By Michael Solomon
SVP, Media Audit Operations

Earlier this year – in the span of less than one week – two of the major advertising agency holding companies announced new barter media service offerings: WPP’s GroupM introduced “Midas Exchange”, and less than a week later Havas also announced plans to launch a barter division.

WPP and Havas thus joined other major agency holding companies Omnicom (ICON), Aegis (Carat Trade) and Interpublic Group (Orion Trading) in offering competition to the likes of independent barter firms such as Active International and Argent Trading.

With all of this activity afoot, the blindingly obvious question is “Why?” And of course, the even-more-blindingly obvious answer is “To make more money.” There certainly is nothing surprising about for-profit businesses trying to profit – and of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, either. Agency holding companies also no doubt view an internal barter offering as insurance against the loss of buying assignments for existing clients to external barter entities.

The basic promise of the barter-for-media model is that clients will obtain the same media and comparable quality for a combination of (less) cash plus barter credits obtained in return for unwanted items (distressed product, etc.). Barter firms do not disclose what they pay to media vendors – as a client, you only know what you pay the barter firm. The proposition, however, is that so long as your cost to the barter firm is acceptable, then perhaps you can live with not knowing what they are paying the media properties. Most barter professionals will tell you that non-disclosure is an essential element of the barter model (and that vendors would not be willing to participate otherwise).

On Barter For Media
As our clients and any agency we’ve ever worked with can attest, at MMI we are 100% agency neutral. Some individual buys may post better than others, some may be more efficient, and some more compliant to buying guidelines. Some processes are in alignment with best practice, and some are not. But when it comes to media accountability our evaluation of performance is 100% fact-based, and we make no assumptions going in to an engagement.

This same neutrality extends to barter firms and holding company trade divisions. We have extensive experience auditing barter buys, and our approach does not waver. As an advocate for advertisers, we would certainly be supportive of a model which provides clients the option to receive the same media buy for a combination of less cash and the trade of unwanted product, unused resources, bad debt, etc.

As such, you will not find here a condemnation of barter for media, a treatise on its potential pitfalls, or a cautionary tale about working with barter firms. Rather, we provide a brief discussion of barter within the context of media accountability: delivery, efficiency, compliance.

As an advertiser, what do you have the right to expect from a barter-for-media initiative?

Expectations: The Obvious
Often, client expectations are set by the barter firms themselves in advance of the assignment. Some common statements:

• Same audience delivery expectations and guarantees as all cash buys
• Comparable qualitative elements (client’s desired vehicles, dayparts, etc.) – not just “undesirable” or “remnant” media
• Same cost as an all-cash buy (but for a combination of less cash and barter credits)
• Compliance to client’s buying guidelines, buy specifications and added value expectations
• When applicable, same option terms, guarantee structures, etc. as comparable cash buys
• Clout and experience comparable to traditional buying services
• Work with client’s advertising or media agency to assure that pricing and delivery expectations are met and buys are approved

All one need do is visit websites for the likes of Active International or ICON International, Inc. and find items such as the above spelled out in black and white as confirmation that these are indeed exactly the kinds of expectations which barter firms are setting for themselves in the marketplace.

Although these items are straightforward, often clients do not establish a plan or methodology for assessing whether or not these elements have been delivered upon.

• Did your schedule deliver? Who will assess, and what methodology will they utilize? Who is responsible for identifying and recovering any owed audience weight (compensation for delivery shortfalls), and what are the timing and qualitative expectations for audience recovery TRPs?
• How have costs been negotiated with the barter firm, and how will actual cost performance be assessed (and again, by whom)?
• Has the activity met your expectations in terms of quality, vehicles utilized, daypart mix, guideline compliance, delivery of added value, etc.? How is this to be evaluated and quantified?

Without a plan to appropriately evaluate performance, clients are left in the position of deciding whether or not the effort was successful (and worth repeating) without having sufficient information to make such a judgment.

Expectations: The Less Obvious
When it comes to barter media initiatives, clients are of course most interested in delivery, price, and quality. No doubt because of this, the barter firms tend to focus their assurances in these areas.

