esomar2005media planning in imc

© Copyright by ESOMAR® / The ARF

A theoretical media consumption rather than a media distribution modelwas proposed at the ESOMAR 2004 WAM conference to provideunderstanding of how media advertising “works” in the 21st century. Thispaper reports on how the model was populated with data from the Fall2004 SIMM™ Study (SIMmultaneous Media). The authors demonstratethe model can be populated, and provide new learnings on cross-and-simultaneous media usage and consumption. How “foreground” and“background” media can be identified is also demonstrated. A clusteringmodel of audience media consumption suggests radically differentmethods of media planning going forward. Steps for the future of mediaplanning summarize the next research initiatives.

IMPLEMENTING A MEDIACONSUMPTION MODEL

Don E. SchultzMartin P. Block

Joseph J. Pilotta

Don E. Schultz, Martin P. Block, Joseph J. Pilotta


2

BACKGROUND ON THE MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

At the 2004 ESOMAR WAM Conference, Professors Don E. Schultz,Northwestern and Joseph J. Pilotta, Ohio State, presented the paper:“Developing the Foundation for a New Approach to Understanding HowMedia Advertising Works” (Schultz and Pilotta, 2004). They hypothesized thatas substantial changes had recently occurred in the advertising landscape, anew model of how media advertising “works” was needed.They posited that media advertising impact could likely be explained bymeasuring audience media consumption rather than through the traditionaladvertising message distribution model. They based their approach with threecore issues: 1) the advertising industry’s reliance on derived assumptions ofhow media advertising “works’, rather than on provable measures; 2) theirmarketplace observations of available new data sources and measurementtechniques; and 3) the advertising industry’s reliance on outbound, efficiency-oriented message distribution systems to define advertising impacts andeffects. All, they suggested need to be re-thought.

THREE CRITICAL CHANGESDRIVE MEDIA ADVERTISING UNDERSTANDING

Schultz and Pilotta posited three critical marketplace changes which theybelieve support their media consumption model.

1. Simultaneous Media ConsumptionAdvertisers have always known consumers multi-task with media, i.e., flippingthrough a newspaper while in front of the TV, listening to radio whilethumbing through a magazine, and so on. Yet, these consumer mediabehaviors have received little advertiser or researcher attention since thehistoric focus has been on distributing media advertising, not on understandingits impacts or effects.Starting in 2003, BIG Research began studying simultaneous mediaconsumption (SIMM Studies). Data came from consumer-reported, online-gathered research about consumer media usage along with consumer-reportedpurchase preferences and behaviors. Conducted twice yearly, with astatistically projectable national consumer base each time, the research isdelineated on the basis of the 14 age/sex cells found in the 2000 U.S. census.The research, now in its sixth iteration, has found widespread consumersimultaneous media usage, usually in the range of 40% - 65%, depending onthe specific media combinations. Thus, simultaneous media usage/consumption is a fairly often occurrence in today’s marketplace. SIMM studiesalso identify the media forms being simultaneously consumed, and the amount

Implementing a media consumption model


3

of time devoted to each media form, both individually and simultaneously.This evidence of simultaneous media consumption likely changes many of thetraditional rules of media analysis that have been in place for years.

2. A Cognitive Model of Consumer BehaviorGreat strides have been made in understanding how the human brain “works”.Using neural network research, brain scans and Magnetic Response Imaging(MRI), researchers have developed new understandings of consumerinformation processing. Now commonly referred to as “cognitive psychology”(Zaltman, 2003), these findings challenge traditional behaviorist views. Ratherthan the behaviorist “teaching and learning” model, (Lavidge and Steiner,1961 and Colley, 1961), cognitive psychologists suggest advertisinginformation is acquired continuously from multiple sources, stored oftensubconsciously in the brain, and then assessed and assembled on demand bythe individual.Clearly, today consumers are active media seekers, choosing what forms ofmedia they will attend to, when and how often. (BIGResearch, 2004). They arenot passive receivers who can be moved through some type of hierarchy at thewill of the advertiser. Further, cognitive concepts raise major questions abouttraditional advertising research techniques using consumer questionnairesabout products, services and advertising. All assume consumer knowledge isstored in conscious memory (Zaltman, 2003) which is likely incorrect.Traditional media advertising research, therefore, may not provide veryaccurate methods of explaining how media advertising exposures actually“work” or how media itself is consumed.

