What Do Advertisers Really Want From Their Media Buys?

Many years ago, when I was a young guy leading the media planning and research charge at BBDO, I had a long chat with the late Tom Dillon, a very smart man then running the show at the agency. We had just been promoting our automated media planning system---dubbed "Linear Programming" after the name that similar programs were using in various areas of industry. Tom asked whether this innovation, which he had championed, was going to help us, not only in better targeting our recommendations and buys but also in saving wasted person power effort. I replied that, in fact, the result would be the opposite as feeding the system with data----much of it not available at the time----would take more, not less people. More important was my realization that Tom and BBDO management were under the impression that once a client defined its prime prospects---by age, income, etc. all we did was run through every possible media buy, calculate a target group CPM and pick whatever popped up as the most "efficient" way to spend the client's dollars. Sounds familiar---doesn't it?

Actually it wasn't that simple.

When I told Tom that most advertisers we dealt with were locked into certain types of media---like primetime TV, sports, news, etc. or TV in general, and it didn't matter what the numbers said about radio or print media, he seemed surprised. And, no, we didn't bother reviewing the targeting capabilities relative to CPMs for every possible buy for each client as we already knew the answers----daytime TV was much "better" than primetime TV, radio was "better" than TV, magazines offered far superior targeting capabilities, etc. etc.

What governed media selection---especially the mix of media---in case after case----were various sets of "intangibles"---like traditional category practice, having a backlog of ad impact/ pre-testing studies to guide the brands in deciding what campaigns to go with ( this was and still is only available for TV ) , the merchandisablilty of the buys, ingrained client media preferences, arbitrary assumptions about the worth and effectiveness of "other" media, plain old risk avoidance, etc. etc. Only within these contexts were media planners free to recommend specific TV show types or particular magazines.

My point is simple. Today, we think that lots has changed and that "data" is revolutionizing the world of media planning and buying---and, to be honest, there is much more data available and more sophisticated systems available---and coming----to analyze the information. But, in many ways we are still creatures of the past----particularly on the client side where media planning and buying are treated as boring, routine, by- the- numbers exercises---just as Tom Dillon assumed they were many years ago. Until this changes and client CMOs and higher ups start to really study the possibilities that now exist in media to get more value for their ad dollars, those "intangibles" will continue to rule and everything will continue to rest on the "creative" function at the agencies. I would like to say that I see progress in this area but it looks like the same old story in far too many cases. Which is a shame----a big shame---- as today's media planners and buyers could really make a difference---if encouraged and allowed to.