There is often substantially less discussion surrounding how the buys will be managed, stewarded, posted and reconciled. To be fair, these same areas are often the ones where clients have the least visibility and understanding when it comes to their traditional media agencies.

If the barter media proposition is essentially “the same media for the same price, with a combination of less cash plus barter credits” with the only limitation being that unit and package level costs with vendors will not be disclosed, than expectations with regards to buy management, stewardship, and reconciliation should be no different than they are for traditional media buys. Clients should expect the same best practices be applied to the management and reconciliation of their barter buys as to their cash buys – particularly given the resources and industry experience cited by the major barter firms, coupled with the fact that many of them are owned by one of the primary agency holding companies.

What does this mean? As a client, some questions to consider asking:

• Will an electronic media buying platform be employed to manage and reconcile buys, and will buys go into the platform on an individual unit level to facilitate tight schedule management and minimize risk of undesired changes?
• Will ratings (delivery) be estimated on a unit level, and will this estimated delivery be housed in the buying platform so that buyers can course-correct, secure in-flight ADU, and transparently assess delivery vs. guarantees?
• Will schedules of invoiced units be brought into the buying platform and matched against buys to ensure only buyer-approved units are accepted?
• Will a post be supplied? When? Who will generate it? What methodology will be employed? How does this compare to the practices of the client’s traditional agency?
• How quickly will audience shortfalls be identified, and within what timetable will restitution be received? Will the barter firm assume responsibility for making whole any delivery deficiencies?
• For barter units within agency holding companies, will buys be managed using the same software and protocols that the company’s “traditional” media agencies utilize?
• What role will the advertiser’s traditional media agency play in the process? How will it be compensated?

Why Worry About the Little Things?
If an advertiser is able to secure the obvious, important items … then why worry about delivery estimates, buying platforms, invoice matching, and the like? If the barter firm shows that it met objectives on delivery, pricing, and compliance then shouldn’t that be enough?

As specialists in media accountability, we at MMI would argue that it is precisely the transparency and accountability resulting from excellent buy management and stewardship which provide advertisers with the ability to fully assess – independently if they so choose – whether the barter firm (or any media agency for that matter) truly met expectations on delivery, price, and quality. As such, advertisers should expect nothing less.

Media Management, Inc. (MMI) is pleased to announce Darce Johnson as its new Associate Engagement Lead, Consulting Services and Digital Media Specialist.

In her new position, Ms. Johnson brings with her deep experience in interactive media where she has been a Senior Account Executive for InterActive Corp. (IAC). Her experience includes outside sales/account management with an emphasis on helping clients build interactive media efforts including analytics and optimization. Prior to IAC, she worked in similar capacities for Reynolds & Reynolds (automotive) and in print with Time Inc. and Puget Sound Business Journal.

Darce will assist MMI management in leading the charge to evolve MMI’s digital media offerings as part of the company’s broad suite of media accountability services. Darce is an accomplished media professional with knowledge and experience in counseling advertisers on a variety of interactive media optimization strategies. She brings to MMI in-depth expertise in internet advertising and mobile advertising concepts, including SEO/SEM principles and execution, analytics and metrics, social media applications, CPC/CPM, local search, geo-targeting, cap utilization, content, review control, and monetization.

“As North America’s leading media audit firm, MMI has set the standard in media accountability, providing advertisers with comprehensive media stewardship, benchmarking and performance assessment support. Darce’s addition to the MMI Team will allow us to build upon our strong track record of client satisfaction, while increasing client utilization of MMI’s media audit and best practice consulting services” says MMI’s Founder and CEO, Thomas Bridge.

“MMI’s continued expansion in the digital media arena demonstrates our commitment to leadership, helping advertisers to stay on the leading edge of media performance optimization” adds MMI Chief Media & Research Officer, Larry Goldstein.

An Idaho native, Darce is a graduate from Pacific University where she earned an B.A in English. Darce lives in Seattle, WA with her husband, Jeff, their five children and dog Yogi, a beautiful Rhodesian Ridgeback.

