OCT 9, 2008
Do Reach and Frequency Still Matter?
Suzanne 
0 commentsManaging Partner
When I entered the media business, it was a generally accepted advertising principle that an effective media campaign would generate, at a minimum, 50% reach among the target audience, with an average frequency of three times. Well, that was back when there were three major television networks and local radio stations could boast double-digit shares. Since then, there have been many changes, and we can no longer count on a single medium to provide the reach we believe is necessary to effectively move our target audience to action.
Of course, the biggest change, and the one most written about, is the onset of consumer interaction with the internet and online advertising (and therefore, less time spent with traditional media). But, if we think it’s hard to deliver a sizeable audience on TV due to the sheer number of channels from which to choose (and whether our audience is a cable or satellite subscriber), then the number of websites staggers the mind–the fragmentation seems endless, so how can we expect to reach a sizeable portion of our audience anywhere? Or do we even want to?
Perhaps it is wasteful to use mass media and more effective to conduct our marketing efforts based on one-on-one customer relationships. Maybe the shotgun, mass market approach is only for those too lazy to embrace the brave new world of marketing. Certainly "mass media" is not as concentrated as it once was. Some media would have us believe that all traditional media is dying, if not dead, and we’d better get on the new media bandwagon if we’re to survive and prosper. So, why is it that companies are still spending a majority of their advertising budgets on television (network, cable, syndication and local), and under 7% on internet? Are we stupid, or just stubborn?
The answer is not the same for everyone, and one truth that no one wants to hear is that there’s not one correct solution to any particular marketing challenge. There are as many creative options for addressing an advertising campaign as the mind can invent (not all equally good, to be sure), and nearly as many media options. The bottom-line is, if we abandon traditional advertising in favor of a more interactive, relationship-centered strategy, we take a risk.
Mass media has long been the cornerstone of advertising because it is cost-efficient. And, if you have a powerful message delivered in an engaging way, people still take notice (although we may have to rethink that whole 3-frequency thing). If an advertiser is still willing and able to effectively utilize some of the traditional mediums, it paves the way for a more CRM approach; that is, potential customers have been exposed to your product, message, etc. in a favorable way, and they think they might want to get to know you better.
Now is the time to make a more direct contact with them (e-mail, while they’re Googling a related subject, etc.). You'll pay more per contact now, but they’ve been first primed for your communication, and to some extent qualified, making a positive outcome more likely. Now we have power–both the ability to "reach" a large number of our potential customers at one time, with the amount of "frequency" necessary to make us memorable–now they're ready to interact with us–and maybe, if we've done everything right, we'll develop a relationship with them that is mutually beneficial and sustainable.
