Is Media Planning Getting Too Superficial?

If you have worked in any aspect of the advertising business for a while, you are almost always subjected to self appointed critics who say how superficial advertising is as well as the people who work in it--namely you. Some of the comments can be true but generally they are not.

Lately, however, I see a lot more superficiality in an area that I hold dear. That area is media planning. There is no question that the media puzzle is getting more complicated each year. Yet, certain simple disciplines seem to be falling by the wayside.

A good example is explaining to a neophyte the difference between media buying and media planning. For years, if giving a half day or full day “media boot camp” seminar to new clients, I would always tie in both disciplines to the laws of economics. Media buying was part art but was also a captive of the economic law of supply and demand. So pricing of TV, radio, magazines and other traditional media were largely subject to an auction market. When the economy was strong or certain programming or radio stations were highly desirable to advertisers, the price of the inventory would rise. In a recession where pressure for inventory fell or sometimes collapsed, the prices would fall and often quite quickly.

When it came to media planning, the economic law of diminishing returns took center stage. For example, if your projection said that TV had reached 85% of the target prospects (likely overstated as I have often written) you would have found that adding 20% more dollars might yield a projection of only a few more incremental percentage points in potential delivery. So, when the diminishing returns on that incremental 20% expenditure became extreme, you knew that it was time to move remaining dollars to other media options.

Recently, I have written to young planners about this issue. Their response has not  been that I am a harmless old fossil but rather that either my time honored approach was too sophisticated for their clients or why should one bother to do so much work? One told me that he just guesses at it. “What if a client asks you how the mix was determined,” I asked. He responded, “No one has so far and, if one does, I can always make something up.”

Clearly, something is wrong, very wrong. How do they integrate social media, mobile or any number of digital platforms in to the mix? Here they talk about the accountability of new media which is very good and then say that they can actually “steal” money from clients promotional dollars and re-invest it in to a variety of paid media platforms. My question remains how do they determine how much to put in each area? You get some windy answers but, boiling it down, the bottom line seems to be to try a bunch of things and see what sticks.

Things are changing fast and people at small and mid-sized shops are at a huge disadvantage to those working at the giants as they cannot tap into the enormous resource and experience pools that the mega-agencies have. Yet, media staffers at smaller shops still have a big responsibility. They are spending other people’s money and need to spend it well if their agencies campaigns and clients are to succeed. There seems to be too much sloppy work out there when a bit more effort could pay their clients rich dividends.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Advertising Agency Fees

Not that many years ago, advertising was a sweet business. Commissions were a very generous 15%, production could be marked up and any number of expenses could be billed back to clients. Over the years, much of this has eroded and the commission structure with its guaranteed income is but a fond memory for people who invariably are no longer in the business.

Recently, two global marketing and food giants, Procter & Gamble and Unilever, have announced that while they are ramping up their emphasis on advertising, they will be putting ad agency compensation under greater scrutiny than ever. All of that grabs headlines but, in reality, this has been going on with mid-sized and smaller ad agencies for some time. Hence this post.

Interviewing several marketing directors and small to mid-sized company CEO’s, a few interesting comments emerged. Here is a sampling:

“Like many companies, we now spend more on promotion than advertising. The agency hates this but we have prospered through the tough economy of the last few years. The accountability of various promotional tools let us know what is working instantly. With advertising, it is always hard for us to gauge. Was it worth the big expense? They say that we are eroding our brand, but I have had five straight years of earnings increases.”

“Agencies don’t do thorough analysis anymore. We have two young guys who break down every coupon that we drop. After 18 months on the job, they can tell us redemption rates before we drop and come close to forecasting it by DMA. We know just how much value to put on each coupon. These kids have optimized our promotional activity tremendously. When I used to have the agency do this for us, they had college interns look at it and charged us an arm and a leg. Our in-house data driven junkies love the work and run rings around the agency team.”

