A case for the ‘weaklings’
Or why Special Interest TV Channels can prove to be recession busters
Enough has been said and written in the recent past of the economic slowdown, the pressure on top line as well as bottom line. As marketers across product and service categories shape and reshape recessionary strategies, the same pressure is also being transferred to their media agencies.
Unfortunately, the approach most media planners take to build strategies does not seem to be adjusting to the new realities of our lives. Instead of looking for pockets of gold mines on the supply side, most of us continue to be driven by demand side frenzy and plan our brands’ activities the way we always have. Fact is, slowdowns and bad times are the best times to question the conventional way and to look for alternative solutions.
Here let’s argue how special interest TV channels such as news, sports, movies, music, and edutainment can provide those gold mines.
The popular thinking at present is skewed in favour of ‘the big and the beautiful’ channels. Most planners still create plans with a pyramid approach-put the biggest channels at the base to build reach, go on putting more and more money on them until reach stops building, or sometimes, until you have got enough money on each channel for you to be able to negotiate good prices, allocate something to the so-called ‘niche’ channels as an experimental investment, to top up the pyramid. Typically, this top-up money is not more than 8-10% of the total investment of the advertiser, if that much. Result: we are forever experimenting with ‘special interest channels’, often called ‘niche’ channels in a dismissive kind of way, without really attempting to realize their pull potential.
Stereotypical thinking helps mass channels
This is the reason why despite a very healthy 25% odd share of prime time viewing, all niche channels put together will probably close the year with 15% of the total TV advertising pie. On the other hand, with a comparable [35%] share of viewing, the top 3 Hindi channels [Star Plus, Sony and Zee] still get anything up to and perhaps more than half of all TV spend of about Rs 2600 Cr [expected 2001 year end figures]. There is nothing drastically wrong with the big, mass channels getting a bigger share of the ad pie, particularly since they provide the biggest block of audience for the biggest ad spenders, namely housewives to consumer goods advertisers. The key question is: how much.
Let’s look at a key recent trend: the share of viewing commanded by the general entertainment channels such as Star Plus and Sony is not increasing. For most audience segments, it has declined by a few percentage points in the last 3-4 months, a clear sign of stabilization. This means general entertainment viewing, from now on, will largely be a zero-sum game; one channel’s gain will necessarily be at the cost of another.
While housewives will continue to patronize the mass entertainment programmes such as soaps, the more evolved of them will move away every now and then to other channels. As many men already do. [That’s why entertainment channels together have a lower share of the total male viewing than that of female viewing]. And that’s our opportunity. The more we can exploit the specialist interest channels, the less we will be held to ransom by the demand side frenzy on mass channels. Here are a few reasons to start critically examining specialist channels.
Who is the audience? If the audience is anyone other than broad spectrum housewives [e.g. SEC ABC] , special interest channels have a case. In the car owning households in the top 6 cities for instance, mass channels have a 28% share of 25+ men audience, while special interest channels have 21%. The corresponding figures in the washing machine owning households are 25% and 18% [INTAM]. Other measures such as skew also prove that niche and upscale audiences lean toward special interest channels more than mass. What does this establish? While mainstream channels still have a higher share of audience, special interest channels do offer a healthy supplement. Fact is, when we buy mass channels for niche audiences [such as men in car owning households, or upscale youth], we pay for the core audience of the medium-women-whether we like it or not. That’s why the full potential of special interest channels must be exhausted before we have to use mass channels.
What is the reach target? High reach targets will necessitate mass channels. If your reach target is moderate [perhaps because your brand is not a number 1 or 2], you can do with very little of mass channels. In early 2000, when the Toyota Qualis was launched, this is the thinking that resulted in the launch plan which had only special interest channels. A healthy 40% reach was achieved at a cost that is often considered miniscule for TV.
How quickly do we want to build reach? The faster we want to build reach, the heavier will be our dependence on mass channels. That’s why specialist channels can play a strong role in continuous advertising requirements. Interestingly, used with smartness, specialist interest channels can also build reach fairly quickly; the secret is in understanding how a particular audience watches which channel and then exploiting that to the brand’s advantage. If the burst is anything over 4 weeks, special interest channels must be used to their fullest.
