local & int insights saarf final report · pdf fileof global best practice and local...

Johann Koster Consulting © Copyright 2015 2

Contents Focus of the Report 3 Executive Summary 4 1. Context 7 1.1 South African Advertising Research Foundation 7 2. South African Industry Perspectives and Preferences 9 2.1 Survey Approach 9 2.2 Survey Findings 12 2.3 Quotes to Illustrate Diverse Views 46 3. International Media Research and Funding Landscape 48 3.1 International Engagement Approach 48 3.2 Research and Funding Landscape 49 4. Key Insights 55 4.1 International 55 4.2 South Africa 57 5. Conclusion 63 Annexure A: Survey Questionnaire

Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who made this report possible. A word of gratitude to all the executives and experts, both local and international, who took time out from their busy schedules to provide me with their insights, views, opinions and answers to my many questions. Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the executive and staff of SAARF in completing this report – Jeanette Way and Mariè Rossouw deserve a special word of thanks. My thanks too goes to my teammates who assisted with the data analyses, drafting and content development - Lerlynn Latief (Independent) and Gail Pearman (Muse Content Development). Many thanks go to the SAARF Board and Business Committee who encouraged the industry engagements and gave me the space to independently and objectively formulate this report. The guidance provided particularly by the Business Committee and its chairperson, Bruce Williamson, contributed immensely to completion of the report.


Focus of the Report In 2012 the South African Advertising Research Foundation’s (“SAARF”) commissioned the Future-Proof SAARF (“FPS”) report1. This was undertaken in response to industry calls for a change in the methodology and structure of media and marketing research in South Africa. The FPS report provided a comprehensive overview of international methodologies and structures, the international media landscape, the local context and model as well as possible future scenarios and models. Yet while it presented comprehensive recommendations for future research in the country, these were based on the assumption that SAARF would continue to exist and manage the transition to a new way of doing research. Developments within the media and marketing research landscape over the past two years have placed this scenario in serious doubt. This report titled “The Future of Media And Marketing Research in South Africa: An Overview Of Global Best Practice and Local Industry Perspectives and Preferences” does not aim to replace the FPS report. It seeks to augment it, particularly given the changing environment and developments over recent years. As a matter of fact, the FPS report remains an extremely relevant and technically sound reference document and it is against this backdrop that the research reflected herein seeks to provide attitudinal information on the current environment. The report should therefore be seen as a reference point in time from which certain assumptions can be drawn with regard to the attitudes, principles and values that are pivotal for the media and marketing research industry. In addition, the report is not concerned with providing solutions to the general challenges facing SAARF. Rather, it aims to provide the industry with independent and objective benchmarks, which can serve as starting points in working towards possible solutions to address industry challenges. It takes a long-term view through taking stock of the current situation, in order to put building blocks in place for the future.

1 Future-Proof SAARF Report – International Structures and Methodologies (Kuper Research, 2013)


Executive Summary Recent developments in the local media industry have necessitated a re-evaluation of the role of SAARF in the fields of media currency and industry research. Some media owners have taken the decision to resign as members of the professional body and simultaneously, have undertaken to directly fund audience research through their own Joint Industry Committees (“JICS”). Consequently the industry as a whole has been left with the burning question: “Is there still a place for an industry body such as SAARF and if so, how should it be funded?” Stakeholders’ continued participation in a central independent body, whether that body is SAARF or a new and different industry body is reliant on that body’s relevance and its value proposition over the foreseeable future. This report highlights areas of consensus and differences in opinion, as well as possible areas for industry collaboration and cooperation. It tests the need to institutionalise these propositions in asking: “Should future joint research be managed through an industry body or would the industry prefer to manage it through collaboration? It also tests the South African media and marketing industry’s appetite to fund new initiatives. In identifying possible value propositions, the first step taken was consultation with local stakeholders. The consultation process entailed interviews with executives from 59 organisations. Secondly, a number of international organisations were consulted to gain insights on industry and research structures, as well as funding mechanisms. A summary of the insights gleaned through these engagements is provided herewith.