“We hired a new CFO a few years back. He said that he could save us a few million if we squeezed expenses everywhere. Our agency’s chief met me for lunch and said that he was sick of how our bean counter nickel and dimed his shop. I put the account in review and they shaped up. We have cut fees but don’t ask for as much either.”

“TV production is still way too high. The agency submits three bids but my CEO just smiles and says they give us three expensive bids. He forced me to go outside last year and we saved a nice six figure sum. We don’t want crap but the average consumer can’t tell the difference between a $100k and a $250k spot.

“Never let your agency copy anything. Just have them e-mail you almost everything or have work embedded in a PDF. There are hidden charges everywhere.”

“As we have ramped up our digital presence, we have far less of a need for collateral material. Agencies always made a lot here but they are going to have to adapt.”



“Mobile couponing is going to be big for us but it is not there yet. The potential is huge and I don’t think agencies see it or how we will bypass them.”

“We go to specialized boutiques for a lot more work, especially digital. The young people there are fast and unpretentious, low cost and they listen to us. Our main agency spends three days to get a work starter going and then assigns a team. By then, the boutique has already delivered our project. Sometimes it is good and sometimes work man like, but there is no BS with them. Established agencies take note.”

“This past year, we invaded two countries in Latin America with our brand. The TV that we ran there worked like gangbusters. This year we are shifting more money there and running more promotion in the states. Our results were “impossible” thundered my US agency head. I responded that our work far south of the border is being received as it might have been in 1950’s America. He just does not want to get what is going on globally. Sadly, I think that I need to make a change.”

My sample was highly unscientific and there is definitely a bias among people willing to talk with me. For example, no one wrote to me and said that they were getting excellent value from their mid-sized shop.

If you are a client reading this, your takeaway might be to examine your fee structure very carefully. Also, how current is your shop, especially a long standing one, with what is going on in 2013 marketing?

Should you wish to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

TV Reach & Frequency Revisited

When I began Media Realism just over four years ago, one of the first posts was entitled “TV Reach & Frequency--Obsolete?” (See Media Realism, January 13, 2009) It generated some online comments but I also received hundreds of direct e-mails about it. Even today, it usually generates 4-5 hits a day many from outside the United States.

A lot has happened in the last four years so I thought that a brief revisit might be a good idea. My premise four years ago was that sadly many people especially at smaller shops where using performance estimate data (Reach & Frequency) from curves developed way back in 1978. Since that time I am happy to report that the number of people using those ancient projections appears to have declined somewhat. Smaller agencies who survived the crunch of the great recession are now investing in more up to date software and the price is a lot friendlier. Managements of smaller shops have told me that, as they have cut staff, they have been more willing to spend on basic technology in many cases.

To me, however, some nagging issues remain. All a Nielsen rating does or has ever promised to do is measure the number of EXPOSURE OPPORTUNITIES. Everyone in advertising knows this but I still hear and read that clients are being told that the recommended TV schedule will reach 91% of target prospects in a particular market. These days, with a few exceptions like Coke, McDonald’s, Bud and a small handful of others, that is virtually impossible. Actually, it always has been. That is why projections of Reach & Frequency are always much higher than recall scores on commercials.

At the same time, the landscape is changing and at a quickening pace over even the recent past. DVR (time shifting devices) continue to grow and the “Second Screen” is hitting many demographics and hard. The itchy trigger finger on the remote is still prominent and when people send Tweets while watching or look up an advertiser on line they are missing the message of other advertisers (See Media Realism, December 16,  2012, “Will The Second Screen Kill the Couch Potato?” ). It is safe to say that attentiveness to commercial messaging is at an all time low. Yet with the second or third screen, the TV commercial experience may be enhanced as well for a small but important group of people.

Where does this leave us? It means that whatever figure that we give for delivery is perhaps more overstated than ever. Yes, I agree, that you need to have some method of  schedule comparison but does your software system manage to integrate the impact of a package of carefully targeted cable networks with a couple of network affiliates in a Nielsen DMA (Designated Market Area) effectively? I still see planners hiding behind a dubious printout and choosing a daypart mix because one hypothetical mix delivers one or two more reach points than other alternatives. Sharp buyers, on the other hand, often eschew such rubbish in execution and craft a solid mix of cable channels plus broadcast. They cannot prove it definitively but the result is often a very savvy blend of media art and science.