How clutter cutting is the creative? Very often, special interest channels are described as clutter busters. In a tough market driven by high demand for mass channels, special interest channels sell less commercial time than their bigger cousins. Some channels such as BBC have, in fact, an internal limit on commercial time; they can only sell up to 6 minutes of commercials in every hour, while the bigger channels are allowed up to 10 minutes. This has resulted in a dramatic difference in commercial clutter levels. For instance, the average prime time advertising sold per hour in the last 8 weeks is 3-4 minutes for English News and Sports channels, while it’s anything between 8 and 12 minutes for most general entertainment channels [In fact, ETC sells as much as 18 minutes an hour].
If we do not want to gamble on the clutter cutting ability of the creative, special interest channels score with a cleaner advertising environment. Of course, this is desirable only if low clutter is assumed to be good for message delivery [some opinions differ here, but then that’s another debate].
There are a few other arguments that favour special interest channels that must be mentioned here. Unfortunately, in the absence hard data, these arguments remain largely in the area of judgment and intuition. In that sense, they are still open to debate.
Special Interest Channels are viewed more actively: The active Vs passive viewing debate has not seen any conclusion. I am not even sure whether there is one universal answer to this question. Viewership measurement systems, such as TAM and INTAM, are expected to load in favour of mass channels, because that’s where most of the television viewing [and ad spend] is.
However, custom surveys conducted to measure the habits of upscale audiences, such as the Horizon Study jointly conducted by BBC and Starcom last year, do point to a greater inclination by this audience toward special interest channels.
Until more data is available, we have to take the active viewing argument for what it is: logical and intuitive. Fact is, if the audience is active and involved, up to a certain point, it will receive advertising more favourably.
Special Interest Channels help build a bond with the audience: This is another of those judgmental arguments that has not been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Although names of such channels come up in formal and informal discussions with members of niche audiences, whether recall means bonding is still open to discussion.
These last two debatable points apart, there is a strong and logical case for a thorough examination of the role of special interest channels in plans aimed at niche, particularly upscale audiences.
It requires a lot more work on the part of today’s planners, and an open mind on the part of the advertisers to get the best out of special interest channels.
But then, gold is not available as biscuits on pavements, is it?
[Published in 2002 on agencyfaqs.com]
Or why Special Interest TV Channels can prove to be recession busters
Enough has been said and written in the recent past of the economic slowdown, the pressure on top line as well as bottom line. As marketers across product and service categories shape and reshape recessionary strategies, the same pressure is also being transferred to their media agencies.
Unfortunately, the approach most media planners take to build strategies does not seem to be adjusting to the new realities of our lives. Instead of looking for pockets of gold mines on the supply side, most of us continue to be driven by demand side frenzy and plan our brands’ activities the way we always have. Fact is, slowdowns and bad times are the best times to question the conventional way and to look for alternative solutions.
Here let’s argue how special interest TV channels such as news, sports, movies, music, and edutainment can provide those gold mines.
The popular thinking at present is skewed in favour of ‘the big and the beautiful’ channels. Most planners still create plans with a pyramid approach-put the biggest channels at the base to build reach, go on putting more and more money on them until reach stops building, or sometimes, until you have got enough money on each channel for you to be able to negotiate good prices, allocate something to the so-called ‘niche’ channels as an experimental investment, to top up the pyramid. Typically, this top-up money is not more than 8-10% of the total investment of the advertiser, if that much. Result: we are forever experimenting with ‘special interest channels’, often called ‘niche’ channels in a dismissive kind of way, without really attempting to realize their pull potential.
Stereotypical thinking helps mass channels
This is the reason why despite a very healthy 25% odd share of prime time viewing, all niche channels put together will probably close the year with 15% of the total TV advertising pie. On the other hand, with a comparable [35%] share of viewing, the top 3 Hindi channels [Star Plus, Sony and Zee] still get anything up to and perhaps more than half of all TV spend of about Rs 2600 Cr [expected 2001 year end figures]. There is nothing drastically wrong with the big, mass channels getting a bigger share of the ad pie, particularly since they provide the biggest block of audience for the biggest ad spenders, namely housewives to consumer goods advertisers. The key question is: how much.
Let’s look at a key recent trend: the share of viewing commanded by the general entertainment channels such as Star Plus and Sony is not increasing. For most audience segments, it has declined by a few percentage points in the last 3-4 months, a clear sign of stabilization. This means general entertainment viewing, from now on, will largely be a zero-sum game; one channel’s gain will necessarily be at the cost of another.