About MMI
Media Management, Inc. (www.mediaaudit.com) is a completely independent media auditing/consulting firm, headquartered in St. Louis offering genuine objectivity with no vested interest in the outcomes of their audits. MMI audits in excess of $5Billon in advertiser investments annually for its client base including 16 of Ad Age’s “Top 100” advertisers, leading advertisers in the automotive, financial services, consumer packaged goods, retail, restaurant, and entertainment sectors. The firm is currently celebrating its 15th year in “Setting the Standard for Media Accountability®.”

by Lisa Rubenstein
Engagement Lead – Audit Services

Do you feel swept away by the rush to plan and the drama of the TV Upfront season? It’s that time of year again and with your agency you are making the decision whether or not to participate in the Upfront. Do not let history or agency assumptions be your only guide; budget flexibility, pricing, accountability, and more will be affected. Read on for the critical questions that will help you take stock of the negotiating marketplace that will meet your needs this year.

Overview: Upfront versus Scatter
Upfront is a term that describes the practice of buying and selling of national TV advertising time on an annual basis for the October-September broadcast year. This marketplace begins each May with TV networks’ presentations of new season programming and ends (usually) with orders placed at the end of summer. (Worth noting, Upfront may also refer to some annual advertising deals made on a calendar year basis.) The term Upfront has come to imply deal structures based on many of the benefits of participation, most notably pricing advantages and impressions guarantees. However, these benefits as well as numerous other terms are subject to negotiation.

The big ad agencies achieve marketplace clout by bundling together the annual budgets of all their clients and participating in the Upfront. Press in May and June covers much posturing from both agencies and networks, and any changes in the way TV is negotiated are up for discussion. (Consider for instance, the industry-wide conversion from Live to C3 ratings which began with the 2007-08 Upfront; see separate MMI white papers on ratings currencies and DVR trends.)

Scatter, another option, represents the buying and selling of advertising on a shorter-term basis. Scatter advertising can be negotiated and ordered at any point in time and has historically (though not always) been characterized by pricing premiums (vs. Upfront) and sporadic impressions guarantees.

Seasonal advertisers who buy TV only a few weeks of the year, or advertisers who place a higher priority on budget and media flexibility than marketplace pricing may choose to buy in the Scatter market.

You may also want to keep in mind Upfront participation is not an “all or nothing” decision. You can negotiate only key dayparts, or only a portion of your budget. Ask the following questions from an overall as well as a key daypart/base campaign perspective.

1. Am I able to project spending to any degree six quarters out (i.e. through September of next year) and am I typically a multi-quarter advertiser?
   • If so, you are likely a good candidate for participation in the Upfront. This may be an option for you even if you do not advertise all four quarters and even if your media plans are incomplete or subject to change.
2. Is low pricing my top priority for this investment? Do I have a low CPM “Base” I need to protect?
   • One of the key benefits of Upfront participation is pricing. Costs-per-Thousand impressions (CPMs) are the currency of TV buying, and a trend for a standard demographic in Primetime Network and Cable shows the Scatter market to demand a pricing premium in at least eight of the past twelve quarters. As was the case in many business sectors, mid-2009 proved to be an anomaly in National TV – where Scatter pricing was lower than Upfront.

   