3. Cross-Media SynergySince media audiences are simultaneously using multiple forms of advertising-laden media, cross-media interactions and synergy become critical inunderstanding how media advertising “works”. Marketers have tried toestimate media synergy in the past but few models have been successful oraccepted. The most prevalent is an approach, the “Media Imperative”,developed by Appel (1975). Yet there is little if any proof that this concept isaccurate in today’s marketplace. Media Imperatives provide a relevant modelif one assumes separately placed media by the advertiser and separatelyconsumed media by the audience. In a simultaneous-usage intensivemarketplace, serious questions arise.Naik and Raman (2003), using advanced analytical techniques, have been ableto identify and measure cross-media marketplace synergy. They havedemonstrated methods that parse out the interaction and synergy among twomedia forms when used together either simultaneously or sequentially in the



4

marketplace. They found some media combinations are simply not additive,i.e., one media exposure added to another in a different media form do notresult in two exposures. Instead, aggregated exposures may becomemultiplicative or actually offset or even destroy the value of the other whencombined by consumers. Although the impact and effect of media synergy is acritical issue in understanding how media advertising “works”, this type ofanalysis has been little used in media advertising models and even less used inmedia measurement.

HOW MEDIA ADVERTISING “WORKS”BASED ON A MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

Using the basic concepts and the three marketplace observations, Schultz andPilotta developed a consumption model of how media advertising likely“works” and which was presented at the 2004 ESOMAR/ARF WAMConference, Geneva, June 2004.

Figure 1MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

R e sp o n s e

M e d ia E x p o s u re



M e d iaC o n s u m e r

P o t e n t ia l S y n e rg yV ia S im u l ta n e o u s M e d ia U s a g e

(M e s s a g e s R e in f o rc e d )

P o t e n t ia l F ra g m e n ta t io n O f A t t e n t io n

(M e s s a g e Im p a c t D il u t e d )

F o re g ro u n d / B a c k g ro u n d M e d ia

T im e A l lo c a t e d T o E a c h M e d ia F o r m



5

As shown, the model is based on the media consumer, not the mediaadvertiser. The audience determines media exposure, not the media deliverysystem. The consumer selects the media form(s) they will access and use.They determine the amount of time they will spend. Thus, consumers definethe number of advertising messages to which they will be exposed, not theadvertiser, no matter how much money he or she spends or how pervasive themessages might be.SIMM Studies provide consumer-reported estimates of time spent with each of27 separate media forms. Media exposure by media form and individualprovide the base for the media consumption model. In the SIMM studies,consumers also report when and what media forms are used simultaneouslyand in what combination, i.e., when television and online were used together,etc.When media advertising forms are used simultaneously, one is generallydominant, i.e., the person is watching television but also flipping through amagazine. We’ve termed these media exposures “foreground”(dominant) and“background” (secondary). Importantly, consumers can shift their focus fromone medium to the other and then back in an instant. This ability to shift fromone media form to another raises the question of whether media is processedsequentially or in parallel (Bluedorn et al, 1992).Clearly, not all consumers process information or access or use media in thesame way (Blumler, 1979; Buchholz and Smith, 1991). Thus, there likely is no“mass media audience” per se. There are simply large numbers of peopledoing many of the same general things, perhaps at the same time, but inradically different ways. Therefore, media distribution models cannot likelyexplain how media advertising “works”, particularly in a simultaneous mediausage environment. Thus we argue the media the consumer selects and theway that media exposure time is spent provides a better explanation.In the process of media consumption, and the attendant advertising beingdelivered through those media, the audience is impacted by two other factors.One is the previously discussed synergy between media forms. This synergyoccurs when the same message appears in multiple media forms whether theyare presented sequentially, i.e., one after the other, or, in parallel, that is, at thesame time. Naik and Raman (2003) demonstrate that this synergy can eitherenhance or detract from the impact that either one of the individual media haveon the media consumer.Given that consumers determine the media they consume, the sequence orsimultaneity of that consumption, the duration of that consumption and themental method in which the exposed information is taken in, processed, storedand used, an advertising message distribution model of how media advertising



6

“works” today appears to be far too simplistic. An audience mediaconsumption model would seem to be superior in spite of its inherentmeasurement challenges.Based on the response of the 2004 WAM Conference participants, the modelwe proposed has been populated with data from the Fall 2004 SIMM Study.First, however, we digress to comment on the relevance of and support for theincidence of simultaneous media usage.

