The hardest currency in the (media) world
The slow rollout of a new television ratings system in Switzerland has led to widespread uncertainty about the value of the new TV metrics. From a cross-media perspective, however, it is clear that even under the new measurement system, television remains the most reliable metric in the Swiss media landscape.
Dr. Mirko Marr is Head of Research at Goldbach Media. The research specialist specializing in media distribution, media use and media and advertising impact has held leading positions at Mediapulse, IAB Switzerland, Publicitas and the Institute for Applied Communication Research in Zurich, among others.
A whole range of criteria can be used to assess the hardness of a media currency. For advertising clients and their agencies, however, this judgment depends above all on one question: What is the relationship between the contacts measured by a media currency on the one hand and the contacts actually realized on the other?
Print currency
As part of its survey program, WEMF's joint readership research determines the probability of an individual issue of a print title being read. In the advertising market, this advertising medium contact is regarded as a proxy for the probability of contact with all advertisements placed in the title issue. This equation is based on the implicit assumption of an ideal reader who reads all pages of a print edition and thus comes into contact with all advertisements. The deviation of the real reader from this ideal results in a blurring that can be described as the fundamental deficit of conventional print research, which has not been eliminated even by the recent conversion of the MACH studies. With reference to the fundamental question formulated above, it must therefore be assumed for the print currency, firstly, that the number of advertising media contacts realized is in principle smaller than the number of advertising media contacts measured. Secondly, the extent of this difference results from the degree to which the real reader deviates from the ideal reader or, to put it another way, from the extent of selective title use.
Online currency
In the online world, the research organization NetMetrix claims to represent the currency of the Internet. This claim is realized by continuously measuring the reach of websites. However, in the online channel, where the decoupling of advertising media and advertising media through dynamic and controlled advertising media placement is standard, drawing conclusions from website reach to campaign reach is not only presuppositional, but simply untenable. As a result, agencies only rely on NetMetrix data to a limited extent when planning, controlling and evaluating campaigns, but primarily on counting ad impressions via AdServer. This approach without a detour via a currency research organization is now widely accepted, but faces two key challenges. Firstly, the key figures determined in this way are gross values, the conversion of which to a net level without additional usage research is very demanding. Secondly, a not inconsiderable proportion of the advertising media delivered never appears in the visible area of a user. This differentiation between visible and non-visible contacts has long been demanded by clients and agencies and controlled internally by means of adjusted counting procedures. However, an industry consensus on the extent of the deviations, on a definition of viewability or on accepted certification procedures is only just beginning to emerge.
TV currency
While TV's two most important competitors in the advertising market sell themselves with figures that tend to overestimate the effective campaign contacts, the opposite is true for TV currency. Television research has earned its status as a gold standard not least by claiming to only report those contacts that can be reliably and validly recorded according to the rules of science. Conversely, this means that all non-recordable usage shares are ignored by research and consequently provided to advertisers free of charge.
The new measurement system has not fundamentally changed this situation. It is true that both time-shifted TV usage within the first seven days of the initial broadcast and TV usage via private PCs and laptops are now recorded. At the same time, the following measurement gaps, which already existed in the old research approach, are not closed by the new method either:
- any TV usage via TV sets outside of private households in a professional context or in public usage situations, but also in vacation homes or second homes,
- any TV use via mobile devices (smartphone, tablet),
- any TV usage in households without a traditional TV set (PC-only),
- any TV use via PC or laptop used exclusively or inter alia for professional/business purposes,
- any time-shifted TV usage that takes place more than seven days after the initial broadcast,
- any TV usage in the panel households that mistakenly takes place without personal registration (uncovered viewing).
One can lament this incomplete coverage and justifiably demand that research close the measurement gaps. However, one should take into account the conflict of objectives in which television research finds itself today. On the one hand, it is constantly faced with new measurement requirements due to the dynamic development of TV usage. On the other hand, it is committed to the quality claim of the gold standard of only measuring what is valid and reliably measurable. The new measurement system and the clients behind it have undoubtedly given higher priority to the second requirement. The beneficiaries of this prioritization are the clients. The costs are borne by the broadcasters and marketers. However, this cost-benefit calculation is only a short-term one. In the medium and long term, TV's conservative measurement strategy will pay off and cement its status as the hardest media currency - despite all the justified criticism of the new measurement system's teething troubles.
Mirko Marr