   • Many advertisers who have been consistently buying TV Upfront for years have established what is known as a low “Base”. Their negotiations focus on mitigating CPM inflation year-over-year, and they enjoy CPMs that routinely beat industry benchmarks (for example, consumer packaged goods or automotives). In order to maintain these “grandfathered” rates, an advertiser has to be a continuously active Upfront advertiser on each given network. (At negotiation time, agency may also refer to “protecting a base” as rationale for continuing to buy a network or “resetting a base” as justification for opting not to buy one.)
3. How much of a priority is financial flexibility to my organization?
   • Upfront participation requires budget estimates to be provided to the agency by early spring in order to be well prepared to negotiate in May. These budgets must then be committed by August.
   • Most Upfront contracts do, however, include Cancellation Options for later quarters. For an advertiser who requires budget flexibility, the most favorable possible terms can be an integral part of the negotiation. The percent of dollars cancellable, required notification dates, and absence of CPM penalties for budget reductions, and even “expansion clauses” providing CPM protection for budget increases are all areas for consideration. (It should be noted that an advertiser who constantly orders and then cancels will likely lose leverage over time.) The example below shows a typical scenario (note that option percentages and lead time vary between broadcast and cable and even by individual cable network or ownership group).
   • Assessments of performance in the Upfront negotiations frequently center on CPM increases, but when an agency is able to leverage budgets and/or market conditions to improve its client’s position in these areas, the benefit to the advertiser may be substantial.
   • Conversely, your organization may make a conscious decision to hold budgets for later Scatter negotiation if there is a financial benefit to the company that outweighs the anticipated pricing premiums.

	4Q09	1Q10	2Q10	3Q10	Total Budget
Budget:	$20,000,000	$10,000,000	$15,000,000	$5,000,000	$50,000,000
Notice Date:	8/1/10	10/1/10	1/1/11	4/1/11
% Firm:	100%	75%	50%	50%	75%
$ Firm:	$20,000,000	$7,500,000	$7,500,000	$2,500,000	$37,500,000
% Cancelable:	0%	25%	50%	50%	25%
$ Cancelable:	$0	$2,500,000	$7,500,000	$2,500,000	$12,500,000

4. Are impressions guarantees a priority? Are guarantees structured favorably for my organization?
   • Typically, Upfront buys are guaranteed to 100% on an annual basis. Quarterly “guidelines”, or goals, may be stated, but network accountability is actionable only after the completion of the final quarter. It is incumbent upon your agency to appropriately steward impressions to be delivered when you need them within what is a longer-term network obligation.
   • Scatter buys are not always guaranteed. However, this is negotiable, and the greater the investment on a network the more leverage the agency has. Economic conditions (supply and demand) also play a role.
   • Broadcast Network Scatter is rarely guaranteed (though may be negotiated to roll up with an Upfront, another Scatter quarter, or another brand within the same parent company).
   • In contrast, Cable Scatter is often guaranteed, since with the breadth of networks available the agency has good negotiating leverage to demand it.
   • Where Scatter buys are guaranteed, the advertiser benefits from immediate actionability of any audience shortfall restitution due.
5. Do I place a high priority on advertising in or sponsoring specific or high-profile programming?
   • Upfront advertisers typically receive first pick of the most valuable TV inventory, or programs. If your strategy calls for advertising focused in specific shows or high-rated, “watercooler” content, you are well served to reserve this time via the Upfront.
   • Further, if you are seeking associations with programming that go beyond commercial time (i.e. sponsorships, product integrations), you will likely be required to make an annual or Upfront commitment.
   • For Scatter advertisers, high-profile programming is sometimes more subject to availability. Of course, the longer the lead-time, the better chance there is of securing desirable inventory or being able to negotiate more of it into your network package.

As with most investment decisions, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each TV negotiation type is critical. The appropriate scenario or mix of Upfront vs. Scatter for a given advertiser may change from year to year based on marketing plans, economic conditions, budget issues, competitive situations, and a variety of other factors. Advertisers should assure that their agencies have an appropriate understanding of conditions which might impact buying strategy, and they should expect their agency to provide an informed assessment of market conditions and a thoughtful, detailed recommendation regarding the best course of action leading in to each year. Anything less risks opportunity costs (sub-optimal inflationary management, lost flexibility, etc.) which few advertisers can afford.

By Michael Solomon
SVP, Media Audit Operations

Every advertiser should be able to answer the MMI 3 Questions™ with regards to their media investment:

1. Did I get what I paid for? (Delivery)
2. Did I pay a reasonable price? (Efficiency)
3. Were my buys managed according to my specifications? (Responsibility)

The questions are very straightforward, and any organization which is investing money in advertising certainly has the right to have them answered – and to have total confidence in the answers.