BACKGROUND ON MEDIA CONSUMPTIONAND SIMULTANEOUS MEDIA USAGE

Since the 2004 WAM Conference, the proposed media consumption model hasbeen presented and discussed on four continents with both academics andpractitioners. A frequent question has been “We know simultaneous mediausage occurs, but, is it really possible? Isn’t it likely the media forms aresimply being used sequentially in shorter time frames rather than beingprocessed in parallel?” That’s a legitimate question since most traditionalmedia distribution models have assumed separate advertising messagedistribution and effects and, as a corollary, separate media form consumptionover time. Thus, we “watched” television. We “listened” to radio. Separatelyand independently. Little thought was given to the possibility the mediaconsumer might be “using” all those media forms simultaneously. The reasonfor this is because most audience measures of message distribution have beensingle-source, i.e., television viewing studies, newspaper reading studies, radiolistening studies and so on. Those studies were developed to estimate the sizeof that media vehicle’s audience at some point in time. Again, determinationof the potential number of messages being distributed, not the amount ofmedia consumed. Thus, we might term current media audience measures“temporal” since they measure media distribution or potential for exposure.The SIMM Studies might be termed as “experiential” since they are based onmedia audience consumption. While both use “time” as a critical variable, thetwo approaches are dramatically different.A fairly substantial research stream exists that demonstrates that multitasking,or simultaneously doing more than one thing, is a fairly common human trait(Feldman and Hornik, 1981; Hendrick et al, 1968). Unfortunately, thatresearch seems to have eluded advertising media researchers or planners.Thus, we review it briefly below since it is an important part of the mediaconsumption experience.Human multi-tasking has commonly been referred to as polychronicity, i.e.,the ability to engage in two or more tasks simultaneously (Bluedorn et al,1992). When a person watches television and reads a newspaper at the same



7

time, they are practicing polychronicity (what we term simultaneous mediausage). This human behavior occurs widely in other areas, certainly beyondmedia usage.The historic use of polychronicity has focused on how people use their time(Kaufman et al, 1991). This relates directly to our view of media consumption.Media consumers decide what medium or media they will access, when andhow they will consume it and in what manner, all done separately andindividually. While some media consumption does occur in groups, eachindividual determines how they will process each media form or combinationof media, i.e., whether sequentially or in parallel with other media forms.Thus, only the media consumer can truly confirm whether or not the mediawas actually consumed at a certain point in time and whether or not theattendant advertising was included in that consumption. External measurementsystems may suggest the presence and exposure of the consumer in the mediadistribution channel, but only the media consumer can attend to it.A second key point is why consumers attend to various media forms. There issubstantial literature outlining the uses and gratification of various media(Buchholz and Smith, 1991; MacInnis and Price, 1987; Blumer, 1979). Whilethis may be important in understanding why and how media are selected, wedo not attempt to explain how media choice decisions were made. We areinterested in the reported behaviors of media choice and levels ofconsumption. Thus, the SIMM data, in which consumers report their mediabehaviors, provide sufficient inputs for the model developed.The third key concept, particularly in simultaneous media consumption, iswhether or not people can actually “consume” more than one medium at atime. That is, can respondents concurrently process the information beingdistributed through multiple media forms? Again, there is fairly extensiveacademic research suggesting people use their time along a continuum(Bluedorn et al, 1992; Hall, 1983; Hall and Hall, 1990). One end is boundedby monochronicism, that is, people who engage in only one activity at a time.To accomplish multiple tasks, they allocate time to the various activities,sequentially. At the other end of the continuum are people who engage inmultiple activities at the same time, i.e., polychronicism. They managemultiple tasks through parallel processed and managed activities likely basedon information that has been processed in parallel, for example, a motherfeeding the baby, talking on the telephone with a neighbor while at the sametime jotting down items for a shopping trip later than afternoon. All three tasksare being accomplished essentially at the same time, i.e., polychronistically.We argue some media consumers do the same thing with media exposures,that is, they process them in parallel, thus the results of our SIMM studies.



8

When these concepts of polychronicity and our new understanding ofcognitive consumer psychology are related to media usage, it is clear portionsof the media-consuming population can simultaneously engage in mediaconsumption, and likely advertising message consumption too, using severalmedia forms at the same time.In summary, the critical ingredients for populating our media consumptionmodel are a) the media form selected by the audience member forconsumption, b) the amount of time devoted to each medium individually (weuse time as the key variable since we have no measure for attention), c) tovarious media forms simultaneously, i.e., degree of monochronic orpolychronic behavior, and d) explanatory variables that provide insights intohow the content of the media consumed has, is or might impact the mediaconsumer’s behavior.

