It looks something like this:
1 insertion in Magazine A
1 insertion in Magazine B
2 insertions in Magazine C
(Don't be discouraged because I'm only using magazines here - it applies equally to most media - and it's just easier to describe it in print).
Magazine A has circulation of 20,000 and readership of 90,000.
Magazine B has circulation of 30,000 and readership of 95,000.
Magazine C has circulation of 25,000 and readership of 85,000.
Thus the schedule 'performance' is calculated as:
A = 90,000 x 1 = 90,000
B = 95,000 x 1 = 95,000
C = 85,000 x 2 = 170,000
Total OTS = 355,000.
The simple theory is that the higher the OTS, the better the response will be. That this theory is almost certainly wrong is not our concern at the moment. (That's another discussion at another time, when we have all the facts gathered together.)
What we are interested in at the moment is how to improve OTS at a given budget figure and what happens in the consumer's mind when OTS levels are increased.
Colin McDonald produced some very interesting work on the correlation between the OTS number and the resultant attributable sales. He found inter alia that response to a message reached saturation point after three OTS and that effects seemed to be more pronounced when the level of OTS were contained within a relatively short space of time.
He proposed that:
1. Advertising works better with optimum levels of OTS by inducing non-buyers or infrequent buyers to buy more, or by persuading regular buyers to stay with the brand and not move away.
2. The pattern of diminishing returns after two OTS seems to be the norm.
3. Timing is important. OTS counted within a reasonably short time-span before the purchase seem to show stronger effects than if they are counted over longer or uncontrolled time spans (since the last purchase). This of course is relevant to the question of 'bursts', 'drips' or 'continuous' campaigns.
4. Advertising interacts with other variables such as pack promotions.
5. Not all advertising is effective. Situations occur in which a brand in a product field shows a high degree of 'success', whereas another equally exposed campaign can be seen as a 'failure'. This can occur because the advertising content is not doing its job properly or through other mistakes connected with the brand promotion.
6. And finally, not all people are affected by advertising in the same way (if at all, for that matter). There is also no evidence to suggest that someone who is responsive to advertising in one field is also responsive to any other field.
Salience is how most advertising works. It's consistent with what is known about frequency and satiation. There is evidence to suggest that repetition of exposures over a short period of time rapidly becomes boring and sated as soon as the 'new message' is fully absorbed. With a long space between bursts, the message has a chance to be forgotten and a new (but temporary) excitement can occur.
Spontaneous measures in surveys can be taken to measure salience but it's only possible to measure what people have spontaneously on their mind, so its relevance is questionable. What IS relevant? Is it the salience of the brand name, the configuration of ideas and the feelings about the brand, the purchasing pattern, all of these - or what?
What really matters in advertising is that the information conveyed must enhance the brand.
Calculating OTS is useful for comparing media schedules - but only up to a point. It cannot measure quality of readers for example, neither can it make allowances for brilliant creative work.
Getting it ALL right is a tough ask but then, it's a tough business.
Read my blog (brewersdroop.co.za) or see what other amazing things we do at brewers.co.za
*Note that Bizcommunity staff and management do not necessarily share the views of its contributors - the opinions and statements expressed herein are solely those of the author.*
