In his report from WARC Media Research 2008, Admap columnist Manfred Mareck looks back at what he learned from the Conference, discussing issues ranging from the search for a single media currency, if it is possible to prove return on investment and engaging with consumers.

Morning session: the search for a single currency

The conference opened with a 50 minute panel discussion, moderated by the Conference chairman, BBC presenter and analyst Nick Higham. Mark Cross, Communications Planning Director at the COI, Mark Greenstreet, joint Managing Director of Aegis Media, Alki Manias, Managing Director of YouGovCentaur, and Andrew Walmsley, founding partner of online media agency I-Level, were quizzed on key issues concerning the state of the media research industry.

There seemed to be much agreement between the panellists even on issues – forgive my naivety – that I thought weren’t really any issue. Everybody, for example, agreed that the search for a grand single currency was a hopeless task, doomed to fail from the beginning.

There’s not going to be a Ministry of Measurement, as Andrew Walmsley thankfully assured us; mega-surveys that set out to prove everything to everybody tend to collapse under their own technical (and financial) complexity; and the much talked-about Project Apollo in the US is a prime example that never really got off the pilot stage and was finally laid to rest earlier this week .

Thus, it seems, individual currencies will prevail for the time being not least because the communications model varies from (media) channel to channel, which, according to Mark Greenstreet, makes nonsense of attempts to develop a unified measurement. What is required is better consumer insight, which the currencies do not always deliver (Alki Manias), who pleads for more qualitative data.

Similarly Mark Cross, who sees industry currencies primarily as a tool for vendors and buyers to trade space or air time but feels strongly that such quantitative data may show relationships between channels but is ill suited to explain them.

Proving return on investment

All the panellists promoted the need for better multi-media measurement and improved understanding of the synergies of different channel combinations, and for more overlap between the main data sources to get the bigger picture across channels. Measuring effectiveness and ROI is what everybody wants, but given the commercially sensitive nature of clients’ communications objectives, such studies must by definition be bespoke undertakings that cannot be solved by an industry-wide JIC approach.

One recurring issue for researchers is how to make their efforts more relevant to business managers, and how to drive the integration of marketing into the management of an enterprise. One solution was presented by Mike Bambrick, Client Services Director of Integration IMC. Their tool, Market Conduct Audit (MCA™) has been used to measure thousands of brands across many categories and companies. Unlike other approaches, such as market mix modelling, which rely heavy on expensive consulting, MCA can be managed by end users themselves.

A core element if MCA are two metrics: contact clout factor (CCF) measures the influence of contact points on consumers’ brand choice, and brand experience points (BEP) measures how much brands are achieving with each contact. Marketing expenditure (for example in ‘mass media’ or direct marketing programmes) can be plotted against the achieved BEP and sales levels to determine the effectiveness of various programmes.

So far so good, but, as Laura Chaibi (Research Manager at Orange) pointed out, clients are generally reluctant to share sensitive financial data with research companies, or even their advertising agency. I always felt that this was the key weakness in the whole public ROI debate: if the true communications goal for example is to increase profit margins (maybe by improving brand image and perception, which in turn reduces the need for discounting) discussion of the results is likely going to be limited to boardroom level executives.

Ethnography and engagement

Clare Abley (Head of Insight at Associated Newspapers Group) presented findings from the Newspaper Marketing Agency and Associated’s own ethnographic research, which points to the need to create multiple touch points between a brand and consumers. She shared results achieved by using synergies of various combinations of multi-channel programmes (newspapers plus TV, newspapers plus online, etc) and the different role media channels play when consumers make buying decisions for various product categories.

Robert Passikoff, president of New York based Brand Keys Inc., not only presented his own credentials as a much-quoted author and recent ARF Award recipient, but also Brand Keys’ own C-MEE (or Cross Media Engagement Evaluation) tool.

As is so often the case with these type of (sales) presentations, details on methodology are a little thin on the ground, but it apparently it all works very well for clients and allows to isolate the individual contribution of each media channel on campaign objectives, such as engagement enhancement.

Jason Gonsalves, who is the Engagement Planning Director at BBH, took a different (and personally much welcomed) approach to the engagement debate. According to him engagement is mainly driven by the art of creativity that is successful if it can emotionally connect with the target group.

Just like art, good brand communication should stop people in their tracks and demand a reaction. I’m convinced he is right. The surrounding (editorial) context delivered by media channels probably makes a modest contribution to help an ad to create impact and engagement, but if the creative is poor to start with no media environment will overcome that weakness.

