Good research is like gold dust, especially when it comes to the
realms of international research. It’s difficult to find, there’s not
enough, and when you find it, everyone wants it. The Advertising Impact
survey is an attempt to plug this gaping hole, and is offering agencies
a chance to steer the direction of future studies.
AIM is the brainchild of Brian Shields, research director at the
International Herald Tribune. The ’process’ as he prefers to call it,
has just entered phase two, with the publication of research at the end
of September. The third and final part of the report is due in spring
2000. Agencies already committed as sponsors include Carat
International, CIA, Doremus, Mediapolis UK, the Media Edge, the Media
Partnership Europe, MindShare, OMD and Universal McCann Worldwide.
The agencies contribute a nominal fee, which, according to Jane Perry,
research director of the Media Edge Europe, ’wouldn’t even cover the
launch lunches’, so the IHT shoulders the main financial burden, which
Shields refuses to divulge. The idea of AIM is investigate the way
international print media is read and how that relates to the
effectiveness of the advertising it carries.
The researchers - Amsterdam-based Interview International - used a
sample already identified by the 1998 tranche of the established
European EMS research survey. They then re-contacted 600 readers of
eight English-language publications. The daily publications were the
Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and the International Herald
Tribune, the weeklies Business Week, Newsweek, The Economist and Time,
and the fortnightly magazine, Fortune. The sample was questioned about
three factors: the proportion of the publication that is read, the
number of times it is read or seen, and how intensely it is read.
The AIM factor links all three variables and is calculated for each of
the categories of reader covered by EMS, which includes higher income
individuals, those with high-ranking professional titles and corporate
credit cards, and by factors such as frequency of travel, internet use
or education. ’The higher the AIM score, the more potential there is for
your advert to be seen,’ says Shields.
The research concludes that weeklies are looked at more frequently than
dailies, but dailies are read more thoroughly. Newsweek and Time had the
highest proportion of pages read among weeklies, while The Economist had
the highest total number of pages read and was looked at for the
greatest length of time.
All well and good, but the key question is whether the AIM survey adds
anything to existing international print research that will aid media
planner/buyers. ’Practically, it produces results,’ says Shields. ’Up
until now, there has been no real information out there.’
Agencies are, of course, sceptical of research from media owners, as
Perry says: ’Generally, I don’t like media owner research, as no matter
how independent the owners try and be, they always put their own
interests first and keep control. The IHT hasn’t done this, but that
could be because the research is not important enough yet to upset
anyone.’
The research does, however, show the IHT ahead of all other publications
in its AIM factor assessment and in every category. Shields defends any
accusations of bias claiming the survey is entirely independent. ’We
have no sway over the results at all, and I have had no criticism from
any quarters stating that they think the questioning is unfair.’
AIM has been broadly welcomed by agencies but its significance, at this
early stage, is played down. ’It is not massively significant or ground
breaking,’ says Perry. ’This type of research is only ever going to be
supplementary. It is used to trim a plan, not to build one.’ But she
concedes that it is a first in terms of an international media owner
trying to provide detailed figures about readership patterns in the
print media.
Most planner/buyers point to the size of the sample - 600 - as one of
the reasons for early scepticism and agree that initially it will be
treated as a pilot. For the next year at least, depending on the level
of interest from other media owners, AIM will be used in conjunction
with existing surveys which include EMS and EBRS. The longest-running
survey, EBRS, is described as agency friendly, but rigid in its
definitions and reach.
’No survey, including EBRS, adequately covers television, as it is
always vetoed by the media owners, which is such a shame,’ says
Perry.
Also due to launch this month is Europe 2000, backed by The Economist
and National Geographic, who were also behind the now widely discredited
Pan European Survey. ’My understanding is that Europe 2000 is just an
updating of the old PES method,’ says Shields, who adds that, despite
obvious problems such as its face-to-face interviews securing a
representative sample, he would reserve final judgment until its
publication.
The Asian Businessman Readership Survey and the International Air
Travellers Survey, which as of last year is supplied free to agencies,
are also used in conjunction with other research.
According to Perry, agencies were prejudiced against the IATS survey up
until last year, as it was difficult to use and, she says, ’many found
the samples dodgy to say the least, as they were full of old-age
pensioners and backpackers’. But she claims it has improved and
planner/buyers now get a sample of 50,000, which she describes as,
’fantastic, compared to EBRS, which only has 2,000’.
Stephen Pollock, managing partner of MindShare Worldwide, still has
reservations about current surveys, but claims something is better than
nothing in an industry suffering from a dearth of good research. ’I
wouldn’t rely on the IATS survey, and anyone who takes these figures as
gospel needs their head examining. It is just a pool of data to help you
arrive at a decision.’
As with many planner/buyers, Pollock says he will tuck the likes of AIM
and IATS away, to be called upon should he need extra pan-regional
data.
’Frankly,’ he concludes, ’none of the research out there is very good.
But the print side is much better than TV - which is truly useless.’
.jpg)
.png)