Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

ADVERTISERS & AGENCIES continued radio? If it has, he continued, it would be helpful if the industry could try to work out a solution. The question of over-commercialization and protection of competing products was raised later from the floor. Mr. Goldberg, while denying that WBC stations over-commercialize, noted that other media face the same problem and have done no research, leading the questioner to acknowledge that radio is not the only sinner. Mr. Goldberg said that in his view agencies and advertis ers would have to take the lead in research for any corrective campaign — that broadcasters cannot be expected to "police ourselves to that extent." From the floor, Frank Boehm of Adam Young Inc. added that advertisers force broadcasters to overcrowd certain times. When JWT's Mr. Green had completed his appraisal of the need for more details on individual listening habits (see text, below), one audience member interpreted his talk as a "condemnation" of A. C. Nielsen Co. services. Mr. Green said this was not correct but that he did feel, since such detailed information is available on listening by households, that the research should be carried further to show additional details by individuals. He said he had tried to interest Nielsen in undertaking it, and added that in his opinion such data need not be issued with the frequency of the regular Nielsen pocketpieces but, rather, that issuance on a quarterly or semiannual basis probably would be adequate. DATA LACK HURTS RADIO— GREEN Is radio, the "most universal" medium, even more universal than it thinks? Is it short-changing itself regarding both its reach and its impact? Jack R. Green, associate media director of J. Walter Thompson Co., thinks this may be the case — owing to an inadequacy of research on the media habits of individuals. One of three panelists at the radio workshop in the Advertising Research Foundation's third annual conference last week (see page 34), Mr. Green noted that "drastic changes have occurred in the past two decades in every aspect of [radio] except the research tools and techniques used to measure it." Among other changes affecting advertising, he noted "an explosive growth in population and the size of our national economy," shifts in population, the trend toward product diversification and the absorption of advertising into the marketing structure. His talk as he then developed his theme is presented here in condensed text: "Each medium must be evaluated in light of its contribution to sales effectiveness when used in various possible combinations with other media as part of the planned marketing mix. "In effect, the key question has changed from 'what should we buy in radio?' to 'should we buy radio?' "During this evolutionary period the radio medium itself has undergone many changes. "Through the installation of radios in the kitchen and bedroom, in the workshop and barn, in automobiles and on tractors, radio has been transformed into the most universal and the most personal of all media. "There have been equally sweeping changes in programming patterns and in the methods of selling radio. The concepts of 'big name' programs, first refusals on franchise time periods, and exclusive sponsorship of individual programs, have virtually disappeared from radio. "Equally significant is the often overlooked fact that the current selling practices of participation sponsorships and the revised rate structures now give every advertiser an opportunity for access to kingsize audiences at efficient cost. A decade ago only a limited handful of advertisers were lucky enough to come up with a hit show or a franchise on a key time period that could deliver audiences comparable in size and cost efficiency. "Because radio is now so ubiquitous, it is almost certain to be listed by the agency media man as part of one or more of the combinations that are considered in the media plans for products with a broad marketing base. "In examining the radio portion of these possible combinations, it is relatively easy to get a pin-point fix on the number of homes that will be reached by radio. It is also possible with currently available data to determine how many of these homes will be tv or non-tv households and to estimate what portion of each sub-group will not be reached by any of the other media on the schedule. "But at this point the trail suddenly vanishes and the media man has to grope his way through the balance of his evaluation on sheer intuition, due to the absence of pertinent research data on the actual listeners — as distinct from households reached. "This is particularly frustrating in the situation where 25% -50% of a million dollar or more budget may be under consideration for use in radio. Although the radio segment may represent a large gross number of homes and impressive frequency, it usually subdivides into at least three or four distinct categories — where the radio message will have a different role to play. Of Many Categories "As a minimum, these categories would be (A) non-tv homes, (B) tv homes not reached by the product's tv schedule, (C) tv homes that will also be reached with messages. If the plan includes print media, the categories become more numerous and complex. "Current radio research tools can provide a reasonable fix on the total number of listeners reached by any schedule — but even this requires some ingenious calculations and assumptions if we want to include the out-of-home audience. "However, none of the available data on listeners provides more than a faint clue concerning the distribution of these listeners between tv and non-tv homes. And there are no clues whatsoever that will enable us to determine, within tv homes, the differences in number, kind or quality of listeners who are also exposed to the brand's message on tv and those who are not. "Analysis of set use patterns indicates that within each socio-economic group of tv households, there are families with marked differences in radio and tv set use habits. In the absence of satisfactory research data about the media habits of individuals within these households, we can only speculate on the explanation for the differences in radio or tv set use. We cannot determine whether they are due to differences in the number and kind of people who are at home at various hours or to differences in the mood and attitudes of the individuals involved. "Similarly, we cannot determine whether out-of-home radio listeners are the same individuals we are reaching with our radio or tv messages at other parts of the day or week. "In the absence of clear-cut evidence about the differences in media habits of individuals who are exposed to the radio and tv messages in homes that are reached by both schedules, we frequently have to assume that both messages reach the same person. This probably means that radio is being short changed on the estimates of the number of individuals it reaches exclusively with the advertiser's message. "But even more important than this short changing in the number reached exclusively is the possible understatement in terms of quality and selling impact. "Most of the current copy testing techniques tend to imply that the 'sight plus sound' approach usually has an advantage over 'sound only' in registering effective impact for an advertising message. But the conclusion is based on overall averages — and does not allow for the possible differences in mental set among people who turn on the radio rather than the tv set as their media choice. "The fact that an individual is listening to the radio at the time our message is broadcast may in itself pre-dispose him (or her) to greater receptivity for the message than he displayed under typical copy test conditions. "The longer we delay in getting research undertaken on the listening habits of individuals within the household, the more difficult it will become to isolate the sales effectiveness of radio. Media patterns. are becoming more complex. Each new component added to the media mix for a product increases the research problem of identifying the specific combination of media exposure that individuals have received. Since the trend is still toward greater flexibility in media patterns, the present void in audience data may place an even greater handicap on radio as the emphasis increases on evaluation of the profit potentials for various combinations as the basis for final media selections." Page 36 • November 18, 1957 Broabcasting