Despite the apparent simplicity of the questions, however, many advertisers struggle to obtain answers to them.  In many of our engagements, we also find that organizations which believe they have a clear idea of their performance in these areas actually do not at all.

Why are such simple questions often so tough for organizations to accurately address?

We find that advertisers and their agencies often fall prey to gaps in one or more of three key areas, rendering timely, unambiguous and accurate media performance assessments difficult, if not impossible.

Clear Performance Criteria, Understood by All

In order to adequately assess media performance, it is crucial to have first established the benchmarks by which it will be evaluated.  Some key considerations:

• Based on client business objectives
• Shaped by industry best practices
• Informed by historical client performance
• Defined via measurable, quantifiable metrics
• Communicated clearly and consistently to all relevant client, agency and media property representatives
• Consequences (for not meeting criteria) and/or any compensation (for meeting or exceeding them) to each party plainly identified in appropriate detail
• Timetables and detailed protocol for reporting, providing restitution, confirming receipt of restitution, etc. all clearly defined

Straightforward, Airtight Measurement Methodology

Even clear, considered performance criteria may not render useful results if specific evaluation methodology is not established up front, in great detail.

• Resource for performance data?
• Methodology for performance measurement for each metric (posting methodology, etc.)?
• Benchmarks to be used for each assessment?
• Specific conditions under which activity can be excluded by either party from the evaluation (late approvals, etc.)?
• Agency and advertiser have a full disclosure relationship?
• Agency and media vendors managing data responsibly and transparently, such that visibility into performance on a granular level is possible in the first place?
• Methodology for validating and valuing added value, bonus weight, etc.?
• Responsibility for executing the evaluation and reporting the results (i.e. a neutral 3^rd party)?

Timely, Accurate Performance Reporting

The key to answering the MMI 3 Questions™ is accurate, valid performance data, generated according to agreed specs, and updated in a timely manner.  This media performance data feeds the entire assessment.   It is thus crucial that the agency

• Has access to the necessary research
• Is aligned with industry best practices for the management of the buys in their electronic buying platform
• Stewards and reconciles the buys in an appropriate time frame

Our experience has been that most clients do not have the level of media expertise to address all of these issues and to manage this kind of process.  Even in cases where clients have seasoned, full-time media personnel on staff, that team is typically far too time-starved to take on a responsibility as large as this.  As a result, many organizations end up living with some level of ambiguity with regards to their media investment.

In some cases this ambiguity is attributed to the complexity of media – but in the end, a buyer should be able to assess whether appropriate value was received for what was purchased, period.  It simply takes clear criteria and rigorous methodology.

In other cases, the agency’s self assessment is taken at face value … because, after all, they are “the experts”.  But in how many other areas do marketers allow their suppliers to assess their own performance and value?

In the end, our clients agree that it is more than worthwhile to devote resources to assuring that one of their largest investments is delivering, efficiently, and according to their specifications.

A first step is to make certain authorizations and order letters adequately convey what you want as an advertiser. These forms document what the client has approved to purchase as well as what the buyers ordered. Advertisers are at risk if they aren’t explicit about the details. Dates, performance goals by time period (weeks, months, quarters) within the overall campaign, costs (clearly labeled as gross or net), and rotation/positioning expectations should all be included on all authorizations and order letters. Problems occur when orders don’t match what was authorized.

Revisions must be adequately captured

Revisions should be documented every time any change is made to the plan regarding dollars, Gross Ratings Points (GRPs) and plan components. Revised authorizations should also include the reason for the revision(s), the client contact that approved the changes and a new client signature.

Understanding the risk

The authorization directly drives agency commitments on behalf of the advertiser, with order letters documenting contractual obligations for all purchased inventory. Needless to say, the dollars need to be correct, all elements need to be clearly specified to ensure media partners are held accountable to the client’s expectations from all perspectives. Target parameters, geographic focus and guaranteed impressions or other costs basis by buying demographic should always be captured and kept up to date. In the end, order letters must assure you get exactly what you paid for when contracting space with media vendors. This confirms your expectations of the vendor, providing the only reliable proof after the fact. It is, in fact, a contract – your best defense if necessary in the event that problems occur during the execution of your buy.