Summary of South African Perceptions and Preferences


Summary of International Insights

• Globally media and marketing research is structured in accordance with three distinct models:

o Multi JIC: In countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia and Romania, media owners have organised themselves into media specific JICS, which are concerned with currency research.

o SUPER JIC: Belgium, Germany, Spain have created SUPER JICS similar to the pre-2015 SAARF. The SUPER JIC is responsible for all media specific currencies as well as inter-media and Hub Surveys.

o Commercial: Across the majority of Asian countries and, to some extent, in countries such as France and Australia, independent research companies conduct research.

• In the majority of the countries examined, institutions concerned with the design,

implementation and oversight of research have structures that facilitate collaboration between all stakeholders in the value chain.

• Media owners, media agencies and marketers are represented, to varying degrees, in the structures of these organisations.

• Within the countries examined, with the exception of Asia, media owners contribute the vast majority of funding towards research.

• Contributions are generally calculated as a percentage of net advertising revenue/spend.

The industry has expressed an appetite for change and many stakeholders have displayed a shift in views and opinions towards active participation and collective responsibility. This change should be driven by innovation and a new way of doing business. A future industry forum or body should instill confidence by exhibiting maturity. It should lead the new way of doing business by being an authentic leader that is focused on both internal and external stakeholders and setting best practice examples right from the onset.


1. Context 1.1 South African Advertising Research Foundation The South African Advertising Research Foundation, referred to in the media and marketing research industry as SAARF, has been the source of essential information for the identification of target markets. It has set the currency for above the line media since the 1970s. Such data, which is critical within the media strategy and planning profession, has been provided through its products AMPS®, RAMS® and TAMS®. These have historically reflected the needs of various stakeholders including media owners and the advertising and marketing industries. Yet recent developments in the local media industry have necessitated a re-evaluation of the role of SAARF in the fields of media currency and industry research. Some media owners have taken the decision to resign as members of the professional body and simultaneously, have undertaken to directly fund audience research through their own Joint Industry Committees (JICS). Media owners’ have stated that SAARF’s lack of ability to adapt to changing times, technologies and industry needs was amongst the reasons for this decision. Other media owners and industry associations are contemplating their future participation in SAARF or within their own JIC. The departing members have left the Foundation with both a funding and mandate vacuum. Consequently the industry as a whole has been left with the burning question: “Is there still a place for an industry body such as SAARF and if so, how should it be funded?” Stakeholders’ continued participation in a central independent body, whether that body is SAARF or a new and different industry body is reliant on that body’s relevance and its value proposition over the foreseeable future.


In order to define such a possible value proposition, this report highlights areas of consensus and differences in opinion, as well as possible areas for industry collaboration and cooperation. It tests the need to institutionalise these propositions in asking: “Should future joint research be managed through an industry body or would the industry prefer to manage it through collaboration? It also tests the South African media and marketing industry’s appetite to fund new initiatives. In identifying possible value propositions, the first step taken was consultation with local stakeholders. The consultation process entailed interviews with executives from 59 organisations and is explained in more detail under Survey Approach herein. Secondly, a number of international organisations were consulted to gain insights on industry and research structures as well as funding mechanisms. These responses are summarised below, under International Media Research and Funding Landscape. The report concludes with a summary of Key Insights.


2. South African Industry Perspectives and Preferences 2.1 Survey Approach

Face-to-face interviews were selected as the best method to obtain the views, opinions and preferences of industry stakeholders. Key decision makers representing media owners, advertisers, media agencies, research companies and software bureaus were targeted for the interviews. The interviews were structured by means of a questionnaire (attached as Annexure 1) using a sliding scale of answers to rate the importance of statements, principles and values. To ensure consistency in the interpretation and processing of data, a survey tool was used. A total of nine (9) main questions, together with numerous sub-questions were asked. Respondents were required to provide a total of 38 responses. The questions can be grouped into three broad categories: 1. “New AMPS” – post 2015 1.1. Principles and Values 1.2. Data and Components 2. Independent Industry Body 2.1. The need for an Independent Industry Body 2.2. Exploring a possible mandate for an Independent Industry Body 3. Funding 3.1. Source 3.2. Mechanism 3.3. Application A total of 65 interviews were conducted representing 59 stakeholder organisations. In some interviews more than one person represented a particular organisation, but they were asked


