Submit newsAdvertise & rates  17°C Johannesburg Contact us
Press offices
Advertising news

Shock figures of ad broadcasting errors

22 Oct 2009 07:236 commentsBizLike
According to Deloitte, recent tracking of radio advertising broadcast on South African stations showed alarming results; an average of 9% of all radio ads booked are not broadcast as scheduled. Based on FM's AdFocus estimated figure of R3 billion on radio advertising in 2008, this error equates to R270 million erosion of ad spend per annum.
"Through our research and market testing of this concept, it's become apparent to us that there are significant operational inefficiencies in radio and television broadcast where advertising campaigns are flighted incorrectly. The scope of errors which we verified were not aired at all, broadcast in the wrong time channel or flighted as scheduled but the wrong material was used," commented Audine Brooks, business leader for Deloitte's Advertising Broadcast Certification service.

In the last month, some of the findings show:
  • Client's radio campaign ran at a 24% error rate - resultant compensation claim was thirty fold the related certification fee
  • Another major advertiser's radio activity consistently results in an 8% error rate, damaging the reach and frequency intended by its marketing strategy
  • Another TV campaign ran at 5% error rate, R149k in value booked but not broadcast accurately.
Some clients are fortunate to receive clean reports of zero error, and therefore draw comfort in the knowledge that their ad campaigns are being broadcast accurately.

Ads must be monitored

Historically there have been limited mechanisms available to validate the actual broadcast of a campaign. This service equips marketers with the visibility of, and accountability for, their return on investment. It assists with early identification of broadcast errors and enables advertisers to claim for compensation from media owners, thus initiating compensation to take place within the context of a campaign. Such monitoring therefore highlights the significant opportunity cost being borne for reduced brand penetration due to incorrect broadcast.

"The company's role is to provide a unique and independent verification function, certifying the accuracy of the broadcast results. With our stamp of authenticity, the media owners are far more responsive when asked to provide compensation in spots or credit. Our interest in the solution arises from a compliance point of view, ensuring that media owners are fulfilling their contractual obligations with advertisers," continued Brooks.

“In this challenging economic climate and with this potential erosion of ad spend in mind, organisations are inevitably more risk averse around where they position their marketing investments. Advertisers are clearly concerned about limiting such erosion of their ad spend and are approaching us to monitor their ad activity, either recently broadcast, or with the imminent festive season consumer spending in mind. Such transparency ensures target audiences are reached and therefore optimises the effectiveness of each and every campaign booked," concluded Brooks.
 
More options
TRAFFIC
NONSENSE-
Having been in the traffic deparment for more than 4 years, I can truly relate to this report and also see how this may come about. Too often, material is not delivered on time or flighting instructions do not correspond with the delivered material. Changes are often made and not followed through in writing thus resulting in conflicting reports. Furthermore, the "so called water marking" of flighting material leaves much to be desired as no one really know what or how thi works and it's accuracy and that of the recording studio/s is somewhat questionable. The revision of bookings and flightings are not necesarilly communicated in time with the "tracking" companies thus resulting in MASSIVE discrepencies.

Whereas we undertsand the need for "tracking" and monitoring, a broader picture needs to be fully investigated as change is the only constant in this industry leaving little or no time at all for all parties to get thier ducks in the row. More often than not, "Monitoring companies/WATCHDOGS" are often the last to know of such changes and I think this report is highly inaccurate if not totally nonsenical. Posted on 22 Oct 2009 11:14
Nick
Agree, manipulation of fact-
There are a myriad ways to track an ad campaign's efficacy, and as stated by TRAFFIC, log discrepancies arise all the time for legitimate reasons. Radio may not be 100%, but it's nowhere near as inaccurate as this "release" alleges.

The system Deloitte is using is fully capable of giving justification and specifics - Proper validation is notable by its absence here. This is alarmist rubbish designed to frighten clients into subscribing to their service.

Either back up the claims with proper figures that can be openly challenged, or retract this emotive tosh Posted on 22 Oct 2009 16:26
Wildly inaccurate-
Wow, now lets put the fear of you know what into all.

I find it interesting that they claim that '9% of all radio ads booked' are not correctly broadcast, I didn't know they monitored everything, perhaps it's only 9% of what they monitor which I doubt is even 10% of the industry.

They claim that 'some clients are fortunate' is also made in an exagarated manner, if only 9% of ads are wrong it leads that perhaps a far greater proportion actually go out correctly?