Even if multiple conversations/preliminary documents have occurred between agencies, clients and media vendors assuring that everyone fully understands the terms and guidelines for the purchased inventory, it’s necessary to include the same level of detail within these final documents. Complete authorizations give clients the opportunity to give clear, final double-checks against their books to make certain all dollars match what they have budgeted for the media portion of their plans. From a media vendors’ point-of-view, responsibilities for clients change often so the person booking inventory may not always be the same person they have dealt directly with during negotiations. Maintaining these fully up-to-date control documents is the only assurance that all expectations and agreed upon terms will survive throughout the life of the buy.

• Forecasting audience delivery of television programs based on Nielsen data
• Negotiating the price to be paid for ads placed in those programs
• Stewardship, following the buy through its life as new ratings data arrives, station schedules change and real life takes over.

To do the job well, buyers must be equipped with the requisite tracking tools and be prepared to sweat the details, continually revisiting schedules as new information becomes available.

Like economists and stock brokers, the savvy buyer knows all too well that past history may not provide a reliable indication of future performance. Fortunately, they do have the means to do something about it. New audience research arrives in the metered market overnights and monthly sweeps reports, providing critical intelligence required to revisit their estimates and make mid-course corrections, hopefully timed to keep the buy on track before the campaign is over. In the end, the post analysis confirms or denies the accuracy of their forecasts. If they met the goal, that’s great. If not, it’s not uncommon to blame the messenger, whether it be the stations or the good ole Nielsen Media Research.

Nielsen is a good target for the agencies. Of course, as a dominant supplier of media measurement data, you’d expect agencies to share some tough talk about ratings methodologies, sample sizes and the inadequacies of the system. But the criticism is often leveled at the statistics behind the ratings.

Few buyers really understand the technical details, simply locking onto “standard error” statistics that represent the apparent accuracy of reported estimates. Think of it as a parallel to the pollster’s qualification – our predictions are accurate plus or minus X percent… In effect, you might look at Standard Errors as a way of conveying how much bounce or variability we can expect from report to report as the ratings are released.

Differences between the buyers’ estimates and the final reported results reflect four factors:

1. The statistical reliability of the ratings themselves
2. Real changes in viewing behavior over time (apart from statistical issues)
3. The buyers’ estimating capability (how good they are at estimating)
4. Stewardship, the process of maintaining buys throughout their lives.

We can’t do much about statistical error or viewers changing what they watch. Training, oversight and experience are the obvious courses of action to assure buyers are up to the task. That said, stewardship is a critical element in assuring that an advertiser’s media schedule delivers what people paid for.

The Benefits of Aggressive Stewardship

As new ratings information is published, buyers have an opportunity to re-forecast estimated delivery for their schedules, taking into account ads that have already run and those yet to run. If the ratings are up versus their estimates, they are in good shape. If not, they have the opportunity to work with stations to change their schedules, shifting out of under-performing programs, upgrading to better-performing programming or negotiating bonus units to assure they will ultimately achieve their goals.

Flexibility isn’t unlimited, but the more aggressive buyers are in stewarding their buys, the more they stand to gain. This not only protects their clients against the consequences of an imperfect ratings system, but also allows them to adapt to a host of issues that affect whether schedules run properly – program preemptions, spots run with the wrong creative, stations simply missing spots, etc.

Advertisers and their agencies have a choice when it comes to due diligence in their spot television buying. They can roll the dice, simply waiting until buys are over to find out whether they got what they paid for and met their goals, or, they can steward their buys to make every effort to assure that under-delivery is addressed throughout the life of the buy.

It’s your company’s hard earned money. What would you do?

By Larry Goldstein
Chief Media & Research Officer

For National Television buys, order letters should always be carefully prepared and executed. These are the contracts between buyers and media vendors, so it is critical that they include a thorough explanation of all deal points.