POPULATING THE MEDIA CONSUMPTION MODEL

The data used was derived from BIGresearch’s fall 2004 Simultaneous MediaUsage Study (SIMM) of 14,039 respondents surveyed from 23 September to2 December 2004. All online responses from double opt-in email respondentswere collected. The surveys are anonymous, self-administered and free ofinterviewer bias. The questions asked are grouped under 10 basic categories;demographics, lifestyle, media influence on spending, frequency of purchasesonline, website most often shopped, seeking advice before buying, frequencyof giving advice before purchase, retail shopping and planned purchases,media behavior, census region and other factors. Questionnaires are designedto be completed and returned very quickly.A sample stratification system tied to market realities ensures an adequaterepresentation of all consumer groups defined by age, sex, income, andgeographic distribution. Fourteen samples were taken simultaneously: sevenage groups for males and seven age groups for females. These fourteen largesamples are combined into a master sample, usually between 10,000 to 15,000respondents. Samples of this size enable detailed cross-tabulation and a moreaccurate measurement of the various market groups. Each cross-tabulation isdynamically balanced. BIGresearch, as an online research company, adheres toa survey standards policy based upon a “well posed random sample” weightedto reflect the total U.S. population. A similar policy has been adopted by otherresearch organizations, i.e. American Demographics. A recent technicalreview of the the research company’s data collection process methodology andthe application of computer intensive statistics to analyze and manage the datawas conducted by Jerome Friedman, Professor and former Chairman,Department of Statistics, Stanford University.



9

For purposes of this paper, several variables were re-coded or combined. Timespent with the media was re-coded into minutes per day (1,440 maximum).The top category was open-ended (four hours or more), thus, maximum timespent with any medium by any individual was 270 minutes per day. Mediausage reports may therefore be conservative. Weekday (five days, Monday -Friday) times were averaged with weekend times (two days, Saturday -Sunday). Media influence was asked in the context of seven productcategories, i.e., a) electronics, b) apparel/clothing, c) grocery, d) homeimprovement, e) automobiles, f) pharmaceutical and g) travel. These wereaveraged to provide the overall influence proportions.Simultaneous media usage was measured at three levels: a) regularly, b)occasionally and c) never. To simplify the analysis, regularly was assumed tomean 70% of the time and occasionally was assumed to mean 30% or more ofthe time. In addition to media usage, respondents were asked questions aboutrecent purchases in the seven categories along with anticipated futurepurchases. Retailers identified are the first mentioned as the overall favoriteretailer in a particular product category.

MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MODEL – FOUR AREAS

Schultz and Pilotta suggested four elements could populate the mediaconsumption model: 1) time devoted to media consumption by media form;2) when, how often and with which media forms simultaneous usage occurred;3) evidence of the presence of “foreground” and “background” media and theclassification of those media by form; and 4) evidence of media synergy, thatis, the enhancement of or detraction resulting from various mediacombinations. We provide results of the first three model specifications. Mediasynergy studies are currently underway but not ready to report.The results of the model specifications based on Wave 5 of the SIMM studiesare:

1. Time Consumed with Various Media FormsRespondents to SIMM Studies are provided a list of 27 media forms rangingfrom television to direct mail to Yellow Pages. These include a number ofinteractive media as well; i.e., the Internet, Web Pages and the like.Table 1 clearly shows media usage is pervasive among SIMM respondents. Allmedia forms are used, and, many quite extensively by a large portion ofrespondents. Assuming a total of 1,440 available minutes per day (24 hours x60 minutes) media usage is clearly one of the primary daily activities of theaverage respondent.



10

Table 1AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION AS A PERCENT OF THE DAY

FALL 2004 (1,440 MINUTES)

Minutes Percent of day

TV 145.6 10.1

Internet 128.6 8.9

Radio 74.6 5.2

Newspaper 36.4 2.5

Magazines 29.0 2.0

Direct Mail 20.4 1.4

While television and the internet account for a disproportionate amount ofreported media consumption, media forms requiring reading still also accountfor a substantial amount of time.Television is often considered the primary advertising delivery form for manymarketers. Interestingly, approximately 22 percent of SIMM respondentsreport no television usage at all. When non-television users are excluded fromthe survey analysis, TV usage rises to nearly 185 minutes per day, close towhat traditional media rating services have found. (See table 2.)

Table 2SAMPLE INCLUDES THOSE THAT REPORT WATCHING NO TV

Average minutes Percent of sample

Total sample 145.57 100.0

Exclude No TV 185.84 78.3*

Maximum minutes capped at 270 per day.* 21.7% excluded

Somewhat surprising was the “empty quintile” of media consumers. While onemight understand the lack of television usage by a portion of the total mediaaudience, it’s hard to explain the nearly 22% of the sample who reported “nomedia usage” among the 27 media forms requested. Figure 2 below shows theanomaly.