What to do? Well, a few things to keep in mind are:

Good advertising executions still work. Not as well as in the past most of the time because fewer people are seeing them due to audience fragmentation and commercial avoidance. TV alone without a digital component is usually a terrible idea except for maybe a few small market retailers.
Be careful about trying to overanalyze the data that you have. Some people put probability of exposure weights on each daypart and tend to not buy early morning or late night as a result. It is hard to argue that these dayparts have the same attentiveness as prime but I have had tremendous success in Direct Response running only in late night. A formula driven approach does not always work.
Have your planner TALK with the negotiator (buyer). He or she should know the market well and get a feel for whom you want to reach beyond age and gender. They may some good ideas about programming especially in local cable.
Stop lying to clients and say that a schedule reaches 90%. Tell them the truth about what and R&F really is. Long term this can pay big benefits especially as TV morphs in to something different than it is today.

When I wrote to some old friends about this piece, a few told me not to write it. The tone was “why stir things up”, “the clients expect R & F projections” and the “I am going to retire soon” line. Well, it is never too late to speak the truth. As digital options give us  increasingly tighter measures of whom we reach, it is sad that the estimates of real world delivery for the time honored medium of television may be getting increasingly divorced from reality.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Lifestyle--The US vs. Western Europe

In recent weeks, I have been reading a great deal and talking with people about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of living in the US versus Europe. The results are a bit surprising and I thought that I would share them with you.

The basic battle line is that in the United States we have relative economic freedom and low taxes while in much of western Europe you have social democracy. Depending on the American with whom you are speaking and his/her political views, Europe may be described as “the Middle Way” (between the free market and socialism), the provider state (my favorite term), the nanny state or merely “land of the socialists.”

The core defense of the European system is that they deliver five things to all citizens: universal healthcare, a strong public transit system, virtually free higher education, child care, and solid retirement plans. They pay for it with higher taxes for all and sometimes confiscatory taxes on higher earners.

Much of the back and forth concerns lifestyle issues as well. Most Europeans have very short commute times while Americans may live 60-75 minutes from work to be in better school districts for their children. Perhaps as a result of short commute time and a solid public transit infrastructure, newspapers still reach 70% of Europeans daily (how American publishers would love that). In general, European cities are safer than the US and public transit is as well.

Interestingly, despite lower wage rates and after tax income in Western Europe, people save far more than Americans. Part of this is that they have far fewer gadgets and less “stuff” than Americans. Housing is tight and cramped in most cities. We have big yards and abundant closet space; most Europeans do not. They pay as much as $9 a gallon for gasoline while we are addicted to cheap oil which allows us to commute long distances and see the USA in our Chevrolets.

Western Europeans live two years longer than we do and many say there is far less stress. To me, they make a point here. How many Americans stay in jobs or take jobs because of excellent health care? In Europe, that is not an issue. In most continental countries, your old age in not lavish but you are cared for in a decent facility.

Also, people work less. While we fear for our jobs, Germans work 400 hundred hours less a year than Americans and the French 300 less. Vacations are usually six weeks while American workers new to a company get two.

Economically, the European way is hard for Americans to swallow. Here, we strive to be among the top 1-2%. In Europe, getting to that level of wealth is much, much harder. Realistically, in many countries, the average European may live better and with less uncertainty than most middle class Americans. Yet, the brass ring of the American dream does not exist for them at all. America remains an aspirational society.

Others say that an industrial base is necessary for democracy. With it, the climate is easy for labor to organize especially in Germany and France, where a vibrant and empowered middle class exists. Bitter left wingers in the US say that our system gives tax breaks to billionaires and pay day loans to the poor!

