
more frequently, however, the purchasing of advertising and media services
is becoming the remit of the client's procurement depart. This creates
a very clear downward pressure on cost in the sense that media has to
be delivered more cheaply and at a greater discount.
This pressure
is then passed on to the media owner by the media companies who, as businesses,
need to deliver media as efficiently as possible, not as effectively as
they can.
In the
circumstances described there is little place for an objective assessment
of what constitutes good communications planning. Somehow the whole equation
has to be brought round to driving creative solutions and media selection
from the point of view of the consumer.
If communications
companies were paid by results then the pressure would shift from efficiency
to effectiveness.
How could
this work? Surely media companies and advertising agencies would baulk
at signing up to a deal that cut their income if sales did not go up for
reasons beyond their control (e.g. distribution). No, the answer has to
be a sharing of responsibility and a clear set of broad criteria against
which to assess success.
Such criteria
would include hard and soft objectives: sterling sales, share, brand awareness,
advertising awareness, cost per sale, and return on investment. These
measures would take ample care of accountability and communication channels
could be selected for their ability to deliver a particular message to
a particular consumer group.
2 Media-neutral
planning tools and systems
It may
come as a surprise but media companies have developed software systems
to help in optimising media channel selection; eg AdMix, developed by
the ATG it appeared in 1997. Similar systems also exist; AdPlus, Maps,
Mercury, etc. The purpose of these tools is the optimisation of target
audience coverage and frequency across mixed media channels. To give you
an example question: what combination of radio, TV, and style magazines
delivers the best (lowest aggregate CPT) coverage of adults aged 16 -34?
So the system will tell you what level of GRPs to deploy by medium given
the medium's cost per coverage point of the target group.
This is
media-neutral planning in its purest form because it does not take into
consideration the creative delivery, just the media efficiency. However,
the systems can factor in the effect of existing creative work or even
the predicted effect of new creative e.g. using an AI (Awareness Index)
score from consumer research.
The next
phase of media-neutral planning, called Channel Choice Planning, does
not assume any creative history; instead it matches media channels to
consumer attitudes and the desired brand communication. The resulting
channel selection would naturally form part of a creative brief and not,
as is so frequently the case now, derive from a presumed creative solution.
Examples
of this include AdSelect (MindShare) and Abacus (Unilever). In these systems
the communication attributes of the medium, such as 'impact' and 'depth
of communication' are considered along with other primary media information
such as reach and rapidity of coverage build. Individual media from TV
to direct mail are scored on these attributes. Consumer's relationship
with the media are also considered; these could include 'emotional loyalty',
'inspiration', etc. Finally the communication objectives of the brand
(e.g. 'change perceptions') are set against the media options and the
result is a comparison of the best media channels for the brand task and
its audience. So, if the systems exist how do we get them into day to
day communication planning?
3 Creating
a climate for change
Some major
advertisers do offer an incentive for media-neutrality on top of fees
to their communication planning companies. That is a good start - it acknowledges
that media-neutrality is worth paying for because it is an intrinsically
better way to plan communications in the current media marketplace.
But advertisers
will have to be totally convinced that the media companies and creative
agencies are capable of delivering media-neutral planning; that they have
the skills, the inclination and above all the systems to deal with the
whole range of media options available. Investment will be required and
it will have to be paid for.
Some suggestions
to enable change:
Open
the debate - with a forum of top advertising companies and communication
companies to thrash out the implications in terms of new ways of doing
business with each other
ISBA / IPA standards committee - set standards for media-neutral
planning procedures and accountability
Accreditation - audit the systems currently available award accredited
status to companies adhering to best practice.
Individual advertisers - insist on media-neutral planning (and
be prepared to incentivise)
Advertising and marketing trade press - get behind the debate,
promote change.
(c) Account
Planning Group 1995-2002
|