11

Figure 2ALL MEDIA CONSUMPTION BY QUINTILES

0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

60 0

70 0

80 0

90 0

1 2 3 4 5M ed ia Q uintile s

Min

utes

per

Day

Since SIMM studies are conducted online, respondents had to be using theinternet simply to log survey response. Apparently, they did not consideronline as a media form. Advertisers clearly do, commonly budgeting for andbuying various online media as part of their go-to-market media strategies.SIMM respondents don’t perceive media in that way. This raises majorconcerns about whether a difference exists in how advertisers and consumerssee and consider media. If so, that could raise major questions about our mediameasurement systems. Advertisers and their agencies may need to re-evaluatetheir media terminology, bringing it more in line with how consumers definemedia to avoid future confusion.An interesting insight into common media advertising lore vs. what is reallyhappening is a comparison between SIMM reported media consumption inFall vs. Spring 2004. As shown in table 3 below, reported usage of media inFall 2004 was generally some 15% - 20% less than that of Spring of the sameyear. For example, reported media usage declined by nearly 17% fornewspapers, by nearly 20% for direct mail. Other media form usage declinesfell in between. Media audiences clearly are not stable throughout the year,with considerable ebb and flow. That raises some additional questions aboutthe “sweeps” type of measurement system used with broadcast media and theiraccuracy in reflecting the actual audiences for various media vehicles duringnon-measurement times.



12

Table 3AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION IN MINUTES PER DAY –

MEDIA TURN-OFF FROM POLITICAL SEASON?

Fall 2004 Spring 2004 Change Percent

TV 145.6 179.6 -34.0 -18.9

Internet 128.6 156.8 -28.2 -18.0

Radio 74.6 101.6 -27.0 -26.5

Newspaper 36.4 43.7 -7.3 -16.6

Magazines 29.0 35.6 -6.6 -18.5

Direct Mail 20.4 25.3 -5.0 -19.6

In Fall 2004, television ratings services reported substantial declines inviewing by younger men. SIMM data suggests major declines occurred in allage categories, not just men, and those declines occurred in all media forms.In the mid-1970s, Appel presented the concept of Media Imperatives (Appel,1975), suggesting that media forms are replicable/substitutable. While Appelmay have been right in the mid-1970s, the concept of “Media Imperatives”does not seem appropriate today even though it does seem to have itsadherents.

Table 4AVERAGE MEDIA CONSUMPTION BY TOP QUINTILES

Top Quintiles TV Internet Radio News Mags Direct

TV 270.0 199.3 97.5 55.6 43.4 32.0

Internet 211.3 267.3 103.1 54.7 44.8 35.3

Radio 190.6 177.1 220.9 57.0 44.5 30.7

Print (News & mags) 204.9 187.4 114.1 105.7 81.4 40.0

All media 238.0 231.4 160.5 87.5 67.1 45.7

Total 145.6 128.6 74.6 36.4 29.0 20.4

When we populate the media consumption model, there are few single “MediaImperatives” found. If the audience does not use one medium, they likely donot use another. In other words, there are clearly people who use very littlemedia and those who use a substantial amount. SIMM data shows that if the



13

audience uses one medium, they tend to use many media. If they are heavymedia users in one form, they are heavy media users in all others. Thus, theidea that an advertiser can reach certain target audiences by substituting onemedium for another or adding another media form does not appear viable.Today, all media are “Imperatives” for some media consumers and there areno media “Imperatives” for others.

2. A Radical New Media Segmentation ApproachConsistent with the findings above, additional analysis was conducted onmedia consumption patterns among SIMM respondents. If “MediaImperatives” are not relevant, how might one go about identifying specificmedia audiences to gain insights into media usage? Consumers obviouslyaccess various media for specific reasons. Some historic research in this areaexists (Buchholz and Smith, 1991; Blumler, 1979). The problem is thesestudies focus primarily on single, not multiple media usage, i.e., why dopeople watch television or why do they read newspapers? (Smith andReinhardt, 1997). We have been unable to find studies or research to this pointthat looks at consumers using multiple media either sequentially orsimultaneously. Thus, we have found little research to provide insights intowhy individuals or audience groups use or don’t use multiple or no forms ofmedia.Simultaneous media consumption indicates a consumer-driven need or at leasta demonstrable consumer capability to parallel process information fromincoming media sources. Earlier, we discussed monochronic-polychroniccapabilities and consumer’s time allocation. Further analysis was conducted togain additional insights.One notion is that consumers are constructing internal resource networks forthemselves. These are used to solve problems, meet challenges and enablethem to conduct a very complex lifestyle. Our premise is each consumerdevelops his or her own internal network of information sources. They turn tothese networks when faced with any type of decision. For example, they mayrely on their own experience. They may ask another person. They may seekanswers through the web or through the internet. Or, they may simply observewhat is occurring around them. These internal networks develop, expand andchange on a continuous basis as needed (Schultz et al, 2005). Each personcontinually updates his or her network for present and future use. If thishypothesis is true, some people likely continuously seek to expand theirinformation networks through various forms of media usage, including word-of-mouth, while others are content to accumulate information as it occurs.



