MCN’s ultimate planning tool: a crystal ball
You can’t knock advertising sales house MCN’s optimism.
It’s just sent out a press release headlined: “Football Superstar Series II: advertising, ratings hit.”
Impressive to hear it’s a ratings hit, what with it not starting on Foxtel until tomorrow.
Alright smartypants – the media release actually refers to Football Superstar’s rating results last series, where it was a popular TV show for males 13 – 24. At the time Football Superstar had the highest launch episode for a new local production on FOX8, with a total reach of 2.3 million.
This bodes well for Series 2. Advertising support last series and this is very strong.
Good to know you’re reading our releases so carefully….! chk chk
Hi Sally,
It does indeed bode well for series 2 (and by the way, I think it’s fantastic that what is effectively an ad-funded program model has succeeded so well).
But I stand by our words – in your headline you’ve announced a ratings hit for series 2 before it’s gone to air.
Who’d have thought that press releases could be misleading?
Cheers,
Tim
Enough said – please can we not have another outbreak of PRs and journos poking each other in the eye. Whine Flu…it spreads across blogs like wild-fire and sends readers of both professions to sleep.
Sally, While quoting an incremental reach figure sounds impressive it really doesnt mean a great deal. Advertisers wouldnt buy something based on incremental reach for a series. Its a great number for people to throw around but really lets talk Average Audience numbers and Demographic shares. Thats a currency we can buy on.
MCn are always the king of spin…..there use of “reach” rather than actual audience is misleading.
Hey, I don’t know ’bout that Marc and Guy – I’m not sure what school of media planning and buying you went to.
The whole idea behind “optimisation” and effective and efficient medai buying is that you want to spend the next $X where you will get the least duplication (frequency) and the introduce as many people to the ad who haven’t seen it before (reach). If you’re buying on average audience only, you’re simply buying tonnage at the cheapest rates.
Of course, optimisation doesn’t mean it has to be the next best TV spot – it could be a banner ad, a radio spot, a magazine insert etc.
The 13-24 market is definately a difficult market segment in which to make an impression. That generation is so used to social media and the inherant problems with social media that their cynacism defeats the majority of traditional marketing efforts.
I think that most mass media advertising just gets lost in the clutter these days. You can get the frequency and the reach, build the brand salience, but for a actual puchase decision? For effective reach to this target audience viral and buzz would be the best… indie-click? From extensive market research on 13-25 males conducted last year i found that although 70% could name over 80 brands that they only would purchase from 20 of those 80…
Points well made Tom, but I have a question about your research and findings.
Are you saying that the 80 brands named were “built” (i.e. salient) via viral and buzz and they would only purchase 20 of the 80, or are you saying that they could name 80 brands “built” by ALL forms of mass media advertising as well as viral and buzz, but would only puchase 20 of the 80?
What I am intrigued to know is (a) what contribution did the mass media make vs. the viral/buzz in building salience, and (b) was it the viral/buzz that drove the purchase intention?
We found that purchase decision in the 13-25 group was shifting from mass media to more trusted forms. The 13-25 group identifies itself with social media forms as a defining factor of their generation, setting them apart from parents and older authority figures. We found that while they could name brands promoted by mass media, and would purchase low interest products such as soft drinks and fast food from mass media campaigns the effectiveness of mass media in driving a purchase decision was waning.
The 13-25 group would identify these groups and these product’s intenteded marketing positions but would look upon the mass media avertising almost with disdain, seeing mass media campaign promises with scepticism. Viral and Buzz media, however, was seen as trusted, as coming from their peer group and would gain both salience and purchase intention. Examples we looked at were marketing for t-shirt brands both online and on mass media, advertising for such items as computers and the marketing of medical insurance, a product that traditionally has been difficult to market to a younger market.
Thanks Tom – very clear. I think the million dollar question is whether this is a permanent state-of-mind, or whether it is a transient stage? I’ve been tracking media for over 20 years, and for as long as I can remember “16-24s are just different, they reject the norm and are attracted to the new … or words to that effect” was the (correct) mantra and it still applies today. The issue I see is that the 16-24s of two decades ago are now the 35-45s of today – and their consumption patterns are not too different from that age group of two decades ago, that is, they tend to come back to the norm. Having said that “the norm” is changing with every new technological breakthrough.