to provide a consensus view and only one (1) answer was captured per question. In total 81 people participated in the interviews, of which 78% were at executive level. The remaining 22% were specialists in the field of research. As well as providing an industry view, this report also provides views per stakeholder grouping. The stakeholder groups are as follows: • Advertisers/Marketers (n = 16) • Media owners (n = 21) • Media agencies (n = 13) • Research organisations (n = 6) • Software bureaus (n = 3) The organisations targeted were all major players in their respective industries and the response rate was approximately 80%. Media owner respondents included the major media houses from the print, digital, out of home and broadcasting industries as well as their respective industry associations. The same held true for media agency research organisations and software providers. Marketer/advertiser respondents all fell within the top 30 for advertising spend as per Nielsen Research AdEx, 2013. Interviews were conducted on the condition of anonymity and the details of respondents and their organisations will not be made available, and are not provided herein. Clarifications Fusion The term fusion is commonly used in the industry when referring to data integration. For the sake of clarity and consistency the term was therefore also used in the questionnaire. However, it was explained that fusion should be seen in the broader sense of data integration rather than a specific methodology for integrating two or more databases.


Establishment Survey (“ES”) AMPS is commonly referred to as an ES but it is actually termed a Hub Survey by international standards. For the sake of clarity and consistency the term was therefore also used in the questionnaire but clarified with respondents. For the purpose of the questionnaire ES therefore referred to a Hub Survey. Respondents were asked to provide answers accordingly. Question 12 In the questionnaire the first statement under this heading reads: “In a multi-JIC environment, a single industry body will be the best vehicle to represent the interests of marketers, agencies and media that have not formed their own JICs.” After testing the questions it was felt that this phrasing did not capture the intent. It was felt that the wording sought to imply a “home” for those without one, while the intention was to test the appetite for an industry body that would serve as a vehicle to manage and oversee joint industry research. The questionnaire had already been “locked” on the survey tool and as such, the functionality of the tool did not allow changing the wording. However, during the interviews, the statement was read out as follows: “In a multi-JIC environment, a single industry body will be the best vehicle to represent the interests of marketers, agencies and media for the purposes of joint research.”


2.2 Survey Findings

THE NEED FOR AN ESTABLISHMENT/HUB SURVEY


WHAT SHOULD THE ESTABLISHMENT/HUB SURVEY LOOK LIKE?


THE NEED FOR A JOINT INDUSTRY BODY


THE MANDATE FOR A JOINT INDUSTRY BODY


PERSPECTIVES ON MATTERS OF FUNDING


PERSPECTIVES ON FUNDING MECHANISMS


WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE


2.3 Quotes to Illustrate Diverse Views Within the high level engagement undertaken through the survey, certain quotes from respondents stood out, reflecting diverse views. A selection thereof is provided below.

“The reputation of the industry and its research is in shambles because everybody is doing their own thing.” – Senior Executive, Research Organisation

“It is the international norm for stakeholders to do their own research.” – Senior Executive, Software Provider

“The integrity and objectivity of data must be intact. How this is achieved is neither here nor there.” – Senior Executive, Media Owner

“The industry is not able to trade fairly if the data and information is controlled by media owners.” – Senior Executive, Media Agency

“Media owners should not self-regulate the quality of data. They cannot be both referee and players.” – Senior Executive, Marketing

“SAARF did not listen to the needs of marketers. There was no openness and it lacked empathy and understanding.” – Senior Executive, Marketing

“Who pays for what and what do they actually use. Do marketers really see the value of AMPS?” – Senior Executive, Media Agency

“Research needs to be governed within a proper framework through a single independent body.” – Senior Executive, Marketing

“Marketers and agencies need to dominate on the Establishment Survey in order to ensure independence and integrity.” – Senior Executive, Media Owner


