The three Es of media research

A series of blogs about the broadcast industry, narrated by David Brennan…

All good things come in threes, so why should media research be any different?

I’ve long believed that media research can best be categorised as a combination of the three Es – Exposure, Engagement and Effectiveness. It’s been interesting to see each of them evolve – but they have done so in splendid isolation. Perhaps now is the time to bring them together; after all, channel integration is part of the media zeitgeist but I don’t believe media research has been integrated or joined up anything like enough to keep up.

Exposure research – measuring the usage, reach and frequency of different media – has been with us a long time and has had the most attention. Not surprising really as it forms the basis of media currency and there are billions of pounds riding on its ability to be accurate and consistent (not always the same thing).

Consequently, we have placed this form of media research under the closest scrutiny – at the same time ensuring it is built through an industry consensus. This is fantastic in terms of its currency role, but it can also be a disincentive to change, even when change becomes a necessity.

The main problem with exposure research though is that it has traditionally been very media-centric. Each medium has evolved its own measurement currency, using very different definitions of ‘exposure’ (which is actually more ‘opportunity for exposure’), making direct comparisons difficult.

I’ve always felt this has been a major challenge to real integrated planning, as we have traditionally compared numbers based on very different definitions – e.g. presence while the TV ad was actually playing, right the way down to reading or looking at a publication for at least two minutes. It has amazed me since the day I joined this industry that the numbers derived from these very different definitions were often seen as interchangeable.

Recent innovations such as TouchPoints, providing a time-based common measurement to aid integration, and UKOM – belatedly – have helped to integrate and expand the scope of exposure research and the currencies remain intact – but it is no longer nearly enough.

Effectiveness research – especially econometrics – has come a long way in the last couple of decades, owing to advances in computing power and statistics. When I first started in this industry, you were lucky if you saw a pre and post awareness analysis and maybe some generic retail audit data. Nowadays, a large number of advertisers regularly place their brands under the spotlight of multiple regression analysis, without the slightest clue as to what that phrase actually means. (Don’t worry, I share your confusion… and I’ve got a degree in statistics!).

Some of the recent effectiveness research meta-analyses – the IPA’s ‘Marketing in the Era of Accountability’, PWC’s ‘Payback Study’, Thinkbox/Ebiquity’s ‘Payback 3’ or the ARF’s work from a couple of years ago – have opened our eyes to what works in advertising and why – and I believe their conclusions have significantly influenced recent trends in media spend. There is a beguiling reality to the numbers these massively complex sausage machines churn out – it just seems to chime with the real world.

But where does all of this leave the third E, Engagement Research? In a way, it could be seen to have been squeezed out somewhat by the direct links between exposure and effectiveness research that we are currently witnessing – cutting out the middle man. That would be a great shame, because I think engagement research is vital in helping us understand the relationship between ALL marketing communications and their influence on final purchase behaviour.

The problem is, as I have written many times before, there is no consensus about what engagement means and how it can best be measured. Each media channel uses different definitions to further their own agenda. Each media agency has a different model for how it fits into the marketing process. Each research agency has its own proprietary measurement tools, each of which claims to be the ultimate way of capturing and taming the engagement beast. No wonder engagement is being by-passed along the superhighway between exposure and effectiveness.

All of which is unfortunate, because engagement matters. If effectiveness research has taught us one thing, it is that the context of exposure and the interaction between different engagement experiences plays a huge part in the final outcome and there is no one-size-fits-all to effectiveness. New research techniques such as neuroscience, biometrics, ethnography and implicit testing are opening up some fascinating insights but they are still all struggling to answer the question “yes, but what does it all mean?”

Unless we achieve a consensus about what engagement is and how we measure it, it will be doomed to play a minor role in the 3 Es of media research. If we can better integrate it into its rightful place between exposure and effectiveness research, it would make all three Es work much harder. After all, to quote The Shamen, ‘Es are good!’.