Low cost education is amazing for those of us who have written huge tuition checks over the years. Yet, a university education is not for everyone. Childhood in Europe is not stress free. By 12, in some nations, you have taken exams that determine whether you are university bound or not. Pressure on youngsters to achieve in school is intense and the competition is very stiff. If you are late bloomer, you have to make a spirited effort with night school and pass some stiff exams to get a college degree. When I think of my carefree childhood in rural New England, I feel sorry for European youngsters.

The big issue facing both the US and Western Europe is my old favorite, demographics. Look at major European countries. Many have a negative birth rate and the number of active workers paying in to pensions and healthcare keeps dropping. At some point, the provider state has to collapse. It is simple mathematics. In the US, we face similar problems with Social Security and Medicare but our bomb has a somewhat longer fuse attached to it.

In my life, I have always ignored security and gone for freedom. For me and many of you reading this, it has worked out splendidly.  For many , however, the European model may seem very attractive although I find it hard to believe that it is sustainable.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Is Management Often Immoral?

Happy 2013!

Over the years, many large companies have been caught in actions that many of us would consider to be immoral. The big auto companies have often been singled out as not making small inexpensive changes in design that could have saved a significant number of lives on our highways. And, depending on your politics, Shell Oil, Dow Chemical, Monsanto or Nike may make your personal hit list of organizations that have not always acted in the public interest.

Whether these companies committed crimes or not is beyond the scope of this post. Yet, many have found their actions offensive at times. What has always intrigued me is that it is that the corporations seem to be doing the questionable acts rather than the management. I refuse to believe simply that unfeeling and amoral sociopaths run these corporations.  Canadian journalist Wade Rowland struck a responsive chord with me when he wrote that, in a sense, “the corporation manages it managers”.  When poorly made products cause damage or are made via exploitation, complaints are generally swept away under the banner of “progress”.  Air or water pollution issues, for example, are often cast aside, according to Rowland, as an “externality” as profits rise and jobs are created. It is a challenging thought.

Recently, a few readers have contacted me about a similar problem in our industry. One was a young media planner way out west. He explained that he had put together the best media plan of his life for a substantial client. It had a nice mix of digital and conventional components and he felt did a great job of hitting the majority of their target audience with a real chance of breaking through today’s substantial clutter. He presented it internally a few days before the client planning session and his CEO said it was a complete non-starter. The creative chief had a great idea for a TV campaign and that was where all the money would be spent. My young friend countered that the production expense on the spots would mean that the market support list would have to be cut substantially and not all that many people would see the spots. His CEO ended it by saying “it is important that this agency produce some quality TV executions this year”. My brave friend then said “but what about the client’s needs?”  “Screw the client, we need to do this”, replied the agency chief.

Distraught, he thought of quitting. But he tells me that he has a new baby, a fair sized mortgage and he does not exactly work in an advertising Mecca so he would have to move several hundred miles away for a similar position and would need to sell his house first. That may not be easy these days. So, he may be stuck in his situation for a few years. I informed him, in an attempt to be soothing, that I suffered similar issues a few decades ago when I recommended radio and we were forced to do TV in a small roster of markets due to production costs. He e-mailed back moments later that “20-25 years ago, TV worked better than it does now. So, you were forced to do something that was not optimal but still might have worked. With no digital and hardly any local cable allowed, this is doomed and I am part of it.” That shut me up pretty quickly.

Separately, I heard from a radio salesperson that I have known for about 15 years. He lives and breathes his medium, customizes some marvelous promotions, and is a man whose word is truly his bond.

At 52, he is going through a bit of a mid-life crisis. He says, “I know my station(s) do not work nearly as well as they used to even five years ago. Old clients who trust me are probably paying too much and come to me because of our long-term relationships. My college age kids belittle me by saying that no one listens to local radio anymore.  I suggest that radio has sent them to nice schools, bought them great clothes and sends them to sunny spring break destinations and they laugh in my face. My wife tells me to stop complaining, go to work, pay the tuitions and keep funding the 401k. I am in a tight spot. My general manager is a decent sort and he tells me that headquarters just wants the money every month. They lecture him about debt service and the need to increase revenue regardless of the local economy. What should I do?” I suggested that he consider going to a TV station with a manager who “gets it” or apply to a local cable interconnect.

