The World is less Black and White than we think

The issue of whether to have one readership survey or more has its answer as much in practicality as in philosophy.

In seeking answer to this oft asked question, we must remember that the fundamental goal of a readership survey is to provide all stakeholders – marketers, agencies and media owners - a common reference in understanding consumer behaviour – both at a point in time as well as change over time. Sure, readership studies are used for buying selling discussions, but if we subjugate the knowledge enabling goal to the trading and transaction goal, we become vulnerable to our individual interests rather than serve the greater good of the industry.

The debate on one study versus two is for the reader to see in the two points of view above, and I feel in their own way, both the points of view are valid. However, when it comes to practice, often the market and cultural context decides what the stake holders and users accept. This is important because acceptability of any syndicated study is the most important contributor to it being the ‘currency’. If we have two studies available, but one is used disproportionately more than the other, we only have one currency. We can never lose of this.

So what makes a study gain high acceptance and usage? I think three things: SIMPLICITY, CREDIBILITY and CONSISTENCY. All these are important, since unlike basic researches such as those in Mathematics or Physics, all consumer research is finally an input to taking business decisions. If a research does not score well on each of these three dimensions, sooner or later it will fall to disuse, regardless of boardroom decisions taken for the industry to accept one versus the other.

So between one versus two studies, what does our cultural context make us lean towards? When I look objectively, I see that ours is a society that favours debate over consensus, balance between contrasting points of view rather than unified belief in one. Which is why we are a great example of a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-belief, oligopolistic society. Can a single currency system survive for long here? I don’t think so. In Singapore, yes. But in India? Not likely.

Look at what has happened to TV ratings. We moved from two parallel systems to one nearly a decade ago. While TAM has served the needs of the whole industry for all these years, we have been hearing the murmurs about a second system for a while now. The uneasiness is sometimes quite palpable. We know it costs a lot to support two parallel systems, but it often looks like some people wouldn’t mind risking it. Some of us may brand the cry for a second TV rating system a political manoeuvre by some interested stake holders, but perhaps what is at play here is our culture driven need for an opposing point of view. A consensus may be comforting and practical to some, but highly unnerving to others.

We are discussing merging the two readership studies now and the debate is alive. Leaving philosophy out for a moment, it appears to be the practical thing to do, given that one of the two – IRS – scores on all the three dimensions I mentioned above and already enjoys strong user acceptance and the other had gone through its challenges. Will our need for the Yang go away, even after we have merged the two? I don’t think so. But perhaps we can rely on the internal Yang, our balancing force, that which stops us from letting the one study go off track and our not having a reference point. The Technical Committee of IRS, with committed member constituents from all stake holder groups, and which has kept the IRS product credible for years, sometimes at great risk of being criticized by many, is that Yang.

Despite my natural tendency to recommend continuation of two studies, today I side with the one study camp. I simultaneously recommend a strong industry oversight of that one study, under users and not just financiers. I urge us all to rise above our legacy leanings and focus on strengthening IRS even further, under whatever name it may suit us.

I feel that as an industry, we have a responsibility to put knowledge creation ahead of transactional convenience, and encourage our young brand managers, planners, buyers and sellers to put their faith in data and insights, rather than allow them to get caught in transactional discussions [mainly around inclusion of a publication in a marketing plan and pricing] alone. It is my belief that not even 50% of the capability of data available today is leveraged to gain insights into consumer behaviour. This is the challenge we need to attack.

 

[written for the Brand Reporter, Nov 2009]

Blogged with the Flock Browser