Why publishers will struggle to make EMMA the industry currency
Research company IPSOS is today trumpeting the signing of Mediabrands and Match Media to readership metric EMMA, but Nic Christensen argues any celebration is premature.
As far as head fakes go, you have to admire what’s going on in today’s announcement by EMMA that it has signed its first media agencies.
Today IPSOS boss Simon Wake, who runs EMMA, celebrated the signing of both IPG Mediabrands and Match Media, by announcing how the readership metric was “a step closer to becoming the industry currency.”
But while they may be one step closer, there is still a long way to go before EMMA becomes the industry currency, on which advertising rates for print and magazines are determined.
EMMA will be doing very well if it still exists in 2 years. Even if it does, it is likely to be much smaller and cheaper than it is now. It is a very publisher-centric tool.
“It is a very publisher-centric tool.”
Delivering very publisher friendly results.
“Publishers can talk all they want about EMMA, but the reality is if they try to raise the rate cards on print and magazines then we will simply shift more to online and other media.”
whether it’s the right thing to do or not hey?
Well Pete if the rates go up, newspapers become a lot less efficient.
people seem to forget that the reason EMMA exists is not to deliver better numbers to publishers so that they can put their rates up ( publishers are all to aware of the competitive pressures they face) , EMMA exists because both publishers and all advertising agencies have had a gutful of using a tired and flawed methodology and dealing with a supplier that was both unwilling and unable to change to a more modern measurement metric
Which is all very well, and everyone will agree with you. But to replace Morgan, EMMA needs a) reliable and believable figures, and b) a comprehensive consumer view. If it can’t provide both of those it will fail. It’s not started well on the first point and time will tell whether it can provide the second.
The judgement on credibility of the emma numbers should be based on careful consideration of the methodology, not how they compare to an increasingly flawed sampling and collection process of a long standing incumbent.
I am not exactly sure what the flaw in Roy Morgan’s sampling and collection is. I am pretty sure the sampling and collection employed by Ipsos is equally flawed. One is an old established and reliable methodology for measuring audiences for print, the other is a new methodology relying on a deal of modelling and online data collection. I know which one is likely to produce the most sensible numbers. Just because something is old doesn’t make it flawed or unfit for purpose. Just because something is new and sounds a bit whizzy doesn’t mean it is any good.
Audience research will rarely be ahead of the curve in terms method as it needs to be robust, reliable, accurate and more importantly replicable.
I do worry when the ‘currency’ for trading becomes the plaything of either side of the trading (in this case the publishers), I always feel it is better administered by a third party, even one such as Roy Morgan. Success for a currency supplier is mild satisfaction or dissatisfaction from all subscribers anything better than this for any group means it just ain’t working right.
.
Sorry, a single interview in person on a saturday morning? You reckon that’s going to be an accurate depiction of the media lanscape?
“Research shows that all Australian are interested in is Bingo and Blue-hair dye, for some reason”.