Both of these men are thoroughly decent and are real pros. But, given the current climate and their personal situations, they simply cannot resign and find something better in a few weeks. Digging a bit deeper, are their managements immoral? Or, are they simply being manipulated by the corporate entity itself. Profits must rise, as must revenue and ad agencies need to produce good TV to attract new business. Are both managements simply so immersed in the now that they cannot step back and see the reality that my two friends do? There is no easy answer but as our world changes rapidly over the next few years, these issues will hit all thinking professionals.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Breakout Nations

Rucher Sharma is a big time money runner at Morgan Stanley. He has written a fascinating new book entitled, BREAKOUT NATIONS, In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles (W.W. Norton & Co, 2012).

He raises some great issues and explodes some time-honored myths. One point that he makes excellently is that “the factors driving growth in any given country at any given time are in constant flux. Economic regimes are like markets. When they are on a good run they tend to overshoot and create the conditions for their own demise.” You rarely see this kind of candor in financial writing. Markets go to extremes and people who should know better get caught up in the enthusiasm. Most “experts” on the international economy tend to have a few rules for growth, and, if a country follows those, their future is bright. Sharma explains quite cogently that you need to take each on a case-by-case basis.

What I enjoyed about the book was that unlike most foreign investment and development experts, he does not always go with the conventional wisdom. This comes in to focus the best when he dissects the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that have led the globalization trends in recent years. His opinions are as follows:

Brazil—government has gone from 20% to 40% of the economy in recent years. This is not a positive (et tu, Washington?). The average adult only has a seventh grade education and their supply chain management is a mess. The ongoing oil boom will cover a multitude of sins in the years to come but things are not as bright as they appear on the surface.

Russia—Oil is virtually one half of GDP. What happens if we get our natural gas and domestic oil business humming in the US? Retail has not caught on, as there are only a few big cities so the big box retailers have not bothered with Russia. Also, there are few good rail links and infrastructure in general is weak with major cities often suffering from rolling blackouts.

India—suffers from a bloated bureaucracy and a heavy dose of crony capitalism. Has potential but will be weighed down.

China—the one child rule is speeding up the aging of their population (see Media Realism, “Malthus, Demographics and China’s Future, 3/27/11)

There were other surprises. A few years ago, Vietnam was on everyone’s list of a sure bet as an emerging economic success story. It was a mini-China in people’s eyes. What seems to be happening is that their command capitalistic system is ill equipped to handle the influx of foreign investment and local politicians are very corrupt. Docks are ancient and can only handle a fraction of the shipping containers per berth as compared to major international ports in other growing economies. So the big ships can’t get in and a major manufacturing plant could not get goods out of the country efficiently.  Most of the ports are owned by a state company and are under the influence of local politicians.

Mexico remains the poster child for an oligopoly where 8-10 families control 60-80% of economic activity. Turnover in billionaires according to Sharma is an interesting metric to look at for whether or not an economy is vibrant.

Sharma makes an excellent point that sustained economic success is a relatively rare phenomenon in economic history. But he ignores that developing nations are growing twice as fast as the US and are now cutting trade deals among themselves and, with every passing year are less dependent on the United States and other Western countries.

He is optimistic about the US reigniting its industrial base but does not mention at what wage level this will take place (I would assume lower). Germany is nicely positioned among other Western powers.

Where are the next breakout nations? In Europe he likes the Czech Republic and Poland.  Both have low levels of debt that put them in a strong position relative to their European neighbors. Poland’s economy actually grew 4% during the 2008-2009 economic debacle. Turkey, a European/Asian hybrid has promise and he really likes South Korea in Asia along with Indonesia. In Africa, he says Nigeria has a chance and touches on Nollywood, the nation film industry that is slightly bigger than Hollywood but remains far behind India’s Bollywood. We have all been aware of Bollywood for some time but did you know about Nollywood? Sri Lanka, in the Indian Ocean has improving prospects as a long civil war is over and the ensuing peace dividend should foster growth.

