By Glen Gardner/Branding Consultant
As a consultant working with scores of clients, one of the questions I'm
asked most often is, "How do we know if this is working?" At the root of
the question is the issue of measurement. In some cases a client wants
some external justification for making a particular media investment. In
many cases a client asks for "ratings," which I believe is one of the
worst measurement tools for a client.
In effect, ratings (for any media) are measuring something after the
fact. A much better way to measure is start your campaign with a set of
clear objectives for what you need to accomplish. These objectives need
to be realistic and measurable. Then, target the media outlets that are
the best demographic and psychographic fits to deliver those results.
The "how many" information that ratings deliver are far less important
than the "who." Most media outlets have far more bodies than you need to
deliver the desired results. The quality of those prospects is usually
far more important than how many.
Setting measurement criteria and a critical path to reach those goals is
a much more strategic and sensible way to measure effectiveness. I
believe depending on ratings is a way to justify a decision that has
already been made, rather than building a strategic plan to get from a
specific starting point to a specific end-point.
If ratings are the metric, then one could assume the goal would be to
hope for even better ratings for that media outlet in the future. I have
yet to work on a campaign that left a client happy when ratings went up
and their sales were down. There is no correlation between ratings and
results. There is a huge correlation between an outlet's ability to
influence the right demographic with the right creative message and results.
That's why it's so critical for your media partners to take the time to
figure out what you need, rather than spouting about ratings that mean a
lot to them but have little relevance to what you need to have happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment