Which came first … the Daypart or the Programme?

My rare sorties into the realm of watching TV Soapies have lead me to conclude that nothing really happens and that you need only watch one episode a week to keep up to date with events. Until recently, there has been no scientific way to test this hypothesis because in any reputable scientific experiment, we always need a control group to verify the outcome of the findings.

In media, of course, we don’t often have the control group safety net and the fuzzy logic of “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” tends to be the preferred route to decision making ( To a large degree, that’s why I entitled my book Media Planning – Art or Science?). However, a recent broadcasting error by the SABC has provided an ideal control group opportunity to test my theory that nobody needs to watch every episode of a Soapie.

On Tuesday 1^st May SABC re-broadcast the Bold & Beautiful episode from the preceding night (Monday 30^th April) and on Wednesday 2^nd May re-broadcast the “repeat” episode of Bold & Beautiful from the preceding morning (Tuesday 1^st May).  The “incorrect broadcasts” are indicated in the chart below in yellow.

Now, given this set of circumstances, you would imagine that even regular viewers of Bold & Beautiful, who have come to accept an alarming degree of repetition, would realize that something has gone horribly wrong and quite simply switch channels. After all, if watching the same episode of a programme offered the prospect of a different outcome, then every Manchester United supporter in the world would be replaying the last 5 minutes of the Manchester City v QPR game for the rest of all time.

Analysis of this event, against three target markets, reveals that re-broadcasting exactly the same programme episode has no significant outcome in terms of TVRS across a 4 programme period. The data below is from Telmar but analysis of the Arianna data confirms the same pattern.

Now, there are two possible circumstances that produce this outcome ….

Option A] Exactly the same people who watched the Monday primetime episode watched exactly the same episode on Tuesday. And exactly the same people who watched the Tuesday morning repeat watched the same repeat on Wednesday..

Option B] A totally different set of new viewers, blissfully unaware of the programming error, happily watched Tuesday night or Wednesday morning’s rebroadcast.

This provides us with an ideal control group scenario to pose some interesting questions about the value of “available audience” versus the “cherry picking” school of TV buying. In short, we can answer the oldest TV buying conundrum of all … “which comes first, the daypart or the programme”?

Using the “Women universe filter”, let’s create a hypothetical schedule with x1 spot in each primetime broadcast … the correct broadcast (call it Event 1) and the incorrect broadcast (Event 2). Will the second TVC flighting create more Reach% or will it build Frequency? If Option A prevails, then we would expect Reach% to remain the same as the programme TVR (8,9%) and deliver x2 OTS. If option B prevails, then Reach will double to 17,8% (8,9 + 8,9) and Frequency will remain at x1 OTS.

In practice the answer lies somewhere between these extreme outcomes, and our schedule delivers 14,9% reach @ 1,2 OTS. The same pattern is discernible for all target markets and both repeat broadcasts in this study. Weight of evidence strongly suggests then, that irrespective of target market, when it comes to Bold & Beautiful, it is the “available audience” that comes first, rather than “programme appointment” based viewing.

So what does this mean for TV buying? Conventional wisdom has tended to suggest that, because of viewer loyalty, Soapies are always a great place to build frequency. But overall duplication, across all target markets and broadcasts in this instance, is only 20%. That means only 1 in 5 viewers are common to both broadcasts. Of course than also means 4 out of 5 viewers to the Bold & Beautiful re-broadcasts were “available audience” viewers.

So, it seems you can use a Soapie not just for Frequency but also for building Reach%.

By the way, did you get the answer to the big question? 20% duplication! That’s 1 in 5. Only 1 in 5 viewers are common to both broadcasts and that, I argue, means my hypothesis is right. 4 out of 5 TV viewers only need to watch a Soapie once a week to understand what’s going on.

And for the 1 in 5 of you who are watching every day and, in this instance at least, seem quite happy to watch the same episode again and again … you really do need to get out more!

Eugene Marais and the Soul of the Media Ant!

I was recently asked by a leading industry journal, what is the one thing I would do that would really make a difference to the media industry in Mzansi.

On reflection, I would make it compulsory for everyone in media … agencies, advertisers and media-owners alike … not only to read Eugene Marais’ classic work The Soul of the White Ant but to pass a practical exam!  

The various media industry sectors’ growing desire to “go it alone” with respect to the financing of SAARF, shows a lack of appreciation for their mutual interdependence and their shared responsibility for a healthy business eco-system.

Everybody wants a slice of the AMPS cake but the industry is staring famine in the face because nobody can agree on the size of the slices and who gets the first bite.

Advertisers demand better quality people in their agency but agencies won’t gear because those same advertisers have slashed agency margins to bits. And because agencies are desperate for new revenue streams, unscrupulous media owners step into the gap by offering confidential discounts to agencies to make up the difference! And because the cake isn’t getting any bigger, those same advertisers, who invited everybody to the birthday party in the first place, want to know from media owners why media costs are increasing!

And of course nobody trains the next generation because training costs come off the bottom line and the shareholders demand their slice of the cake before we’ve even finished baking it.

So, with apologies to Eugene Marais …

So the hope arises that there is some purpose in the media industry (nature) whose guiding principle is a psyche similar but infinitely more developed than the soul of the primate.

But sadly, I doubt it! When you pay peanuts, unfortunately, you invariably get monkeys!

Have you ever had a media ground-hog day? When today is a total repeat of yesterday and tomorrow offers all the mystery of last week? Bit like watching SABC or endless reruns of Midsomer murders on DSTV.
I had one recently! I felt like I’d woken up behind the boerewors curtain in the 60′s. When the world was run by men with grey shoes and the latest edition of Scope magazine was the most eagerly awaited social event of the week for the average South African teenage boy.
So what triggered the flashback?
The recently released ASA Statement on Sexual Imagery in Outdoor Advertising, is based on the proposed British model, which is the outcome of an engagement with the children and parents of Cardiff. Yes, that’s the one. Cardiff. In Wales. The new standard, which I am reliably informed will be adopted in South Africa, is “designed to reduce the amount of outdoor advertising that contains sexualised imagery in locations where the children are likely to see it”!
As in the UK, the ASA will take decisions on a case by case basis. This two-tiered approach will inter alia …
(i) Consider carefully what is likely to be acceptable in outdoor advertising informed by the new evidence from Wales, of the public’s view of outdoor images
(ii) Focus on sexual images in locations of particular relevance to children, with a view to applying a placement restriction where appropriate
Now, the fact that all this is happening at a time when TopTV is about to launch three 24/7 porn channels notwithstanding, I am confident that most responsible advertisers would endorse this stance. I certainly do.
It is, however, in the application of these ASA rules that things are going to get really interesting and reminiscent of life with Scope magazine. When considering complaints about sexual imagery on outdoor, the ASA will take into account …
(i) The nature of the product
(ii) The context of the ad and its location
(iii) The audience and the likely response of that audience
(iv) The size of the advertisement
Yes, apparently when it comes to sexual imagery in outdoor, size does count.
In order to assist us with our creative executions, the ASA has very kindly provided us with a series of images which illustrate the critical parameters within which we need to operate. So for instance, in image 1 “the model is wearing a bikini and holding a pose which is unlikely to be sexually suggestive” whilst in image 2 “the women is drawing attention to her groin area and is therefore sexually suggestive”.

Now, quickly … Shift your gaze between the two pictures. Sexy girl! Not sexy girl! Sexy! Not sexy! Can you see it? Good.
For those of you young people in media who are reading this blog without the benefit of adult supervision, it’s important to recall that, back in the day, Scope magazine didn’t even attempt to categorize beautiful women into covertly sexy and overtly sexy. They were all girls in bikinis and worthy of the same undivided attention. Indeed, some were elevated to even more legendary status among teenage boys through the strategic placement of stars.
Image 3 apparently shows a topless man “whose pose is unlikely to be considered sexually suggestive”. Why isn’t this guy sexy? Why has he got his shirt off and his jeans around his hips? Answers …
(i) He comes from Upington and the weather there is really very hot?
(ii) He is very poor and can’t afford a shirt?
(iii) He only has one nice shirt and his mother is washing it?
(iv) He has a great six pack & wants to look sexy?
(v) None of the above?
Good grief! As a bachelor even I knew that step one in the courtship process was to get your shirt off and I didn’t even have six pack! More a slab of Nestlé that had been left out in the sun a little too long!
So, by now of course, you’re getting the idea. Indeed, many of you may already be applying for a position on the ASA “copy advice team”. Certainly, in the days of The Groot Krokodil positions such as this were highly sought after at the old Censorship Board.
Of course in media it’s as much about placement as it is about content, right! So, because they are not sexy, images 1 and 3 may be placed within 100 metres of a school whilst the offensive image 2, may not. At this point perhaps, like me, you’re asking “why 100 metres”? Why not 115metres or 95 metres? It would appear that whatever happens to the teenage brain in the twilight zone from 105 metres to 95 metres would torture the unrestrained imaginings of Sigmund Freud himself!
I confidently predict that any sign, projecting an image of a beautiful woman “attracting attention to her groin area”, placed within a 200 metre radius of a boys school (let alone 100 metres) will within the first week be integrated into the 1st XV initiation ceremony. By which I mean the inevitable 400m dash there and back between the bell-ringing for class changeover. To protect sensitive readers, I won’t divulge what happens at the sign itself, prior to the return dash!
Of course, some images are so offensive that they may not be placed on outdoor at all, let alone within 100 metres of a school.
The woman in image 4 is shown “both in lingerie and in a seductive pose” and is therefore subject to the “100 metres restriction” whilst the woman in image 5 is acting in a “sexual and seductive way and may not be suitable for general outdoor display at all”.
See the difference? Sexual. Not sexual. Sexual. Not sexual.

Now, maybe schoolboys have changed over the years. In my day, clearly we did not have the same level of discernment when it came to the difference between seductive and sexual imagery. The sight of a student teachers bra strap was enough to evoke a frenzy of tortured imaginings. The sight of a beautiful woman in lingerie would have brought any lesson to a premature and irretrievable halt. We didn’t have Twitter in those days but if we did it would certainly have trended within seconds.
Upon reflection I am almost certain that woodwork classes were exclusively created for the purpose of such meanderings!
So where do we go next as an industry in an effort to regulate morality in advertising? Stop selling FHM magazine at service stations positioned within a 100 metres of the nearest school? Ban Cosmopolitan? Good grief … there are more clues for a teenage Lothario in the average issue of Cosmo than in the collective sexual wisdom of the entire 6th form!
Come on guys. Ban the stuff outright on outdoor if you have to, but for goodness sakes let’s not go down this route again. Either that or bring back the stars. And if you’re not old enough to know what that means, ask your dad! He’ll tell you all about it.

2012 … The Year of Living Dangerously!

The year 2012 looms over the eastern advertising horizon, just like any other year. Except, it’s not like any other year! This is the watershed year which determines whether the local industry continues on the high road of media leadership in Africa or succumbs to the rapacious self-interest of media-owners, each convinced that the other is getting a better deal out of AMPS. Or perhaps more disturbingly, each convinced that they can do the job more cheaply.

The situation is dire. With the initial rejection by PMSA & OHMSA of the central SAARF levy funding principle and the subsequent, and understandable, withdrawal of NAB, de facto MAMCA (the industry body charged with effectively distributing the collected levy to SAARF and ASA) does not exist and must be disbanded.

In practice what this means is that, from January 2012, SAARF and ASA will have to be directly funded by media owners. Or to be more specific, those media owners who are prepared to pay into SAARF and ASA. After all, as Forest Gump says … cheaply is as cheaply does! Or something like that anyway.

Media owners will decide what they want to pay and what they want out of AMPS. Of course, whoever pays the piper calls the tune, so inevitably there will be a continuing erosion of quality data and ultimately the collapses of AMPS as objective media measurement tools. No, that’s not a grammatical error! I’m talking AMPS as in RAMS, TAMS, PAMS (Print AMPS) and OHMS. That will herald the end of the media industry as we have come to know it in Mzansi and we will be no better off than the rest of Africa when it comes to data and objective insights.

The ASA presents a slightly different conundrum, which I believe requires an objective industry investigation into the scope of ASA activities and its corresponding financial requirements. Somebody has to pay for ASA and media owners say that offensive or noncompliant advertising content is not their problem. After all, argue media-owners, they don’t make the advertisements. From their perspective, it is the marketers and the advertising agencies who should pay for the ASA. They certainly have a valid point but it’s also a point that has strong contra-indications of a severe bout of Pyrrhic victory.

Unfortunately, for some years now, the senior management of major media agencies has not vigorously participated in the various forums which manage this funding process. This fact, coupled to the reality that the Marketing Association of South Africa (MASA) does not yet have the all-encompassing bite of its defunct predecessor (MFSA), means that media owners will, for the moment anyway, continue to do pretty much do as they please.

So, as you reflect on the year ahead, and on the assumption that you still have a sense of the shared burden of responsibility for our local media industry, could I please urge you to visit http://www.marketingsa.co.za and read the document Pending Industry Crisis. Without direct involvement of local media decision makers at the highest level, we in Mzansi media are all, like the rhino, officially on the endangered list. The only difference being that we will have deserved to be there.

Happy New Year!

No more Media Chocolate for you!

When I was recently asked by The Media to participate in an open forum at GIBS Institute, to “Demystify Print Media Research”, the proposed title of my opening address was “To be more effective we need to change some of the questions in AMPS”!

To my mind that’s a little like saying … “In order to lose weight I need to change the kind of chocolates I’m eating”!

No Gordon! Stop with the chocolates! I know they taste nice and they make you feel great but the simple truth is they’re not good for you. Go find a piece of celery or an apple.

Have you ever wondered why chocolate tastes so good? Apparently Chocolate contains more than 300 known chemicals. Scientists have been working on isolating specific chemicals and chemical combinations which may explain some of the pleasurable effects of consuming chocolate. Caffeine is the most well known of these chemical ingredients. There’s Theo-bromine, a weak stimulant. Phenyl-ethylamine is also found in chocolate. It’s related to amphetamines, which are strong stimulants.

AMPS is a little like a piece of chocolate. Packed full of interesting facts and marketing stimulants. And every year, or in the case of TAMS, every day, we get more and more slabs of information about the market. So when we turn off the Telmar switch in our brains at the end of the day, we feel really good about ourselves and our information rich media plans.

However, it is really worth noting that while stimulants contribute to a temporary sense of well-being, there are other chemicals and other theories as to why chocolate makes us feel good. One of the most interesting findings comes from researchers at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, California. They believe that “chocolate contains pharmacologically active substances that have the same effect on the brain as marijuana”.  

This is my point. If you think changing a few questions is all that’s required to sustain AMPS’ world class status … and it is a world class product … then you must either be smoking something or eating too much media chocolate.

There has been a revolution in media. 20 years ago marketers believed that advertising worked and that all we in media needed to do, was measure the audience and put a price to it.  Now clients are asking us “does advertising work anymore?” and we are trying to fob them off by answering “I don’t know but here’s a million readers”.

We also need to recognise that the composition of the market has undergone a quantum shift. 20 years ago, if you went down Old Potchefstroom Road … now Chris Hani Road … you would have found a squadron of Ratels … now you can find Maponya Mall. You’ve been to Maponya Mall right? So here’s a piece of media celery for you to chew on! Would it surprise you to know that according to AMPS 2011BA there are only 2 LSM10 households in Soweto? RAMS 2011/4 tells me there are none.

Not one LSM10 household in the whole of Soweto? So who the hell is shopping at Maponya Mall?

That’s why I changed the topic to read … “to be more effective AMPS needs a total overhaul”. Because if you think there are no LSM10 households in Soweto then you must be eating chocolate!

Does the magic really live on MNet?

Before you read further, I’d like you to stop and list the primary commercial TV stations in Mzansi, as reflected in AMPS. Quickly! Top of mind!
If your list looks like this … SABC 1, SABC 2, SABC 3, ETV, MNet, DSTV and TopTV … then you’re in tune with the vast majority of media planners in this country. MNet still seems to command a place at the main ad revenue table. So much so, that the vast majority of TV schedules aimed at the Upper Middle-Class & Elite markets (LSM 8-LSM14 using the Muller Cluster Model) will include some commercial time on MNet at a massively inflated CPP premium. I’m not talking 5-10% premium here. I’m talking the nasty stuff with an extra zero on the end.
Why would anybody pay at 100%-300% premium to retain MNet on a schedule? What is the magic that supposedly lives on MNet? More importantly perhaps, is why does the magic cost so much & could we find the magic somewhere else at a reasonable price? Here’s a clue. This year, MNet celebrated its 25th birthday!
For many media decision makers, the FIBD principle (First In Best Dressed) has imparted to MNet some sort of mystical media quality. As if it’s still the proverbial viewing oasis in the SABC programming desert, that it used to be 25 years ago. There are even advertisers who still blissfully follow the Carte Blanche & Sunday Night Movie scheduling ritual irrespective of the evidence that clearly shows that, for pay TV households, family viewership no longer congregates around this viewer behavior pattern.
The release of AMPS 2011BA, and the expanded data set for decoder ownership & pay-tv viewership provides a totally different insight though. Of the +/- 3,1million households that have some form of Multichoice decoder in the home, there are only 116,000 standalone MNet decoder households. In fact, there are more TopTV decoder households (137,000) in the marketplace than standalone MNet decoders! Of the 947,000 adults who watch MNet every day, 785,000 (83%) watch it on DSTV. For 83% of MNet viewers, it’s just another channel on their DSTV bouquet.
So, here’s the question. Despite the fact that AMPS lists MNet as a “commercial TV channel”, does data mining really support the view that MNet is a primary TV station? Or is it just another content silo on DSTV? Well so what if it’s a channel on DSTV you say, it’s still the biggest & the best! Apparently not! Yesterday viewership on DSTV, relegates MNet to 13th position, behind channels such as Movie Magic, MNet-Action, ENews and even Africa Magic.
So what is the magic that supposedly lives on MNet and why does it cost so much? You could of course ask DSTV but they won’t tell you because, as you know, a really good magician never gives away the secret of the magic trick.
We all like a bit of magic but not at any price.

Enough with the fake accents … an all!

When the Truro arrived in Durban with 342 indentured labourers in 1861, few could have imagined the impact the Indian community would have on the destiny of our country. Over the past 150 years, there is no walk of life in which Indian South Africans have not made their mark. Commerce … Politics … Entertainment … Cricket. And of course cuisine! Basically the lot!
What immutable law of advertising exists then, which prevents the local advertising industry from using real Indians, with real Indian accents, in radio commercials? I mean, even the BBC found a South African to play the role of Ashwin Kumar in the Kumars at No42.
Personally, I blame fake Indian accents in radio commercials for the carnage on South African roads. There is not a driver in the country that can drive safely, whilst desperately attempting to change channels every time another Michael Naicker wannabe trots out his routine. Unfortunately, neither the Consumer Protection Act nor the ASA, has a code of practice which protects consumers from fake Indian accents in radio commercials, and so the death toll continues to mount. That’s why I am advocating that fake Indian accent commercials be legislated under the Road Traffic Offences Act.
I understand that not all radio voices need to sound like Naledi Pandor but if we don’t do something about this problem jaldi jaldi, we’ll be on the low road to radio chaos and before we even know it, we’ll have a bunch of inarticulate nasal twits anchoring our premier radio morning-drive shows.
Hang on?
Hmmmm …

Community Radio & RAMS … All quiet on the Western Front!

SAARF has announced they will host a Community Radio Symposium in September. The aim of the symposium is to address issues related to the successful running of a community radio station. Issues such as managing and marketing a community radio station, using & understanding RAMS data, and research that should be conducted by community radio stations themselves.
That community radio has been totally under-marketed, and consequently under-supported, we all understand. According to RAMS, some 10million people listen to community radio every month. That’s about 1 in every 3 radio listeners. But these same stations pull only 1,4% of annual radio advertising revenue. Not even Pieter de Villiers has a conversion rate as bad as this.
So where does it go wrong?
Even if community radio stations did have the energy & the expertise to market themselves, the question remains, what would they use for information? Experienced marketers & media decision makers don’t need numbers to make every decision but the vast majority of media decisions are made by increasingly under-trained and inexperienced media planners & buyers. So, bottom line, community radio needs the numbers. They need numbers that more accurately reflect the vibrancy & viability of daily listenership.
So where might they get that data from?
There are two basic options …
Source 1: The Main AMPS report which comes out twice a year.
This is where we get the “big picture data” which consistently confirms that listenership to community radio (“yesterday” or “past 7 days”) is huge. So, strategically, the collective weight of evidence is that community radio is a crucial part of the mix. The problem is that when you tunnel into the data at a station level, the samples for each station are really unusable.
Source: 2 The RAMS diaries which come out 6 times a year.
This is where the pencil really hits the paper. This where planners move beyond the “yesterday” and “past 7 days” figures into the detailed average ¼ hour data which forms the currency for detailed media planning & scheduling. If the samples in AMPS are bad, at implementation planning level the community radio station level samples in RAMS are almost non-existent & essentially unusable. Try as hard as you might, you simply can’t extract data out of RAMS which could be used to sell individual community stations.
AMPS & RAMS data is financed by a levy on all advertising, which is nominally paid by advertisers and collected by media owners, who then pay this over to MAMCA & SAARF. This is of course a moot point and many broadcasters would hold the opinion, that this is their money. This issue is currently being debated within the advertising industry. The bottom line on this is that the commercial broadcasters are not motivated to use this levy to promote the interests of community radio stations. In fact, they have a vested interest in ensuring that community radio never reaches its full potential. So we continue to produce 6 diaries a year, where nothing ever happens.
The phrasing of the latest press release from SAARF regarding the release of RAMS2011/ 3 provides the insight …
In a world of ceaseless change, it’s good to know there are some things you can still count on. Like radio! The SAARF released RAMS June 2011, with stable listenership once again being the name of the game.That’s SAARF speak for “ho hum another round of incredibly boring radio data where absolutely nothing new & exciting has happened”! So what SAARF celebrates as reliable old radio data, is really just designed to entrench the same old “business as usual” approach.
In defence of SAARF, this is not a unique circumstance and highlights the limitation of the SAARF industry-funded research initiative. It is quite frankly impossible for AMPS & RAMS to cover the interests of every single media sector. We all understand that. With newspapers for instance, the AMPS sample does not hold up for scrutiny at a suburb or community level & consequently totally under-reports community newspapers, relative to primary daily & weekly titles.
That’s why the Caxton newspaper group pulled out of AMPS and established its own research study called ROOTS, where the sample is specifically structured to highlight the community level readership of local newspapers. AMPS under-samples Soweto and as a consequence, many newspaper titles such as Sowetan & Sunday World are totally under-reported. So, what Avusa has done, in order to better market its own titles, is to produce a study called the Gauteng Wealth Study with a more representative sample in Soweto.
Sound marketing responses from the big media players.
Well it’s the same principle for community radio. The only way community radio will ever get the ammunition they need to sell themselves, is to have a dedicated RAMS diary that comes out annually, with the appropriate sample for community radio.
There is, I believe, quite a simple solution, summed up below …
1] The current 6 RAMS should revert to quarterly diaries. Despite the protestations of commercial broadcasters, there is absolutely no value generated by an additional 2 diaries, which endless report “all quiet on the Western front”, other than entrenching the status quo & protecting existing ad-revenue streams.
2] One of the remaining diaries should be dedicated to community radio (CRAMS), with an appropriately constructed sample that will allow individual stations to stake a reasonable claim to exposure on the average radio schedule. This would be an annual diary and would form the basis of any future marketing of community radio!
To expect community radio to fund CRAMS out of their advertising revenue is unrealistic. They barely have the funds to run themselves, let alone create expensive research. When it comes to CRAMS, the other thing we know one thing for sure, is that the NAB & RAB are not going to push for this solution. After all, why would you feed the baby crocodile that is beginning to think your outstretched hand might make a very good meal one day?
So that leaves the MDDA or some other relevant authority with a stake in, or even responsibility for, growing community radio. Without external funding for CRAMS, either from within the advertising industry or externally, community radio in Mzansi will never get off the ground.
What about the second remaining diary? What the industry needs is a radio diary which is dedicated to improving the quality of data in the major metropolitan areas … Gauteng, Durban & Cape Town. (METRAMS) But that’s another story, so watch out for the next installment in this gripping tale of radio advertising intrigue.
Or brace yourself your another fascinating celebration of “stable listenership” and “things you can still count on” when SAARF release RAMS2011/4 in a few months.

MAD MEN. WHAT SOME WOMEN WANT …

I’ve recently been asked by a leading marketing journal to answer a few questions regarding the media habits of women in Mzansi. “What type of media (newspapers, radio and TV) & programmes are women likely to consume (read, listen to & watch) and why”?
There are two very simple answers to these questions …
1] What types of media are women more likely to consume?
Answer: Women are most likely to consume (i) media that are available to them and (ii) media they are interested in.
2] Why do they consume these media?
Answer: See point 1 above.
Let’s extrapolate from this simple reality of available audience and personal interest …
Women read newspapers they are interested in. Listen to radio stations and programmes they are interested in and watch those TV stations and programmes in which they are interested. Those who are interested in romance and intrigue watch Generations and those who are interested in news apparently watch SABC1 Zulu/ Xhosa News. At least that’s what the numbers from TAMS tell us. Of course women who are interested in tennis, watch Wimbledon (assuming they have DSTV) and those who are interested in crime, watch Medical Detectives (assuming of course they have ETV).
In this respect then, women are precisely like men. Men who are interested in rugby read Sunday Times or Rapport and those who are interested in soccer read Sunday Sun. Men who are interested in cinema go to movies and listen to Barry Ronge & women who are CEOs of companies read Business Day or Financial Mail. This is the essence of media planning, if not life itself. Find out what people are interested in and then talk to them about their interests, in a place they find interesting. It is of course very interesting to note that twice as many women listen to John Robbie as listen to Redi Tlhabi on 702. But hey, that’s available audience for you!
Posing such general questions about the media consumption of women is like watching an American TV ad from the 50s or an episode of Mad Men where female consumers are collectively referred to as “the little woman”. You imply some universality of economic and social circumstance, intellect, and of course media behaviour, which I believe does not do justice to the diversity of the role and interests of women in Mzansi. If I had posed these questions to some of my female advertising students, I’d be shot down in flames. And so should this perspective on media consumption by females.
Oh, by the way! Females who work in advertising are apparently quite interested in watching Mad Men! Strange isn’t it?

Signs of Life or Back to Square One?

Nobody with any real commitment to the media industry in Mzansi has truly enjoyed watching the meltdown at the SABC. The SABC serves an important market sector and we need the commercial arm to be firing on all cylinders. OK. Given the recent developments at Akward Park , perhaps “firing” is an unfortunate turn of phrase. But you understand what I’m saying.
Well, you can imagine my excitement when the first signs of commercial life came this week in the form of guaranteed audience packages for October. In short “SABC Television will guarantee a specific CPP against a pre-determined target market”. There are a few advertisers who have operated on a guaranteed audience/ CPP basis for a while but the broader application of this buying approach signals at least some awareness within the halls of SABC commercial management, that the old “take it or leave approach” to inventory management is over.
There are three packages …
Package 1 (LSM 5-8): R500,000 guarantees TVRS and CPPS as follows:
• 321 TVRS @ R1,558 against all dayparts
• 199 TVRS @ R2,513 against primetime
• 504 TVRS @ R992 against shoulder time
Package 2 (LSM 7-10): R500,000 guarantees TVRS and CPPS as follows:
• 234 TVRS @ R2,136 against all dayparts
• 138 TVRS @ R3,628 against primetime
• 330 TVRS @ R1,514 against shoulder time
Package 3 (LSM 8-10): R500,000 guarantees TVRS and CPPS as follows:
• 156 TVRS @ R3,214 against all dayparts
• 128 TVRS @ R3,914 against primetime
• 197 TVRS @ R2,534 against shoulder time
OK so far so good. Obviously advertisers will have to check these CPP levels against projected levels for conventional SABC discounted buys (because negotiated discounts don’t apply on top of these CPP parameters) but it’s a step in the right direction. Right?
I thought so too until I checked the small print.
Terms and conditions include the fact that “contracts exclude the ability to choose specific environments”, which in this day and age is no small point. After all, viewers call environments programmes and programmes are what they choose to watch or nor watch. I’ve never heard any TV viewers talking about their favourite dayparts.
And of course another relevant fact is that “in the event of SABC TV failing to reach the objectives of the contract for any reason whatsoever, any claim by the advertiser against SABC TV shall be limited to a rebate as prescribed by the advertising code and regulations”. So in other words, if the SABC totally under-delivers and the campaign doesn’t work, the advertiser will get back only the under-delivered portion of the investment. No small consideration.
Even these clauses advertisers can live with. They are, after all, not dissimilar to the clauses governing OATS packages on DSTV.
The one clause that, sadly, leads me to the conclusion that Fawlty Towers has not really come to terms with its loss of status in the market is that these packages only apply “when a terrestrial or complete television exclusivity commitment is signed”. Say what? SABC exclusivity when you are talking to LSM 8-10?
I can’t even think of an animal on National Geographic or Discovery Channel that can bury its head deeper than that.