ROB FRANKEL <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com> WROTE:
>Umm, no. That would not explain outdoor advertising,
>which is sold on a CPM and has nothing to do with
>readership. In fact, readership isn't a factor in ANY
>media analysis. Circulation is. But readership isn't.
>The main measurement of advertising that deals with
>readership might lean more toward comprehension, which
>would be something along the lines of the old Starch
>series, where people would be shown a magazine and then
>asked what they remembered about the various ads.
My goodness, Mr. Frankel, where have you been since the
1930s? How do you expect to calculate reach, frequency,
and duplication of print media without a single-source
readership survey? How would you do a demographic analysis
based on independent data without a readership survey?
Take a look at any media kit. For example Advertising Age.
Readership (otherwise called Receivership) is side by side
with circulation, and figures for both are provided by ABC
(Audit Bureau of Circulation). Starch had nothing
whatsoever to do with readership, but was simply a print
media Attention Value check (rather like day-after recall
for TV). The big Media Readership research companies were
Simmons and TGI (Target Group Index).
However this is not the thrust of my comment. The real
point is that we need to measure eyeballs not impressions.
Ivan Weltman
Received on Tue Oct 23 2001 - 12:19:38 CDT