There can be no doubt that it is important to have verification of broadcast, but the scare mongering undertaken in the article above does not only the industry as disservice but appears to point to a distinctly distaseful marketing tactic being used by Deloitte... Posted on 22 Oct 2009 21:10
Graham Willcock, MD, RadMark
Reckless-
I am suprised that Deloittes would allow its name to be associated with a vague and reckless commentary on a matter it has been trying, for a considerable amount of time, to be a thought leader on. Ms Brookes, and her aggressive and abrasive style, has done inestimable damage to relations between Deloittes and the media in general. If Deloittes wants a public discourse on this matter then be specific - name and shame if you must - but don't make broad, unsubstantiated claims that further alienates an industry that, as a stakeholder, needs to be part of the solution. According to Ms Brookes and Deloittes the media is the problem and that is going to get verification as a legitimate policy nowhere in a hurry. Posted on 25 Oct 2009 21:04
Ant
It happens-
Anybody who think this doesn't happen, particularly at SABC PBS stations, is naive...but this figure seems excessive. Posted on 26 Oct 2009 16:35
Audine Brooks
Deloitte Response-
Thank you for your comments – we’ve encouraged such lively debate since the launch of the business, considering the controversial nature of such a certification process.

I’d like to highlight the role Deloitte plays in the industry – not of a watchdog, but an independent party enabling service providers in delivering the best service to their clients and ensuring clients receive the value that they pay for… nothing more, nothing less. As an independent audit firm, our goal is to assist our clients in achieving 0% advertising errors.
If you agree with this then our intentions are aligned, and media owners and agencies would support achieving these goals.

To clarify in response :
- ‘water marking of flighting material leaves much to be desired’ : We have used 2 technologies (water marking and wave pattern recognition) and would be happy to explain how they produce broadcast monitoring results. We have rigorously tested both systems through a due diligence process and using actual material of campaigns due for broadcast. We are comfortable with the level of accuracy we obtain and we check every instance reported to our clients anyway.
- ‘Radio may not be 100%, but it's nowhere near as inaccurate as this "release" alleges’ : Our business has been built on sound principles based on specific broadcast results identifying the need for such validation support. The cumulative error rate that we report to date is a result of a significant volume of broadcast certified in a 12 month time period across all media owners and stations in South Africa and for major advertisers throughout this period. And hence the extrapolation of 9% as an industry average is considered sound.
- "Monitoring companies/WATCHDOGS" are often the last to know of such (material) changes’ : Broadcast error can occur through change or material being submitted late by agencies. However this is marginally responsible for the overall broadcast error we detect and we are informed of revisions to bookings as we work closely with our clients’ agencies. Any discrepancies are openly discussed with all parties involved so that the ultimate result is that advertisers receive that value that they pay for.
- The balance of broadcast error is a result of media owner delivery : non broadcast, broadcast in incorrect time channel or of incorrect material.
- ‘Damaged relations?’ We’ve built sound relationships with both media owners and our clients’ agencies, both seeking support in serving their clients
- The objective of our clients receiving clean reports is exactly what we aim to achieve through such a validation function.
- ‘Either back up the claims with proper figures that can be openly challenged, or retract this emotive tosh’: Our findings listed at a high level serve to illustrate examples of the opportunity cost borne by advertisers. They are substantiated through actual broadcast results. We are confident that our reports are accurate and have time stamped audio to substantiate this. ‘Name and shame?’ these results are confidential to our clients.
- ‘Alarmist rubbish designed to frighten clients into subscribing; scare mongering’ : Our goal is to ultimately provide a platform for service providers to prove the value add they bring to their clients where fees can be charged based on independently proven service delivery.
- Our intention as an audit firm is not to create alarm but rather to inform the industry of our proven findings. The nature of the service corresponds closely with our compliance risk management offering which reports to clients on the extent that their service providers are fulfilling their contractual obligations. And we are simply extending our audit methodology process that in the past was unauditable.

Such media reports as published in Bizcommunity serve to inform and motivate the industry to act on the level of broadcast error being detected and aim to better serve the advertisers. Posted on 29 Oct 2009 12:21
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. defamation, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.

Subscribe to industry newsletters


Bizcommunity has over 400 industry contributors and we always welcome further contributions and contributors.

Subscribe

Receive free email newsletter

Make us your homepageAdd us to your favoritesRSS feedGet biz on your phoneFollow us

Invite

Tell a friend about us