NewsLine Comment: Derek Jones – MediaTel Group
class=”article”>
The Media Research Group conference in Madrid attracted papers and presentations from every area of the industry. Derek Jones, managing director of MediaTel Group, takes a look at the best and the worst that the conference had to offer…
The MRG 40th Anniversary conference ended on Friday rather as it had begun – a little weakly and disappointingly.
That’s not to say many will be deterred from attending the next in two years’ time. The event is always a terrific social and networking success; there are always a number of interesting – even entertaining – papers; the organisation is first rate. It just let itself down on two key counts – lack of MRG clout when it really matters, and an inability to address fully the keynote comments. Neither are new failings, in my view.
Maybe, amidst it all, the key session for the future of the MRG was the one that looked furthest back, Neil Shepherd-Smith’s potted history of the formation and early years. To expand:
On Wednesday afternoon, Antony Young, ZenithOptimedia’s CEO, said that he wanted to spend less on industry currencies and move that money to ROI-based research – “research outcomes not outputs,” he suggested. Practical to spend less on the trading currencies? No. Fine sentiment until he went on a step and implied that we could scrap the currencies altogether and adopt a rather confusing value measure to determine the cost of a TV spot instead. The MRG has had similar from keynote speakers before, and unfortunately, like those before, given a question or two, Antony retreated a little and confused us further with his TV value mechanism.
Great to kick off with a little controversy, but it’s got to have some greater substance all round – nobody doubted that ROI should be more widely researched and measured, so would it have been better to just stick with and develop that theme. As the head of one of the UK’s biggest media groups, and an influential voice within the IPA, if this was what he really believed then some kind of blueprint for the industry regarding an industry-wide ROI measure would have been the strongest response to the questions.
As it happened, Antony’s colleague at Zenith, Frank Harrison, picked this up on the final day, backed the industry data fully “as trading currencies only” and took us further into ROI research via MCAs (see ZenithOptimedia’s Harrison Suggests New Research Tool). As a double act – albeit 48 hours apart – the pieces began to fall into place.
That Antony created a stir – the brief for any keynote speaker – was not in doubt; whether he quite meant what we all thought we heard I’m not sure; that he lost ground under the only couple of questions he got was a shame, but I recall Derek Morris using similar rhetoric at a previous conference, and he retreated as soon as he was questioned on the grounds that he was not himself a research person.
That the keynote would have been more appropriate followed by a larger debate or a paper that urged more or different (or even by Frank – although that’s a bit too Zenith-dominated) is a certainty. I’ve banged on about this after previous conferences. The keynote speeches see the delegates addressed by senior industry figures that have the clout to actually instigate the changes they appear to advocate. I would still like to see all the keynote speakers brought together in one session – thus arguing with their peers – which gives us the big picture debate before we get into the research papers (see NewsLine Comment: Derek Jones – MediaTel Group). I doubt it will happen.
Given this opener, Harrison’s paper, and the news that the multimedia survey TouchPoints might be less than a year away, constituted the most significant contributions – and covered off the two serious points on Antony’s five-point agenda. As Lynne Robinson, IPA Research Director, said TouchPoints won’t solve everything, but it is something to build on, and it may well be that the survey acts as a catalyst for the existing surveys to take it upon themselves and get together – certainly in the broadcast area at least (as Richard Marks of TNS hypothesised).
Via the BBC’s Daily Life research, Mindshare’s Mediaset and now TouchPoints, the PDA seems to be taking centre stage as the new data collection method, but Stuart Corke’s NI research of how newspapers are read, using strange headgear and a sample of just 17, showed how much can be gathered (at a price) from very few with a degree of ingenuity and ambition.
As to the MRG itself, Neil Shepherd-Smith gave the conference his memories of the formation of the group – just 22 members, all agencies – in 1964. It was a group with clout. A “summons” to address the MRG was something to be approached with respect and some fear in those days; serious questions were asked. He felt that as it has grown it has lost that instinct to ask serious questions, and the clout. I am sure he’s right, but it doesn’t need to stay that way.
Research is so significant to the way the advertising business has developed the last few years, and the way it must continue to develop. Antony’s ROI mantra needs a currency ultimately – otherwise how do his clients draw real correlation between what his colleagues plan and buy and actual sales. It’s the old question – how do you know which 50% is working. And how do we properly measure the PVR or I-pod effect, online usage, and the increasing use of non-traditional media? And how do we build on TouchPoints v.1? Etc, etc. These are all business issues not just research issues, but they can be led by the research community.
There is no other UK-based group like the MRG that can attract over 200 people to a conference of this type and be over-subscribed with potential papers. Yet, conference over, the MRG will probably not touch the likes of agency CEOs again for another couple of years – and even then only those we invite as keynote speakers. But it should.
I thought, Christina Hartley as MRG Chair had a great opportunity to close the conference with a brief but forthright response to the key issues. A sort of rallying call that sets down what we must now do – and how the MRG can point the way over the next two years. Sadly she didn’t. Top marks for organising the conference Chrissy, and everyone was a bit worn out after Frank Harrison’s epic, but the Chair’s big moment should be the closing remarks that ring in the ears of delegates as they file out. Let’s go to the bar, doesn’t quite do it.
My own view from the fringes is that the MRG should in future always be chaired by a senior agency person (a non-exec equivalent – someone who can help the group to engage other senior figures from time to time and focus the output of the MRG in terms of communication and message). I know that is perhaps unfair in an organisation, which is so hugely supported by media owners, research companies and suppliers, but this will make most difference. The agenda for the next two years can be drawn up by the committee or by a sub-committee that includes agencies, media owners and possibly a research company or two. The composition of the whole committee should reflect better that which can most effectively create such a plan to lead industry research debate for the next two years. If that argues suppliers – like ourselves – out of committee roles, then so be it unfortunately.
The committee might also address “succession planning” by ensuring a reasonable feed of the up and coming research gurus from across the business with fresh ideas and, dare I say, even a greater affinity towards the very latest technologies. It’s not a case of rigging any voting, just setting parameters.
I would also like to see some investigation of whether the MRG could afford a part-time “consultant” of its own who could be charged with reporting back on research issues and working alongside the group on communication to members and press – including sorting out the website, which could become a really useful (campaigning and agenda-setting) tool.
I think an agency chair with clout, and a consultant given an agreed plan to implement and some time to do it – plus the huge energy of others already involved will raise the profile notably. And it should not change its name, even though I once advocated this too, research is exactly what its about. The MRG should be regularly telling the industry what the key research issues are for the next few years, and starting to question the business again.
Of course the industry has changed hugely since 1964, but as things stand energy alone won’t get the MRG back on the map with the clout it once enjoyed.
Subscribers can access previous articles by NewsLine columnists in the Columnist Archive – click button on left.