Marketers should always be on the lookout for where an emerging middle class is going to develop and then begin to do serious branding in those countries.  Purveyors of luxury goods have also taken note.  Roughly a third of Swiss watches are now sold in China!

This is a very thoughtful book. Whether you are an investor, a marketer, a political observer or an armchair dreamer, this book is a terrific read.

Merry Christmas to all!

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Will the Second Screen Kill the Couch Potato?

Today, lots of media analysts are buzzing about the second screen and they have good reason for doing so. Definitions abound but usually describe a companion device or application that allows you to interact with the content of a TV show, movie, video game or music. Others include laptops or Smartphones where you may be doing something unrelated to the programming. For example, during summer baseball games, I often watch an inning or two of a game with a laptop close by and I either answer e-mail or surf the web on a wide variety of subjects.

Ten years ago, many pundits forecast that the Internet would kill TV. Well, the Nielsen people inform us that Americans are watching more TV than ever. It appears that the web, mobile and social media are all rapidly converging with television. Looking at research studies from across the world, you find wide variance in second screen usage but the trend is clearly that more and more of us are multi-tasking as we watch. Verizon, Google, Nielsen, Ericsson and a host of others are available—take your pick. All point to several trends going on both in America and other developed countries:

--25-40% at one time or another browse for products spotted while watching a TV show
---Some 20% are on Facebook or Twitter while viewing
--34% check sports scores of other contests during viewing of games
--60% on tablets read their e-mail
--At some point, 60% use their laptops, Smartphones, or tablets while viewing

All of the above leads to one clear conclusion—distraction to TV viewing is at an all time high and it is not going away!  The great Don Vito Corleone one said “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” If you are an advertiser, you need to embrace your enemy, this increased distraction, head on. You knew for a long time that not everyone was watching your expensively produced spots during commercial breaks. But now that number is in freefall especially among those under 35. So you need to integrate the second screen into your creative strategy. TV, as we knew it, will still work for some.  A small group that could be 10-15% of your viewers can enhance your commercial message as they browse the web to check out the product that you just advertised. The second screen then acts as a companion medium to the traditional TV message. Sometimes it will result in a cross-platform or cross-channel experience for your brand.

I hate to trot out a cliché but the second screen allows you to engage people with your brand and can be interactive if structured properly.  Technology will not stand still and you cannot afford to either. Start testing soon.

Twitter is playing a role that is increasingly rapidly in this space. Just under two years ago, I vividly remember being startled as Audi ran a spot in the 2011 Super Bowl. The hashtag #Progressls ran for only a few seconds at the end of the spot and, for a moment, I thought that I was imagining something.  Since then, a new form of social media, TV’s backchannel, has emerged.  It is real-time chat that is happening DURING the time a program is broadcast. At first, it was during award shows and other special events. Now, it is rampant. Thousands of member of the Twitter community often respond instantaneously when something happens. Networks look carefully at the tweets when a new program airs. The sample may be a bit biased but it is huge and will soon be a predictor of which shows will survive the Nielsen cut.

Commercials also get their fair share of reaction that provides valuable insights to advertisers and can actually get a buzz going about your company both positive and negative. Also, the power of the hashtag can strike in unlikely areas. Watching a GOP debate in January 2012, I found that I could monitor viewer comments on the Meet the Press Facebook page. Questions were sent in but I found  some of the tweets very absorbing reading.

So Social Media and TV now have some measurable co-usage. It is time for many advertisers to get on board. The backchannel will work for national advertisers and for some regional players but will likely have far less utility for smaller, local players.

For years, we worried that many young adults would be zombies watching an increasing amount of TV with each passing year. Now, it appears that the couch potato, thanks to social media, has a rendezvous with death.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com