14

Simultaneous media consumption may well be explained by how people usetheir time and the media, i.e., monochronically or polychronically.Simultaneous media consumption could well indicate polychromic or parallelprocessing, while single media usage may signal a monochromic andsequential approach. Thus, we might group consumers based on their use ofmedia, how they allocate their time and how they process information.Table 5 is a first attempt to segment or better said, aggregate audiences basedon media consumption, reported usage patterns, propensity to accept or giveinformation and the information delivery capability of the specific media formwhich they report using and the various combinations of media they employwhile engaged in media consumption.

Table 5CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Speed(% influenced)

Network(% simultaneous)

Mediatime

%of total

Cluster 1Low Media (the zeros) 3.3 4.0 19 22%

Cluster 2Linear Media Consumers 9.3 10.4 480 38%

Cluster 3Information Hounds 37.3 19.6 554 17%

Cluster 4Network Creators 12.7 29.2 678 22%

Overall 14.0 13.8 434 100%

In the table above we assume simultaneous media usage indicates apolychronic approach to time allocation and the ability to parallel process themedia accessed. Further, we classify the media forms based on how quicklyinformation is available from that source, i.e., access time, updating, currencyand the like. We hypothesized these two variables would provide an indicationof a) whether the person was creating or adding to his or her internal networkand b) whether or not the person gave or sought information from others. If theperson was creating their own internal information network, it seemed logicalthe faster they could obtain information, the better. Variables for the numberof times simultaneous media usage occurred in the SIMM data ranged between0 and 16. Giving and receiving advice was operationalized by using the“media influence” responses from the SIMM data. (A major section of the



15

SIMM study asks: “How much influence does each media form have on yourpurchasing decisions?”) These variables ranged from 0 to 14. Speed wasoperationalized by media form, i.e., the web and internet deliver informationquickly, while magazines and outdoor are relatively slower in distributing theirmessages. Correlational analysis indicated that “speed” was only weaklycorrelated to the network creation variable (slightly over 0.3). (See theappendix for the technical details on how the cluster analysis was developedand implemented.)Cluster analysis was conducted to understand why simultaneous mediaconsumption occurred and what we believe it means. As shown above, thedata formed four basic clusters. The “Zeros” are the same 20% or so of thepopulation who consume, or at least perceive they consume, little or no media.(See figure 2 above)Cluster 2 appears to be the traditional, sequentially processing monochronicmedia users. We have dubbed them Linear Media Users. They tend to be theaudience which has traditionally been assumed by advertisers and mediaowners. They have little need for speed, they accept information as it occursand they make little effort to multi-task in any way. They also tend to beinformation receivers rather than information givers based on their reporteddata in the SIMM studies.Clusters 3 and 4 seem to be heavily influenced by the internet and forms ofinstant information access and use. We have called Cluster 3 the “InformationHounds”. These are heavy media users and also heavy information givers.They may be the group who use the media intensively for multiple reasons,i.e., entertainment, games, leisure, etc. along with information gathering. Theyare likely the advocators and word-of-mouth deliverers of information toothers. They use substantial amounts of media, use media forms that deliverinformation quickly and appear to be more polychronic in their use of mediaconsumed, i.e., using the media to gather information so they can provideexpertise to others.Cluster 4 appears to be the internal Network Creators. That is, they are heavymedia consumers but gather information at slower speeds, i.e., tending to usemedia forms with more difficult access and less speed. They continuouslymonitor the media they consume, some of it monochronically and somepolychronically. These may well represent the hard to identify “influencers”,the base of people who comprise groups such as Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”where they heavily impact others through their activities, visibility andcomments. (Gladwell, 2002).



16

While in its early stages, there is enough evidence to suggest media audiencescan be segmented and/or aggregated in ways quite different than simpledemographics or even psychographics. It is here that the SIMM studies mayhave their greatest impact.Analysis of how consumers access and consume the media ‘clock time” (timeof consumption) and by factors such as monochronic (sequential) orpolychronic (parallel) “experiential time” usage may also indicate why andhow the reported media consumption occurred. Aggregation and clusteringtechniques may provide interesting new analytical approaches tounderstanding how media advertising “works” from a consumer’s, not anadvertiser’s, view.

3. Simultaneous Media ConsumptionThe SIMM data has enabled us to expand our understanding of audiencemedia consumption and simultaneous media usage. Simultaneous media usageoccurs among all forms of media. (See Chart #8) Thus, it is not restricted to alimited number of media forms nor is it consistent among those media forms.Some media do, however, have greater simultaneous use than others.