“We operate in a converged media space with surveys and currencies affecting decisions across the industry. Consumers and their consumption decisions should not be pigeonholed by media type. Experts should rather understand the whole picture and effects across the industry.” – Senior Executive, Media Owner

“There is not enough trust in the system to trust the research if it is controlled by a limited number of stakeholders. Stakeholders don’t trust each other and therefore we need to institutionalise the research to ensure a managed system of trust. Even if we don’t trust each other, you can trust the output.” – Research Specialist, Marketing

“We do not need an industry body to facilitate collaboration and cooperation on an Establishment Survey and joint research.” – Research Specialist, Media Owner

“The model of a single body that is open and transparent still needs to be pursued. It should not act as a gatekeeper and should be responsible for standards, compliance and representation.” – Senior Executive, Media Owner

“We do not need an [industry] body rather a strong steering committee or task team to fulfil an oversight and validation role.” – Senior executive, Media Owner

“A new industry body could be a centre of excellence that does training and survey auditing similar to the work done by CESP in France.” – Research Specialist, Media Owner

“We need to work together anyway in order to get the Establishment Survey going. Why do we need to break up the organisation that provides a forum for discussion.” – Senior Executive, Media Owner


3. International Media Research and Funding Landscape 3.1 International Engagement Approach The FPS Report2 dealt with specific industry structures and research methodologies in detail. Cognisant of this, the following sub-section presents a high-level overview of how industries in other territories have organised themselves around research. It aims to provide insights on how sectors interact, manage, govern and fund media and marketing research and as such, should serve as a reference point for modelling the future structures and funding arrangements in South Africa. Information was sourced from industry specialists indicated in the table below, with a summary of media and marketing research structures and funding mechanisms per region and/or country. Country JIC/Organisation Person Position Asia N/A Steve Garton Global Research Expert Belgium

CIM Stef Peters General Manager

Finland

MediaAuditFinland Kaija Sinko Managing Director

France

CESP Hélène Haering Projects Director

Germany

Agma Gabrielle Ritter Research Director

Netherlands

PMA Johann Smit Director

Romania

ARMA Costin Juncu Managing Director

Spain AIMC Carlos Lozano Executive President United Kingdom IPA Lynne Robinson Research Director

2 Future-Proof SAARF Report – International Structures and Methodologies (Kuper Research, 2013)


3.2 Research and Funding Landscape

Overview • A similar commercial model applies generally to all countries across Asia. • Audience and media research is driven by commercial imperatives. • Although some industry associations exist, the industries (with the exception of

India) have not organised themselves into JICS.

Research • Research companies such as IPSOS, GFK, TNS, Nielsen, etc. conduct

research on a commercial basis at risk. • There is some interaction between research companies, media owners, media

agencies and marketers to align research with the needs of the users. • Software bureaus compete for the right to package and sell on data for various

currencies and surveys. Funding • The commercial partnerships with software bureaus allows for research

products to be sold commercially. • No direct funding is received from media owners, media agencies or marketers

– they all pay for access to the data through subscriptions or licensing schemes.

ASIA

Overview • The Centre for Information on Media (CIM) is a SUPER JIC resembling the

pre-2015 SAARF. o Conducts surveys (published as separate currencies) for each media

type. o Conducts a multimedia study, the Cross Media Studie, which is fused

with the Print currency and the “Target Group Monitor” study to present a multimedia Hub Survey.

o Stakeholders from Print, Radio, Television, Outdoor, Cinema, Online, advertisers and agencies are represented on its structures.

Funding • Media owners and agencies contribute 50/50 to studies that concern all media. • For media currencies, contributions are 95/5 for media owners and agencies

respectively.

BELGIUM


Overview • MediaAuditFinland, the country’s JIC for the Print industry is responsible for

the National Readership Survey. Stakeholders from Print, agencies and advertisers are represented on its structures.

• Finnpanel, a company owned by AC Nielsen Finland and TNS Gallup is responsible for TV and radio measurement.

• The State broadcaster, YLE (largest commercial broadcaster) and the two biggest print publications established a company, which is intended to become a HUB for media surveys. This is not yet operational.