Top 10 Checklist:

1. On agency or network letterhead with date, buyer and seller identified
2. Guaranteed demographic (Adults 18-49, Women 25-54, etc.)
3. Ratings currency for evaluation (Live, Commercial +3, etc.)
4. Thorough explanation of guarantee period and guarantee structure (single quarter, across quarters, etc.)
5. Gross media cost and any other costs associated with the package
6. Guaranteed audience delivery and CPM
7. Process by which restitution will be provided for any delivery shortfalls (on purchased network, on “sister” networks, commercial inventory vs. cash, etc.)
8. Quarterly detail including spending, audience delivery guidelines, cancellation options and option notification dates
9. Terms if buys are changed
10. Executed (signed and dated) by both parties

Buyers are increasingly looking beyond program and C3 ratings as a basis for negotiations. The Weather Channel has actively encouraged use of Nielsen’s minute by minute data. SMG has made deals using TNS-Charter Communication’s Los Angeles set-top box data. And, Starcom’s analysis of Super Bowl ad ratings focused not on Nielsen’s, but on TiVo’s second by second data.

TNS has extended its set-top box business to incorporate viewing data from DirectTV in a new national service, DIRECTView. Not to be outdone, Nielsen has also entered the game with strategic deals to take in set-top box data from Charter and other cable companies, planning to make set-top box data available to clients in the 2nd quarter of 2008. They’ve also acquired third party processor, Audience Analytics and its Audience Watch research system to gain the analytical/software horsepower to handle vast second by second set-top box level datasets. Audience Watch will be the key to powering Nielsen’s new DigitalPlus services. Exciting stuff, though let’s not forget there is much to be solved in bridging the gaps between anonymous set-top box data and reliable total household and persons ratings. These are outstanding resources for programmers and researchers studying the holding power of networks and programs, but there’s much more to be done before these will power the overall television economy.

Of course, all of this data enables valuable learning about audience flow, providing the means for broadcasters to study alternative commercial scheduling strategies. If changing the structure of commercial positions improves audience retention, everybody wins.

Even more interesting, MediaVest recently signed a deal with TRA (True ROI Accountability) for its service merging set-top box and product purchase data, taking measurement beyond counting eyeballs exposed to actual behavior.

While we are thinking about alternative metrics, Intermedia Advertising Group (IAG) still provides an indication of program and advertising engagement (or is it attentiveness) at a level of granularity that is far beyond that of other resources. Agencies are a bit stand-offish about IAG, but some clients are solid fans and it is being used as part of the buying process. Alas, IAG is the latest of Nielsen’s acquisitions. It will be interesting to see what they do with it.

For details on other changes, read:
Other Changes Blowin’ In

Larry Goldstein, MMI Chief Media & Research Officer and veteran media research expert, noted “The ARF has been a driving force in the evolution of industry research capabilities to support continuous improvement in the research that is the lifeblood of effective, forward-looking decision-making. We look forward to leveraging their good work to continue the growth of our service to advertising and our leadership role in the media accountability arena.”

In the past few years, MMI has significantly expanded its service offerings, introducing Consulting Services to its industry leading media audit business and broadening its focus on media accountability to include radio, a range of digital media services, media plan and process reviews as well as Full Circle Audit® Accountability programs that have been a driving force in new industry thinking regarding performance-based compensation.

Thomas Bridge, MMI’s founder and Chief Executive Officer said “We are proud to be in such excellent company and look forward to being an active participant.”

About MMI
Media Management, Inc. (www.mediaaudit.com) is a completely independent media auditing and consulting firm, headquartered in St. Louis, offering genuine objectivity with no vested interest in the outcomes of their audits. MMI’s client base, which counts 16 of Ad Age’s “Top 100” advertisers as clients, includes leading advertisers in the automotive, financial services, consumer packaged goods, retail, restaurant, and entertainment sectors.

For additional information or to speak with an MMI representative about this issue, please contact Larry Goldstein at (636) 812-0131.