Table 6SIMULTANEOUS CONSUMPTION PERCENT

Foreground Background Difference Total

Online – Watch TV 25.7 21.8 3.9 47.5

Mail – Watch TV 23.7 19.4 4.3 43.0

Newspaper – Watch TV 22.4 16.1 6.3 38.5

Online – Listen to the radio 18.3 16.1 2.2 34.4

Magazines – Watch TV 18.8 14.2 4.7 33.0

Mail – Listen to the radio 15.7 14.0 1.7 29.7

Radio – Read the newspaper 14.3 14.0 0.3 28.2

Online – Read the mail 13.9 10.2 3.7 24.1

Magazines – Listen to the radio 12.8 11.0 1.9 23.8

Online – Read the newspaper 7.2 5.7 1.5 12.9

Radio – Watch TV 7.7 4.0 3.7 11.7

Online – Read magazines 6.2 5.0 1.2 11.2



17

Online and television are the dominant media forms consumed by SIMMrespondents. Thus, the incidence of simultaneous usage is naturally greater.Interestingly, however, all media forms are consumed simultaneously at sometime or another, i.e., there are few truly single usage media forms. This raisessome interesting questions about how “media audiences” can be identified andmeasured. For example, do single medium usage reports have much value ifsimultaneous media usage is so prevalent?“Foreground” and “background” media forms do exist, at least for consumers.We have developed a method for determining “foreground” and “background”media usage. Table 6 above also provides the comparisons necessary for thatcalculation. To identify “foreground” and “background” media, we comparedtwo measures of the same media combination. In the SIMM questionnaire,respondents were asked, “When you are online, do you watch TV?” – and25.7% of respondents said they did. The question was then reversed and askedas “When you are watching TV do you go online?”, and 21.8% of the SIMMrespondents said they did. While the media consumption forms are the same,using online and television simultaneously, the consumer considered one to be“primary” and the other to be “secondary”. The difference between the tworesponses gives the 3.9% difference shown. Thus consumers can clearlyidentify “foreground” and “background” media, even if advertisers cannot.

Table 7ONLINE TENDS TO BE FOREGROUND


Online – Watch TV 25.7 21.8 3.9 47.5

Online – Read the mail 13.9 10.2 3.7 24.1

Online – Listen to the radio 18.3 16.1 2.2 34.4

Online – Read the newspaper 7.2 5.7 1.5 12.9

Online – Read magazines 6.2 5.0 1.2 11.2

TV TENDS TO BE FOREGROUND


TV – Listen to the radio 4.0 7.7 -3.7 11.7

TV – Go online 21.8 25.7 -3.9 47.5

TV – Read the mail 19.4 23.7 -4.3 43.0

TV – Read magazines 14.2 18.8 -4.7 33.0

TV – Read the newspaper 16.1 22.4 -6.3 38.5



18

In the SIMM Fall, 2004 study, online tended to always be the “foreground”medium among the six major media. Television was generally the“background” medium.Although results are only from the Fall 2004 SIMM study, if they hold in thefuture they raise questions about the traditional media notion that TV is thedominant medium and should always lead the media plan.Using SIMM data to populate the media consumption model, we can identifywhich media forms are used simultaneously. We can also identify which is the“foreground” and which is the “background” medium in these simultaneoususage situations. These media differentiations raise major questions aboutwhat is a media audience? How should media be bought? How should mediabe scheduled, etc.?

4. Evidence of Media SynergyOur fourth consideration was media synergy, i.e., how media forms interactwhen used at the same time in the marketplace. We are presently conductingstudies with Professor Naik, using some of his more advanced analyticaltechniques. Those studies are not yet complete. We do have some earlyconcepts that suggest media can be evaluated in new ways. One is to identify“hard” media, i.e., media that drive consumer marketplace responses and“soft” media, i.e., media that support and enhance the response to “hard”media. This provides further evidence that media forms are not just additive,they may well be multiplicative, and, in some instances, based on preliminarystudies, it may be they conflict and reduce the impact of each other.

NEXT STEPS

Audience media consumption data is a superior method to help explain howmedia advertising “works” in the 21st century. Results presented heredemonstrate: a) the data necessary to populate a media consumption model canbe captured; b) various analytical techniques can be used to help illustrate andprovide insights into what that media consumption means; c) we can explainand illustrate the impact of media multi-tasking by consumers to provideinsights into how various media forms interact; and d) it is possible to use thistype of consumer media consumption data to develop some interesting andperhaps unique ways of thinking about how advertisers might develop moreeffective media plans.



19

Some of the areas we plan to investigate going forward are: Word-of-mouth is generally cited as the most important media influence

form in the SIMM studies. Little is known about how media consumptionand word-of-mouth are related. There may well be relationships betweenmedia consumption and consumer reliance on word-of-mouth. Likewise,there may well be other connections between consumer mediaconsumption and the propensity to either seek or give advice aboutproducts and services, i.e., the amount of advocacy engaged in by theindividual consumer.

