One analysis is not like the other
As I continue to work with a variety of companies in the media measurement space, I’m always amazed at how differently each project evolves.
This keeps things interesting, and the inevitable tough and unique questions that arise really keep you on your toes. But it also exemplifies why one chart or one formula can’t be counted on to provide answers for every situation.
Recently a client asked me whether it mattered that his organization had reached a greater number of media outlets - but fewer readers - than its main competitor. Cumulatively, the competitor had reached more readers, but with multiple hits in the same paper they were basically hitting the same reader multiple times.
Consider this example:
Company X
Media Hits: 50
Circulation: 4,000,000
Number of Unique Publications: 40
Competitor Y
Media Hits: 50
Circulation: 5,000,000
Number of Unique Publications: 15
In this example we weren’t dealing with any additional variables such as the variances in tone or the merits of dailies vs. community newspapers, so my explanation to the client was that since his organization (and the competitor) were both very well known already, that his organization had essentially won. Since the objective was to raise awareness about a known organization and issue, by reaching more unique readers it provided him with the upper hand.
I would argue in a different scenario where a company is relatively unknown, that it would be quite valuable to hit the same readers over and over again, as long as the media outlet was a credible target.
The key for this client in the future will be to determine at the outset what the goals and objectives are for each campaign, and ensure that the same rationale is used should the competitor manage to beat them out - and not fall into the trap of changing the rules so that they win every time.
One Response to “One analysis is not like the other”
1 Alan Chumley 1 October 2007 @ 11:24 am
Chris,
This is an issue I’ve come across many times. And I’m always amazed at the range of perspectives on issues of reach (ie. which outlets, how often, and size of the audience).
Here’s what I tell clients:
1. First, let’s not forget that an audience reached (regardless of how often) is not necessarily an audience influenced. (There are some academics out there that have made a living debating this and only this).
2. Making the call on which example above–company X or company y–is the clear winner is impossible without more context. A real live client example. Think of a high end beer brand like Stella Artois. Being in the National Post or the Globe and mail is important to them not because of the size of the reach of those publications but because of the demographics of that audience. Alternatively, consider Bud which would, by the same logic, be better placed in the Toronto Sun. So what’s important here is the nature / demographics / purchasing power and habits of the audience that a publication reaches. In my view it’s not at all about # of hits or reach. Quality versus quantity. You won’t hear me say this often, but I think this is where we can learn from our media planning brethren. In this context media outlets can and perhaps should be prioritized by campaign, by brand, by product, not strictly once at the aggregate organizational level.
Leave a Reply