Space model Wemf boss René Schmutz has to go over the books with his new model. The main reason for this is the fierce opposition.WW Not only a number of publishers have vehemently opposed the new space model. Politicians from French-speaking Switzerland and the Impressum journalists' association have also joined the attack. Were you surprised by the extent of the criticism? René Schmutz What surprised me most was how emotional the whole discussion was and how unprofessional some of the criticism came across. It's clear that people can be against our proposal. But we expected arguments and not attacks.
What have you learned from this?
I have at least had a new experience, because I have never experienced such strong opposition to a Wemf project before. What really impressed me, however, were the arguments that were put forward and not the vehement manner in which some voters presented them.
What were the objections that ultimately tipped the scales in favor of the
Revision of the model?
If you want to make statements about the shopping behavior of the population, then you need other data than just the survey of key persons and the inclusion of commuter flows. I have no arguments against this objection
Apparently, however, the expert opinion by Prof. Dr. Peter Gräf has also
model was criticized. So the scientific validity of the proposed spatial model was not beyond all doubt?
We were of the opinion that interviewing key people also works for our spatial model, as this method is common in other areas. But the moment the opposition becomes so strong, you have to react. A population survey, such as the one on which Mach Basic is based, is certainly much less vulnerable than a survey of key persons.
But what did the scientific opinion say on precisely this point?
I don't want to go into detail about who commented and how. Professor Gräf's report is just one individual element of the entire consultation process. The overall result was that purchasing behavior is central to the definition of economic areas. On the other hand, there is nothing new behind this. And the opposition to our proposal only arose after the result had been seen. The fact is that there is no generally recognized method for defining economic areas.
Due to the effort that will now be required, you are also holding out the prospect of further high costs. Do you think it's possible that these could end up definitively overturning the whole project?
We will see. Additional costs will be incurred. It is not yet clear how the whole thing will be financed. But it should be possible. After all, the economic areas are 40 years old, and if you can't do it with the planned costs, then there's no getting around the additional expense. Otherwise the outdated economic areas would remain in force, and that cannot be the solution.
Are the approaches with which the model is to be corrected methodologically sound, or are further obstacles to be expected?
I don't see any reason for this at the moment. But answering this question is the subject of the clarifications that will now follow. Only then will it be possible to answer the question of whether the corrections can be implemented as planned and how much it will cost.
So there is a real risk that no solution will be found and that Wemf will end up in a shambles?
What does shambles mean? The Wemf developed the economic areas itself forty years ago. And they were always criticized, even if it was never quite clear what was actually wrong. In the meantime, there are good reasons to criticize the fact that the world has changed and so have the economic areas. The question now is how to redefine them. Commuter balances are not suitable for defining economic areas that are suitable for media planning. This is because the latter has to do with consumption, which is why consumption data is better than commuter balances. However, this data is not available in the required level of detail, so we have to obtain it first.
The revised model will be put out for consultation again in 2005. Can you assume that the concerns raised will have been resolved by then?
That remains to be seen. We are addressing the two central points of criticism in the new model. However, there were also other objections that I don't want to go into in detail now.
Another question is whether a 40-year-old spatial model, in which the business models of newspapers are also rooted, can be changed at all without provoking numerous outcries.
You can't wash the bear without getting the fur wet. If you have to revise the economic areas, there will inevitably be changes. In plain language, this means that if one area gets a little bigger, another has to get smaller. That's just the way it is.
As a partner of the publishers, however, Wemf is exposed to sensitivities that it cannot simply ignore.
The question is whether the matter is scientifically supported or not. Our umbrella was not strong enough for the storm that came our way with the consultation. But I can live with that because, as I have already said, I have no counter-arguments to the two central objections raised.
In previous years, Wemf was able to launch various new research systems, such as Mach 2 or Internet research, with virtually no accompanying noise or obstacles in the way. In the recent past, however, neither the Advertising Index Switzerland (AIS) nor the new spatial concept have come to fruition as desired.
The AIS is a special case because we were competing with other providers. It was therefore clear that they would fight back and do everything they could to prevent it, using these and other methods. But this is also a completely normal process in other markets.
And the spatial model: would it have received the same fierce criticism in the good economic years?
I can't say. All I know is that the print media are not doing so well at the moment. So it's understandable if the reactions are relatively vehement.
In the crossfire of criticism: Wemf boss René Schmutz.
The accompanying noise surrounding the "New Communication Spaces and Economic Areas in Switzerland" has already foreshadowed this: The new model will not be implemented in the proposed form.
By the end of the consultation period on June 30, Wemf had received a number of objective and fact-based responses as well as an expert opinion from economic geographer Prof. Dr. Peter Gräf from Aachen University of Technology. The method used to simulate shopping behavior by surveying key persons and recording commuter flows was particularly criticized. The Wemf Board of Directors has therefore commissioned the office to
To work together with Publicom to examine how the model can be supplemented by a representative survey and the inclusion of consumption-related data instead of the key person survey.
The result of the review is expected to be submitted for further consultation in 2005. If this concept meets with approval and the necessary financial resources are available, the survey work can begin in 2006, writes Wemf. Results are not expected before 2007. Until then, the "old" WGs will remain in force. (dse)
Interview: Daniel Schifferle