The idea of media planning clusters has great intuitive appeal. This type ofanalysis can be considerably extended into: a) intent to purchase variousproduct categories; b) by preferred retailer; c) by stated ownership such aspets or snowboards or vacation homes and the like; or, d) even by interestfactors such as sports, gaming and the like. When consideration is given tohow consumers allocate their time, media usage is only one factor. It maywell be there are direct correlations between media consumption and otherconsumer activities and interests.

A better understanding of heavy and light media consumers is important.If a large portion of the population does not believe they consume anymedia, that raises serious questions about why and how this occurs. Areconsumers “turning off to media” or are they simply finding other, morevaluable uses for their time? In a media-pervasive society, it is hard toimagine there are large numbers of people who say they don’t consumemedia. What sources or resources do they use to obtain the informationnecessary for them to survive in an increasingly complex society and howmight advertising be developed to reach them?

Much work is still to be done. This report illustrates that a media consumptionmodel can be a viable and useful new tool for understanding how mediaadvertising “works” in the 21st century marketplace. Hopefully it can assist inmaking advertising work better for both advertisers and consumers.



20

REFERENCES

Appel, Valentine. (1975). Magazine/Television Audience Segmentation Analysis: TheMedia Imperative. Address to the Annual Advertising Research Foundation Conference.

BIGresearch. (2004). Simultaneous Media Usage Study (SIMM™) Executive Briefing.Worthington, OH: BIGresearch.

Bluedorn, Allen C., Carol Felker Kaufman and Paul M. Lane. (1992). How ManyThings Do You Like to Do at Once? An Introduction to Monochronic and PolychronicTime. Academy of Management Executive, Volume 6, No 4.

Blumler, J. (1979). The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratifications Studies.Communication Research, Volume 6, 9-36.

Buchholz, Laura M. and Robert E. Smith. (1991). The Role of Consumer Involvement inDetermining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising. Journal of Advertising,Volume 20, Issue 1, 4-28.

Colley, Russell H. (1961). Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results.New York, NY: Association of National Advertisers.

Feldman, Laurance P. and Jacob Hornik. (1981). The Use of Time: An IntegratedConceptual Model. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 7 (March), 407-419)

Gladwell, Malcolm. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a BigDifference. Boston, MA: Back Bay Press.

Hall, Edward T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York,NY: Anchor Press.

Hall, Edward T. and Mildred Reed Hall. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences.Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Hendrick, C.; J. Mills and C.A. Kiesler. (1968). Decision Time as a Funstion of thenumber and Complexity of Equally Attractive Alternatives. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Volume 8 (March), 313-318.

Kaufman, Carol Feller, Paul M. Lane, and Jay D. Lindquist. (1991). Exploring MoreThan 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use. Journal ofConsumer Research, Volume 18 (December), 392-401.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning WithoutInvolvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 29, 349-356.

Lavidge, R.C. and G.A. Steiner. (1961). A Model for Predictive Measurements ofAdvertising Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (Oct.), p. 59-62

MacInnis, D.J. and L.L. Price. (1987). The Role of Imagery in Information Processing:Review and Extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 13 (March), 473-491.

Naik, Prasad A. and Kalyan Raman. (2003). Understanding the Impact of Synergy inMultimedia Communications. Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 40 (November),Issue 4, pp.375-389



21

Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927). Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of thePhysiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex.

Schultz, Don E., Ilchul Kim, Kerry Lenahan. (2005). Foundations for a New, Consumer-Mediated Marcom Model”, Working paper.

Schultz, Don E. and Joseph J. Pilotta. (2004). Developing the Foundation for a NewApproach to Understanding How Media Advertising Works. Proceedings of theESOMAR/ARF Worldwide Audience Conference, Geneva.

Skinner, B.F. (1950). Are Theories of Learning Necessary? Psychological Review,Volume 57, pp. 193-216.

Smith, Michael P. and Hazel Reinhardt. (1997). The Changing Reader: Understandingthe Forces Changing Newspapers. Evanston, IL: Media Management Center ofNorthwestern University.

Zaltman, Gerald. (2003). How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of theMarket. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

THE AUTHORS

Don Schultz is Professor Emeritus-in-Service in Department of Integrated MarketingCommunications, Northwestern University, Medill School Journalism; and President,Agora, Inc., United States.Martin P. Block is Professor in Department of Integrated Marketing Communications,Northwestern University, Medill School Journalism, United States.

Joseph J. Pilotta is Vice President of Research, BIGresearch, United States.

esomar2005media planning in imc

Documents