While housewives will continue to patronize the mass entertainment programmes such as soaps, the more evolved of them will move away every now and then to other channels. As many men already do. [That’s why entertainment channels together have a lower share of the total male viewing than that of female viewing]. And that’s our opportunity. The more we can exploit the specialist interest channels, the less we will be held to ransom by the demand side frenzy on mass channels. Here are a few reasons to start critically examining specialist channels.
Who is the audience? If the audience is anyone other than broad spectrum housewives [e.g. SEC ABC] , special interest channels have a case. In the car owning households in the top 6 cities for instance, mass channels have a 28% share of 25+ men audience, while special interest channels have 21%. The corresponding figures in the washing machine owning households are 25% and 18% [INTAM]. Other measures such as skew also prove that niche and upscale audiences lean toward special interest channels more than mass. What does this establish? While mainstream channels still have a higher share of audience, special interest channels do offer a healthy supplement. Fact is, when we buy mass channels for niche audiences [such as men in car owning households, or upscale youth], we pay for the core audience of the medium-women-whether we like it or not. That’s why the full potential of special interest channels must be exhausted before we have to use mass channels.
What is the reach target? High reach targets will necessitate mass channels. If your reach target is moderate [perhaps because your brand is not a number 1 or 2], you can do with very little of mass channels. In early 2000, when the Toyota Qualis was launched, this is the thinking that resulted in the launch plan which had only special interest channels. A healthy 40% reach was achieved at a cost that is often considered miniscule for TV.
How quickly do we want to build reach? The faster we want to build reach, the heavier will be our dependence on mass channels. That’s why specialist channels can play a strong role in continuous advertising requirements. Interestingly, used with smartness, specialist interest channels can also build reach fairly quickly; the secret is in understanding how a particular audience watches which channel and then exploiting that to the brand’s advantage. If the burst is anything over 4 weeks, special interest channels must be used to their fullest.
How clutter cutting is the creative? Very often, special interest channels are described as clutter busters. In a tough market driven by high demand for mass channels, special interest channels sell less commercial time than their bigger cousins. Some channels such as BBC have, in fact, an internal limit on commercial time; they can only sell up to 6 minutes of commercials in every hour, while the bigger channels are allowed up to 10 minutes. This has resulted in a dramatic difference in commercial clutter levels. For instance, the average prime time advertising sold per hour in the last 8 weeks is 3-4 minutes for English News and Sports channels, while it’s anything between 8 and 12 minutes for most general entertainment channels [In fact, ETC sells as much as 18 minutes an hour].
If we do not want to gamble on the clutter cutting ability of the creative, special interest channels score with a cleaner advertising environment. Of course, this is desirable only if low clutter is assumed to be good for message delivery [some opinions differ here, but then that’s another debate].
There are a few other arguments that favour special interest channels that must be mentioned here. Unfortunately, in the absence hard data, these arguments remain largely in the area of judgment and intuition. In that sense, they are still open to debate.
Special Interest Channels are viewed more actively: The active Vs passive viewing debate has not seen any conclusion. I am not even sure whether there is one universal answer to this question. Viewership measurement systems, such as TAM and INTAM, are expected to load in favour of mass channels, because that’s where most of the television viewing [and ad spend] is.
However, custom surveys conducted to measure the habits of upscale audiences, such as the Horizon Study jointly conducted by BBC and Starcom last year, do point to a greater inclination by this audience toward special interest channels.
Until more data is available, we have to take the active viewing argument for what it is: logical and intuitive. Fact is, if the audience is active and involved, up to a certain point, it will receive advertising more favourably.
Special Interest Channels help build a bond with the audience: This is another of those judgmental arguments that has not been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Although names of such channels come up in formal and informal discussions with members of niche audiences, whether recall means bonding is still open to discussion.
These last two debatable points apart, there is a strong and logical case for a thorough examination of the role of special interest channels in plans aimed at niche, particularly upscale audiences.
It requires a lot more work on the part of today’s planners, and an open mind on the part of the advertisers to get the best out of special interest channels.
But then, gold is not available as biscuits on pavements, is it?
[Published in 2002 on agencyfaqs.com]
posted by Ravi Kiran @ 4:17 AM
0 comments
