|
|
|
|
|
|
| Is
'added value' valuable? |
|
| Only
if magazine already has basic strength |
|
|
By Gene
Willhoft |
|
 |
|
responsibilities
a reality, media departments are under constant pressure to deliver
great deals or risk losing media assignments.
But amid all this activity, it’s important for
planners and buyers not to lose sight of the real objective.
Our job is to recommend the most effective books,
period. Don’t penalize the best magazines because they don’t
provide added value, or if what they do give is less than their
competitor’s. Remember, “added value’ is just that-something in
addition to a basic asset.
Don’t get me wrong: I believe that added value
must be pursued in every instance. However, I also believe the
resistance of some magazines to play the game is not reason enough to
exclude them from the plan.
The truth is, usually the publications with the
best editorial, the most loyal readership and the strongest
circulation don’t provide as much as the weaker one. A No. 3 book
cannot be turned into a category leader just because it give away free
pages or provides expensive promotions.
It’s been my experience that we negotiate for
added value regardless of a magazine’s pricing structure. Say book A
has a $50 circulation CPM and a $25 audience CPM. If magazine B is
twice as expensive in both CPMs, it should be negotiated twice as
hard. In the case, magazine A shouldn’t be expected to deliver as
much added value, if it is expected to deliver any at all. If A is a
much better buy to begin with it should be recommended.
When planning and negotiating magazines, we should
remember that pursuit of added value is a means to an end. The end is
to select a list of publications that everyone feels will be most
effective. Traditional factors—editorial integrity, reader
involvement, circulation quality and a competitive price- value
relationship--cannot be overemphasized. |
|
One
of the most vexing issues facing magazines publishers today is the
term “added value.” Because of the emphasis on added value, media
professionals try to negotiate every last ounce of benefit from
publications. As a result, most magazines are getting squeezed as
never before.
But
what exactly is meant by this term?
The definition of added value is very broad and has
two extremes. Basically, added value is any benefit a magazine can
provide its advertisers that goes beyond simply running space at
rate-card prices.
But a more liberal definition of “added value”
tends to provoke strong opinions.
This definition equates added value with rate
breaking (waiving of bleed or premium-position charges, rate
protection, bonus remnants, enhanced-frequency discounts and
circulation up grades, etc) and free promotions (that cost far beyond
what could be afforded thru merchandising credits alone).
Many, but not all, magazines play the liberal
added-value game to one extent or another. The strategy is to play
magazines off each other. The publication that provides the best
combination of “numbers” and added value are ultimately
recommended. This process treats magazines as commodities, but few are
prepared to pass on the business and see it go to a competitor.
Complicating the matter for magazines is the
reality that media people demand added value regardless of the size of
a schedule. And I suspect that most ask for more value as the size of
the investment increases.
It is easy to understand why added value is hotly
pursued.
Most
clients are eager to see their advertising funds go as far as
possible. In addition, most media professionals try to negotiate the
best deal they can to protect themselves as well as to please clients.
With the threat of unbundling agency |
|
|
|
|
|
--
Top of Page --
|
|
|
