abhishreshthaa
Abhijeet S
In radio the frequency argument is carried still further. The first reason for this is that audiences to any particular programme are very low and therefore to build cumulative coverage it is necessary to have spots in many programmes. Secondly, most people listen to radio whilst doing a number of other things.
Attention values are therefore low, and it is again felt that repetition helps to overcome this problem. Again, the cost of radio is extremely low, and a high frequency of insertion can be afforded. ‘High’ in this context will probably mean at least 5 spots per week, and these all be grouped on a single night. It could mean more than this. Some advertisers have used 30 to 50 spots during the course of a week over a continuing campaign.
The frequency in the cinema medium is largely dictated by the pattern of usage. One buys a week’s campaign in a given cinema and during the course of that, one’s commercial is transmitted, as many times as there are programmes. (This varies around an average of 13 from 7 to 20.)
The most common purchases of cinema are either in continuous weekly patterns, i.e. the same cinema is booked continuously for however many weeks the campaign is going to run, or in alternative weeks, which may be, for instance, 13 out of 26. In general, because of the low frequency of attendance at cinema, it is best to have as continuous a pattern as is possible on the budget in order to reach the maximum number of people.
Frequency in direct mail is a particularly vexed question. Many advertisers when using direct mail think of it as a one shot medium. There is some justification for this when it is being used to do a specific job, such as a mailing to retailers to advise them of the introduction of a new campaign. On the other hand, if direct mail is being used as a straight forward advertising medium, then there is no reason to believe that frequency is any less important here than elsewhere.
Attention values are therefore low, and it is again felt that repetition helps to overcome this problem. Again, the cost of radio is extremely low, and a high frequency of insertion can be afforded. ‘High’ in this context will probably mean at least 5 spots per week, and these all be grouped on a single night. It could mean more than this. Some advertisers have used 30 to 50 spots during the course of a week over a continuing campaign.
The frequency in the cinema medium is largely dictated by the pattern of usage. One buys a week’s campaign in a given cinema and during the course of that, one’s commercial is transmitted, as many times as there are programmes. (This varies around an average of 13 from 7 to 20.)
The most common purchases of cinema are either in continuous weekly patterns, i.e. the same cinema is booked continuously for however many weeks the campaign is going to run, or in alternative weeks, which may be, for instance, 13 out of 26. In general, because of the low frequency of attendance at cinema, it is best to have as continuous a pattern as is possible on the budget in order to reach the maximum number of people.
Frequency in direct mail is a particularly vexed question. Many advertisers when using direct mail think of it as a one shot medium. There is some justification for this when it is being used to do a specific job, such as a mailing to retailers to advise them of the introduction of a new campaign. On the other hand, if direct mail is being used as a straight forward advertising medium, then there is no reason to believe that frequency is any less important here than elsewhere.