OMD’s head of Strategy, Toby Roberts used his agency’s Influence Pathway study to determine a wide range of purchase influence factors (such as recommendations, advertising, in-store display, previous experience etc) and their relative importance for specific product categories or even brands. This is achieved by fusing TGI and Influence data.

Afternoon session: speed learning

The afternoon session followed a very different format. Instead of yet another formal presentation, after lunch ‘speed learning’ was the order of the day for the delegates. A number of smaller round table sessions on specific issues were organised to run in parallel and each of these sessions was repeated four times (I’m not sure how much the presenters of each topic enjoyed that).

This was a good idea, but I had to be selective which four of the seven sessions to attend. On offer were: Internet Measurement, lead by Peter Bowman, General Manager of JICIMS; Magazines (James Papworth, Head of Marketing & Strategy at IPC Magazines); Industry Projects (the IPA’s Research Manager Belinda Beeftink); Radio (Adam Bowie, Head of Strategy & Planning, Virgin Radio); TV (David Brennan, Research & Strategy Director at Thinkbox) and Outdoor, which actually got two tables allocated, one lead by CBS Outdoor’s Research Manager, James Gough, the other by Andy Pang, Marketing & Research Manager at Clear Channel Outdoor.

In the end, I opted for Online, Magazines, Outdoor (the Clear Channel version), and Industry Projects.

So what did I learn?

• On the online front, the ad industry’s youngest JIG, JICIMS (Joint Industry Committee for Internet Measurement Systems) is now pretty well set up. In 2006, it decided to tag-on to the NRS to gather information for an Internet Establishment survey. It was a clever move to get valuable data a relatively low cost, and to bring JICIMS future online universe projections in line with the NRS. My only query is why a medium that appeals not just to adults but also very much to pre-teens would chose as its base a universe of adults 15 plus.
• IPC Magazines showcased a web-based creative ad testing service (developed by MediaAnalyzer, a specialist research firm in Hamburg) which it offers its key advertisers. I should probably declare an interest here, as MediaAnalyzer is a client of mine. What always surprises me that in these age of accountability and demand for effectiveness only a very small percentage of print ads are being tested.
• Clear Channel presented a number of their case studies that demonstrate the power of the outdoor medium. Some of these were more convincing than others; one, in particular, seemed to prove the influence of good PR rather then the power of digital billboards, but in general that case for outdoor and posters was well made.
• Finally, to Industry Projects (yes – plural), which turned out to be a review of the IPA’s TouchPoints 1 and TouchPoints 2 studies, so strictly speaking the title of the session was correct. For TouchPoints 2, due to be published in early summer, large sections of the questionnaire have been re-vamped to provide an even richer insight into the mood, the media usage and other activities of consumers. The methodology itself as well as the integration of the various industry currencies with the TouchPoints Hub survey will remain more or less the same.

Generally speaking, the sessions were both useful and informative but, at least in the four groups I attended, the ‘speakers’ used up most of their allocated 30 minute slots for their presentations, leaving hardly any time for questions, discussion or dialogue, which round-table sessions are really all about.

Moving media research forward

There was more audience participation during the final session, during which Lynne Robinson (Research Director at the IPA) and Denise Turner (Head of Insight & Effectiveness MPG/Havas) encouraged delegates to list key issues that need to be addressed to move media research forward.

There wasn’t all that much synergy as most delegates voiced different priorities, but a couple of themes did come up more frequently: Issues regarding survey methodology (including sampling, response rates and compliance, memory-based vs. ‘passive’ measurement) was one; another was the call for more skill development and training for end-users of data.

Last, but not least, the research industry could do with a little more PR to improve clients’ understanding of its value and contribution, mainly to get more funding and to educate those who commission studies of the need for better briefs and clearer objectives. Oh – and one delegate’s priority was a plea for better salaries, but I shall refrain from naming names.

Thanks for checking in to our Media Research blog.

I'm pleased to say that Manfred Mareck will be blogging this year's event for us.

Manfred is somewhat of a veteran of the WARC conference blogs, having helped before on a range of occasions including ESOMAR's WM3 and the MRS's Annual Conference, in addition to writing a monthly column in our magazine, Admap.

Check back here on Thursday next week for his first-hand account of the day.

And meantime, you may like to refresh your memory of our last Media Research event, when Andrew Green was at the blogging helm.