Last week I had a lengthy discussion with a planner at a medium-sized agency who continues to position radio as a frequency vehicle to his clients. We exchanged perspectives and I believe we made some progress.Viewing radio as a frequency vehicle connotes a couple of things, neither good. Either the messaging is not registering or radio’s reach is limited.
We know neither is correct. Nielsen just released their State of the Media: Audio Today 2017 study this week, which showed that 271,000,000 Americans 6+ tune to AM/FM radio weekly, and that listeners do pay attention to commercials per their ROAS studies.
While radio advertising does generate “frequency,” it is largely a byproduct of the medium’s cost efficiency rather than anything intrinsic about the medium itself. More importantly, radio’s efficiency enables an advertiser to generate unparalleled reach, when properly scheduled, which is more often than not the main driver of campaign success.
Viewing radio through a frequency prism is usually not the optimum way for an advertiser to maximize radio payback, as frequency’s relationship to successful radio campaigns is largely one of “correlation” and not “causation.” There is a big difference.
Correlation speaks to a “mutual relationship of two or more things,” i.e. air more commercials and frequency increases. Causation on the other hand speaks to “the action of producing.” While a frequency-focused campaign will produce some sales, just as all advertising will produce some sales, it will typically not produce the most sales, unless the message is unusually complex or promoting a new product intro.
There has been considerable research conducted over the years that has helped distill causation from correlation in ad campaigns, and concluded that the true marketing success driver is largely reach.
Reach x relevance = success in 2017, not frequency x relevance = success, for one simple reason: There’s an inverse relationship between relevance and frequency. The need for frequency decreases as relevance increases.
One study that comes to mind was conducted by Westwood One for an auto aftermarket client which showed that it cost 2.4x as much to generate a 1% increase in sales for those reached 3x-6x, and 3.7x as much to generate a 1% increase in sales for those reached 7+x, as it did for those reached once or twice.
Another high-profile study utilizing actual consumer purchasing data determined that households exposed to a single commercial purchased ¾ as much of a product as households exposed multiple times. Other studies have come to similar conclusions.
What these studies highlight is not that one or two exposures is “enough” but that in the short term additional frequency brings little additional benefit, as the consumer is not likely to be in the market for what’s being advertised (relevance), so reaching two potential buyers is more productive than reaching one.
One’s point of view on this subject plays a major role in the how commercials are scheduled and the results delivered.
View radio through a frequency prism and a more concentrated schedule (fewer stations and dayparts) will be aired. View it through a reach prism and a more dispersed schedule (more stations and dayparts) will be utilized. The reach-based schedule usually produces a greater ROAS, due to it reaching more consumers who happen to be in the market for what’s being advertised.
Those who are still on the fence regarding this reach/frequency debate, consider this: Assume that commercial exposure increases the likelihood of buying a product (safe assumption). And assume that one goal of marketing strategy is to minimize the time gap between each purchase occasion and each commercial exposure (being thought of in more buying situations). Doesn’t it is then follow that reducing the number of consumers reached by a campaign will result in fewer sales than one reaching more?
It’s radio’s cost efficiency and not its byproduct, frequency, that enables an advertiser to maintain a continued marketing presence that generates the greatest ROAS, when this marketing presence is scheduled to maximize reach.
My Life As A Millennial: The Dress Codes
By Georgia Beasley
June 23, 2017
June 23, 2017
I began writing this column after engaging in a debate over what is considered an acceptable dress code for the workplace by our traditional industry standards. Per usual, I was the only Millennial, so my opinion was not exactly the fan favorite, but since that day I’ve continued to ask myself: Does success have a dress code? Furthermore, if I want to be successful today, does that mean I have to look successful by the standards of previous generations? Millennials are redefining what it looks like to be successful, so it may be time for the radio industry to follow our lead.
In researching this topic, I spoke with multiple companies in the industry and the feedback varied based on geography, market size, format, and obviously, the company. One industry colleague said they just implemented a casual dress code because it allows for employees to be more comfortable in how they work, which leads to a more positive work environment and culture.
We are currently in an employee-driven market and our industry must be competitive for talent, especially Millennial talent. We’re constantly striving to attract, cultivate, and develop the right talent on our team. Whether it’s more money, working remotely, or even additional vacation time, we typically do whatever it takes once we find the right person for an available position. Of course, everyone wants more money, but we Millennials want perks that enhance workplace culture, such as a more casual dress code. This may be a new tiebreaker for radio to use as a benefit.
Companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, make it clear that one’s business attire does not equate to being an executive or having a certain level of professionalism. If anything, we are now seeing more frequently that it can be off-putting when “the suits” show up to a business and the owner is dressed casually. Companies are now saying what matters most is being professional, not looking professional.
I spoke to another colleague in the industry who encourages his team to use their judgment because they are their own business. Good sellers are chameleons and capable of adapting to their environment. There can be a hybrid dress code, one for internal and one for external responsibilities. The dress code could even reflect the seller’s list and actually lead to more business. Tattoos and jeans might be fine for a seller who focuses on clubs and more creative-driven agencies. In fact, this could lead to MORE dollars spent because the clients feel comfortable and trust is built.
Keep in mind, I don’t think Millennials inherently understand what “too casual” means, so if you’ve made the decision to implement a more casual dress code for all the aforementioned reasons, it’s important that there still be specific guidelines. You might enlist several talented Millennials to assist in laying out these guidelines. Make sure to be more specific about what is unacceptable versus what is acceptable. There are always individuals who push the envelope, but creating some clear guidelines will also be helpful for those workers who just don’t know, regardless of generation. It’s important for companies to make sure that everyone in the organization knows what the actual policy is up front and set a benchmark. It’s up to the employers to educate their employees as to what their interpretation is of the dress code; so while it may exist as a section in their handbook, it’s especially important to share this during the new hire/HR introductory meetings.
Our industry can be casual but that doesn’t mean sloppy. We can be flexible but not overly flexible. A looser, yet professional dress code internally could in fact improve morale. A casual dress code did nothing to negatively impact Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and many others. Millennials gravitate to these types of companies because they allow for authenticity. A less restrictive dress code gives us the ability to show our personality, which will translate to more confidence in our role with the company. Furthermore, if we are encouraged to be our authentic selves, trust and loyalty tend to also exist.
Georgia Beasley is Director of Digital Sales for the Beasley Media Group
No comments:
Post a Comment