• by Jack Myers , January 5, 2007

Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe the rules of advertising and media are changing? Probably not. Then how come the rules of research are still locked into the same narrow methodological requirements that were established decades ago?

The assembly line mass media models that drive the majority of ad spending today are based appropriately on standardized long-standing research rules. But it makes little sense to subject emerging business models to these same demands.

Certainly there is a rightful place for the Media Ratings Council and Advertising Research Foundation audits and accreditation. But the question must be asked: Is the goal of research actionable knowledge, or conformance to rigid standards that might actually restrict learning?

If the goal is to create apples-to-apples data comparisons between new research tools and traditional ones that have well-served the industry for years, then traditional rules should apply, although they should be revisited regularly. But it is a serious threat to the business to apply old rules to a new business. One of the issues that researchers are grappling with is the progressive shift to online research. While there can be little doubt that consumers recruited online can be structured and organized to be nationally representative, and probably more representative today than mailed or phone surveys, many research executives still refuse to budge from hard-and-fast rules that suggest online panels are not representative.

Even more to the point, exactly what does "representative" mean in today's world? Representative of what? When the opportunities exist to narrow the universe to respondents who conform to specific parameters far more relevant than "nationally representative," why do researchers even care about "mass"? TV networks and magazine publishers should be far more concerned about understanding the dynamics of their audiences and the audiences of their competitors than they should about "the nationally representative" mass audience.

Virtual worlds and social communities like Second Life, MySpace, there.com and many others offer extraordinary opportunities to define consumers based on their passions and interests. These online ventures offer new and still-unexplored worlds that are ripe for learning. Marketers are moving into these worlds, capturing insights and making marketing decisions. Magazine readership studies offer exceptional insights on the quality and emotional ties of readers to both editorial content and to advertisers. Yet when it comes to media decisions, agencies remain locked into gross rating points, age- and gender-based costs-per-thousand, and Audit Bureau of Circulation data.

In the next few years, the media and advertising business will move through a period of transformation. Marketers want insights on effectiveness. They want to tap into their consumers' emotional connections. They want to narrow the field and move away from the traditional mass audience quantifications of reach and frequency. They want to build relationships. Media agencies understand this and are adapting. Media sellers understand and are adapting. Many research executives understand and would like to adapt, but are held back by some strange and destructive industry force made up of inertia and conservatism.

Many new models of research don't even look to perform the same basic tasks as traditional media research tools, yet the newer models are being held to the same rigid and narrow rules that were established light years ago. Instead of reinforcing outdated standards, why can't the research community adapt to the new, market-based ways of doing business? Stop imposing rules and restrictions. Let the marketplace develop, invest and decide.

Correction: Wednesday's TV Board mistakenly used the phrase, "this year's Olympic Games in Beijing." The games are set for 2008, not 2007. We regret the error.