Commentary

Not Reach and Frequency Again...

What have you heard recently about Reach and Frequency?

I know, I know... it's a tired subject and one that our industry should have solved already. We've been talking about it for years and not everyone is sold on it as a metric for measuring online advertising, but you've got to walk before you can run.

On a recent panel, with some very distinguished agency peers, we discussed this very topic and my ideas for the evolution of Reach and Frequency were exposed, so why not continue to address them here?

My goal is to help a traditional Reach and Frequency analysis to mature. Traditional Reach and Frequency analysis takes into account audience size and number of exposures to a specific audience, but it does not take into account the Quality of the exposures or the level of engagement/involvement with the medium. A number of agencies have incorporated some of these elements into the mix and come to what can be called a Quality Rating Point (QRP).

If you examine GRP's for media placement, you don't take into account the element of clutter, and clutter is increasingly more important in today's market. If you read this column much, you consistently hear me talk about AADD (Advertising Attention Deficit Disorder). This term refers to the concept that we are training our audiences to not pay attention to advertising. We are training them to "tune out," so to speak. If that's the case, then identifying the types of media where they are less tuned-out becomes a very important step in identifying the correct place for you to advertise.

advertisement

advertisement

For example, if a consumer is a loyal viewer of "Show X," then they are more involved in the show and will tend to pay closer attention to the marketing that is scattered throughout then a person who is a casual viewer of "Show Y" and may not be paying full attention to it. This also goes for a passive medium vs. a more involved medium such as... the Internet. The Internet is not a passive medium, so it's logical that the Internet scores slightly higher in a QRP analysis than many other forms of media, such as broadcast and print. There are certainly some exceptions to the rule, and there are some horrible examples of online placements where clutter is king and this concept may not apply, but as a general statement, I think it's a safe bet.

The reason to examine these elements is rather clear. We still need to prove what portion of the pie should belong to interactive and budgeting is still based on target behavior, media usage and Reach/Frequency analysis. The apples to apples comparison needs to be a starting point and then you can tout additional value for interactive, but not before you've made the basic comparison.

I mention training from time to time, and training on traditional metrics is extremely important. Traditional advertising training touches on each of these points and is crucial to any careerist's growth. If you feel you're not up to date on these concepts, see about getting your company involved in training. A healthy discourse on this topic is great, but we need to come to some conclusions. Agencies, clients and publishers alike need to be addressing these types of topics and hopefully resolving them in the near future.

Don't you agree?

Next story loading loading..