Why the newspaper audit rules need to change
I was chatting to somebody from a media agency the other day.
They’d run a campaign for a client. Being reasonably sophisticated, they do post-campaign analysis.
Overall, the media investment paid off. But in one medium it did not.
In newspapers, their spend was not cost effective.
A lack of understanding of true effectiveness means that media owners, agencies and ultimately clients are basing big decisions on data that is at best a questionable middle metric such as viewing, readership or circulation.
Increasingly holes are being picked in the very currency that underpins the industry. Not before time. Most trading is done on nothing more than ‘bigger is better’ which would be amusing were it not for the fact we are talking about billions of dollars.
I understand there are bigger issues at play here but I’m interested in how the agency post analysed on actual number of newspaper readers reached for their campaign? And how were they able to measure the effectiveness of one medium out of the mix?
Beating your drum on this matter rather hard, are you tim? I would also be interested in their methods of measuring accuracy and effectiveness of the one medium out of the mix.
How exactly can they measure the effectiveness of the one medium in the mix? Its cumulative.. you see the advert on TV, and dont think about it. But the second exposure on the bus stop, the third on your radio and fourth in your newspaper cut through…
It is absolutely possible to identify the effectiveness of one medium in a multi-media mix. It is also possible to identify the effectiveness of one channel or all media in the context of every other influence on sale, as well as the impact on sales of varying combinations of media.
It’s not simple though is it Chris? and unlikey to be part of even a “sophisticated” agency’s standard post analysis process? I still don’t understand how they could see that their newspaper campaign didn’t reach as many people as they thought it would?
@fibbest – no it is not simple and certainly not a part of a traditional agency’s process, standard or otherwise. But it is possible. Regarding the agency’s understanding – as described above it would seem to be a theory, perhaps unfounded.
@fibbest – no it is not simple and no it is not a part of any traditional agency’s process, standard or otherwise. But it is possible. Regarding the agency’s theory, as described above it would appear to be just a theory, and perhaps an unfounded one at that.
Re. this latest incarnation of the olde Newspaper Audit Bureau circulation figures kerfuffle; this has been going on for decades – some things never change. But it is interesting to note, as reported above, the lengths that ‘weaker-circulation’ newspapers particularly will go to in an endeavor to boost their official numbers. The tertiary ruse is an olde proven one.
But if they are that desperate, why don’t they give, say, a flat $20 per year or even quarter to selected special interest groups. Two that immediately come to mind are pensioner groups and/.or “Seniors Card holders’, and perhaps people who work in, (ahem think quickly), service or hospitality workers. Surely this would be equally as honest as the current measurement figures are. And just as useless too.
To slightly change that well-known phrase; “the more technology and innovation change, the more olde habits stay the same”. Or as The Beatles famously sang, “Obladee Obblada Life Goes On; Ohhhh Life Goes On”.
Apparently so.