Erwin Ephron

In Scheduling TV, We Have Fewer Options Than We Think

Media planners are naive. Like Captain Kirk, we assume if we can think it, we can make it so. We are choreographers, who do not understand the limits imposed by nature. Why else would we try to teach the elephant to tap dance?

In this homily, television is the elephant, scheduling is the dance. We begin with the simple idea that advertising works by informing and reminding. We look to brand experience and learning theory to help us find the best communication pattern to inform and remind. The key question is: "Are we better off reaching less people more often, or more people less often with our message?" It’s the familiar choice between reach and frequency.

In the following example, we assume a low-level of weekly repetition each week is best for the brand. For convenience, I’ve expressed that pattern as a set of numbers called a "response function." It shows the value of each exposure.

In this example, which does no violence to reality, the first exposure has a value of 0.25, the second has a value of 0.60, the third has a value of 0.10, and all additional exposures have little value.

Translated into media terms, our response function calls for a weekly frequency of two, because that is the frequency group with the highest value. In fact, a frequency of two is the recommended level in the 1995 ANA guide, "Advertising Reach and Frequency."

The paradox is, we cannot buy a frequency of two cost-effectively. That frequency group exists only as part of a larger frequency distribution. And the shape of that distribution is dictated by how people view television, not by what planners think.

Since 25 percent of TV viewers do 50 percent of all TV viewing, a schedule bought to reach many viewers twice will waste most of its impressions reaching some viewers three, four, five and six times.

Reach Produces Frequency

Now, a surprise. That also means the familiar formula Reach x Frequency equals GRP’s, although mathematically correct, is terribly misleading. It suggests Reach/Frequency is a zero-sum game. It isn’t. They are co-dependent. As reach increases, frequency must increase also.

One hundred GRP’s can buy a 50 reach at an average frequency of 2.0. But it can’t buy a 70 reach at a frequency of 1.3, because television doesn’t work that way. A 70 reach will usually require a frequency closer to 3.0 and more than 200 GRP’s.

It is the co-dependent relationship between reach and frequency that makes our old approach to planning it flawed. We consider reach more valuable than frequency (a principle of recency planning), but we often act as if high reach or high frequency goals carry no penalty.

They do. And that severely limits our scheduling options. Planning for a high reach or frequency invariably costs more than it’s worth. Both goals build very high frequency among the heavy viewing group, which adds little communication value. And both burn GRP’s quickly, which results in far fewer weeks of advertising.

Because television is what it is, the best scheduling solution for any brand is more weeks of advertising at moderate weekly reach goals, regardless of the presumed value of frequency.

Scotty to Kirk: "Sorry Captain. The old girl just can’t do tap."

I hope you’re having a fine summer.

The analysis in this letter was prepared with the able assistance of Melissa Heath of Kantar Media Research.