Returns all questions and responses for the year.
Hi! I recently moved from working in television advertising sales in Australia (Perth) to TV ad sales in America (New York). In terms of impressions, in Australia the :15 impressions and :30 impressions would be the same within the same program. Since I have moved I have found in the US, the units are ‘equivalized’ so that a :15 is valued at half the impressions of a :30 commercial. Can you explain why this is and why this is different between countries? Thank you!
This is not a matter of US vs Australia; it is about dealing with separate issues:
I\’m working on an FMCG campaign where brand health are primary KPIs. We\’ve determined that continuity/weeks-on-air and maximizing 1+ wkly reach are best practice. However, when we must choose between adding weeks (fewer hiatus) or adding reach to existing weeks, do you have recommendation (possibly research?) about which normally is the better choice? Similarly, do you have recommendations (or research) on whether we should set a min weekly reach target below which we should not bother investing in that week? Our hypothesis is that while while in theory reach of any sort drives business, reach below x% may not have enough business impact to be measurable and thus may not be worth pursuing.
This is really an issue of continuity. Ephron’s theory is that for FMCG, the most recent impression at the time of a purchase decision is the effective one, in other words, being there is the key. Commonly, 30% is considered a minimum reach level for this.