space Home space
space Contact Kevin space
space Availability space
space Great Mind Award space
space Hall of Fame space
space Personal Interests space
space Shocking Truths space
space Best Practices Test space
space Curriculum Vitae space
space Brand Death Watch space
space Case Histories space
space CEO / CMO Exam space
space Webcasts space
space Marketing Blog space
space Copernicus space
Kevin J Clancy - Marketing Consultant
spc_image spc_image
Hall of Fame

A Dumb Way To Buy Media Is Based On The Cost Per Thousand People Exposed—CPMs.

Why do companies by media in terms of CPMs? Because that’s the way it’s been bought for fifty years and who would argue with tradition?

Television advertisers have consciously or unconsciously assumed that, for the most part, a viewer is a viewer is a viewer.  The only number that counted was the total number of 18-to-34 women, or 24-to-44 men (or some other simple demographic) watching a given program. 

But if, as research has shown, program involvement enhances advertising response, and if involvement means more than simple viewership, then the cost per thousand people involved (CPMI) is a better tool than cost per thousand exposed (CPM).
Media vehicles do differ considerably in terms of involvement (RE: engagement).  An advertiser that understands this difference can use it to improve a campaign’s success.  The question is: How closely related are the CPMI and the CPM for the same programs?  Would a company make the same media buy if the decision were based on impacted viewers rather than the total number?

The answer turns out to be “no!”  We have discovered three important things  First, two programs with the same ratings and the same type of audience demographics don’t necessarily have the same levels of involvement.  Since one program maybe more involving than another (audience size and composition held constant), one program will be more effective than another in terms of advertising response despite comparable costs.

The second finding follows from the first.  If you start with a fixed advertising budget (say $50 million) and buy a media schedule based on cost per thousand (CPMs), then do it again based on cost per thousand involved (CPMIs), you end up with two different media schedules. 

Third, and most importantly, the estimated advertising effectiveness of the CPMI buy is far greater than the CPM buy.
Everything we’ve done suggests that CPMIs will be the wave of the future.


Shocking Truths:

> There's a Negative Relationship Between What People Say They Will Do and What They Actually Do
> Quality and Price Are Positively, Linearly Related
> As Price Goes Up, Sales Go Down
> New Product Appeal and Profitability Are Not Positively Related
> Jobs-Based Segmentation Is Not a Remedy to Marketing Malpractice
> Most Brands Are Unpositioned
> Higher Levels of Customer Satisfaction and Retention Don't Always Translate Into Higher Profitability
> Net Promoter Scores Suggest That Most Companies Employ a Failed Business Strategy
> Back To The Future: How a Discredited Research Tool Discarded in the 1960s Has Become Popular in 2012
> Spending Money to Build an Emotional Connection with Your Brand Won't Build Market Share
> Most Companies Are Operating without a Vision
> Derived Importance Measures Will Lead You to the Wrong Decision
> Focus Groups May Kill Your Brand
> The Maximum Difference Methodology: a Questionable Solution in Search of a Problem
> Heavy Buyers are the Worst Target for Most Marketing Programs
> CEOs Don't Know Much About Marketing
> Advertising ROI is Negative
> Many CEOs Never Take The Time To Do It Right
> Given lots of cues and prompts, few people remember anything about your television commercial the day after they watched it
> A Dumb Way To Buy Media Is Based On The Cost Per Thousand People Exposed—CPMs
> Implementation May Be More Important Than Strategy
> Zip Codes Tell You Little About Consumers And Their Buying Behavior
> Retailers Rarely Send Truly Personalized Mailings to Individual Customers
> Too Much Talk About Brand Juice
> Marketing Plans are more Hoax than Science