There
are lots of ideas for improving the way we think about buying and
planning media, some of them just plain common sense. However, it’s
been my experience that there really is no such thing as a sense
common to everyone, in general or in the media business. It is in this
spirit that I offer the following suggestions.
1) Don’t rely on 800-numbers to aid the media
selection process. Be careful of relying too much on 8OO-number
response data-particularly with respect to magazines. Inferences can
be made, but not recommendations. Why? For our client Range Rover, we
strongly suspect magazine response was, in a few instances,
manipulated by shrewd salespeople; Specifically, our weekly analysis
of 800- number response, by magazine, curiously showed extremely high
response to a number of publications weeks and months after they were
removed from the plan. We believe over zealous sales-people, in the
hope of getting their magazine reinstated on the plan, were repeatedly
calling and giving their magazine as the source. Clearly this practice
can skew results greatly and will mislead those who take it at face
value. I don't believe this occurs all that much, especially in
network or spot television. 0n the other hand, it may be more common.
That’s why this type of feedback should be taken with a grain of
salt.
2) Resist making media decisions based on your personal taste.
Your likes and dislikes, I believe, should have very little to do
with the media selection process, particularly for magazines.
Publications should be judged based on their circulation and audience
quality, to name but a few criteria. Perhaps the Entertainment Weekly
situation comes to mind. Sure, there was a lot of criticism of the
book when it was first published. Much of this criticism centered
around the personal tastes of media decision-makers (particularly from
an art direction stand-point). This is exactly what I believe we
should stay away from. Sure, if you’re talking about a new
publication that really has no established audience or circulation
information, you have to go on gut-there’s nothing else. However, I
believe Entertainment Weekly was under the microscope because of the
Time Inc. factor and suffered greatly for it. I don’t hear people
complaining about Spy’s art direction, which in my view is much
harder to read than EW ever was. For every media person that likes a
book, there’s someone who doesn’t like it. And, if selection
sometimes hinges upon personal taste, all professional criteria
evaporate, making the professional’s opinion equal to the layman’s.
Dig to find the objective truth; don’t take the easy way out.
Television buying, particularly during the upfront
primetime market, is another story entirely. Often there isn’t much
to go on besides personal taste. However, keep in mind that even
ex-pert programmers and buyers frequently miss the mark. To wit,
recall past debacles like “Chicken Soup” and ’ “The Today Show”
mess. |
|
 |
|
3) Strive to create your own media form if one doesn’t exist.
Traditional advertising options are usually the workhorses of a
communications effort. Creative media applications have their place as
well. With new cable networks popping up regularly, and various
selective media forms (television in medical waiting rooms, beauty
salons and health clubs) more possibilities are available every day.
Still, a wealth of ideas are possible that may be relatively easy to
start from scratch.
Here are a few homegrown agency ideas that I’ve heard.
That they haven’t come to fruition yet isn’t the point; that they
are new, viable ideas with promise is. One idea I liked was the
possibility of showing a brand’s alphanumeric message on automated
teller machine screens. Banks could sell space and therefore use the
machines as a profit center. The advertiser wins by reading an upscale
audience, and consumers could benefit if part of the advertising
revenue helped lower their banking fees. Another concept involves
creating moveable television screens (mounted on some kind of truck)
that would display programming and commercials in front of groups of
people, say those wailing on line at a theatre. The truck could, drive
from place to place in major cities and, in theory, could reach a lot
of people.
These ideas aren’t that far out, especially when you
compare them to some of today’s oddball media opportunities, (such
as the company that sells messages on the bottom of golf cups on
public and private courses). AS you read this, someone is working on
putting advertising messages on eye examination charts.
4) Don’t be afraid to explore the use of media
buying services.
This suggestion pertains most often to small or medium size
agencies, but can apply to larger ones as well. If your department
doesn’t have a big buying group or if you haven’t been buying the
major markets for a while, these firms can help. Most people know the
companies to stay away from. There are a number of first class
operations that provide full disclosure and therefore minimize the
worry factor. Buying services are happy to work in the background,
just for the agency. They may never meet or even talk to a client. The
name of the game today is stretching the client’s money, and buying
services may be able to help.
5) Unless you have airtight marketing and/or media reasons, stay away from local cable.
My experience with local cable operators is that the spot costs and
efficiencies are anywhere from 10 to 20 times what they should be
(compared to spot national cable or broadcast network costs prorated
to the same market). These people have made good money for years by
charging exorbitant prices to local business that didn’t know any
better. Analyze local cable efficiencies very carefully and be
prepared, going in, to walk away. My feeling is that if local cable
operations want to pursue national budgets, they should get their
pricing in line.
|