Funding • Print media and media agencies fund MediaAuditFinland 95/5 respectively. • Access to Finnpanel is a commercial operation funded through data sales

and subscriptions.

FINLAND

Overview • CESP is a multimedia JIC that does not carry out any surveys. Its sole

responsibility is to audit all media surveys. Its stakeholders are Televison, Radio, Print, Online, Outdoor, Cinema, advertisers and agencies.

• Audipresse, a media owner committee (MOC) is responsible for the national print survey. It also produces a Print brand study, which is a fusion between the print currency, an Internet panel and a mobile panel.

• Médiamétrie, a privately owned research company, carries out the currency surveys for Television, radio and Internet. It also produces “Internet Global”, which is a fusion of online, mobile and tablet panels.

Funding • Media owners pay for the currency research and multimedia research

conducted by Audipresse and Médiamétrie. • CESP funding is shared between media, agencies and advertisers.

Calculations are based on share of revenue.

FRANCE

Overview • Association of Media Analyses (agma) is a JIC, which conducts all media

research, excluding Television. Television has its own JIC, namely AGF. Agma conducts surveys for each of the represented media types and provides a multimedia database – “ma Intermedia PluS” – that fuses the media surveys, including TV, into a single HUB survey.

• Stakeholders are Print, Radio, Online, Outdoor, agencies and advertisers, all of which are represented on its structures.

Funding • Media owners pay for all research.

GERMANY


INDIA Overview • Audience research in India is currently in a state of disarray. Recent changes in

the readership survey and the establishment of a second Television ratings system has created confusion.

• In 1998 ACNielsen and Kantar Media Research, together with IMRB International (formerly Indian Media Research Bureau), both part of Kantar, WPP’s worldwide consultancy business) formed a joint venture known as TAM Media Research (“TMR”).

• Through TMR, IMRB has been responsible for Television (TAM) since 1998 and radio (RAM) since 2007.

• The IMRB is also responsible for the Print measurement (IRS) through the Media Research Users Council (MRUC). A “new” IRS was released in 2014 but serious doubts have been expressed as to the accuracy of the data.

• The Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) was established recently with the mandate to conduct Television audience measurement. The formation of this body was the result of recommendations by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).

• BARC is, according to its website “promoted by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI)”.

• The intention was for BARC to replace the TAM ratings but this is no longer certain. The BARC ratings have not yet been established and subscribers to TAM have indicated that they have no intention of discontinuing TAM. TAM itself has asserted that it will not discontinue its ratings when BARC ratings are initiated.

• There is a real likelihood that TAM and BARC ratings will co-exist, at least for over the short term.

Funding • BARC is funded by the IBF, ISA and AAAI but the exact proportions were not

available at the time of this report being compiled. • The IMRB suite of products is funded through subscriptions and licence

agreements on a commercial basis. • Associations and members of MRUC receive discounts on data subscriptions for

the IRS. It is not clear whether this applies to similar organisations, which are associated with the TAM and RAM measurements.


Overview • Media owners are organised into four JICS – Television (SKO), Radio (NLO), Print (NOM) and

Online. • The Online JIC closed down and the five major publishers, EBay and Facebook (Big 7) have

formed the Dutch Dialogue Marketing Association (DDMA). • The Association of Dutch Advertisers (BVA) and the Platform of Media Consultancy Agencies

(PMA) have representation on all the JICs and the DDMA, all of which represent the interests of marketers and media agencies.

• The research environment is characterised by heavy collaboration and cooperation between the JICS, advertisers and agencies.

• The media JICS are all housed in the same building. Research • Each JIC is responsible for conducting, administering and publishing media surveys and

currencies. • Two cross-media studies are conducted:

o The Media Standard Survey (MSS), an annual establishment survey, that has been operational since 2012 and which is jointly administered by the JICS.

o Media:Tijd, a time budgeting study similar to Touchpoints in the UK. This is jointly administered by JICS, Government Department for Social Studies and the Dutch Public Broadcaster.

Funding • The total research cost amounts to approximately 0,6% of net adspend. • Media owners pay for their currencies and the MSS research. • Agencies and advertisers pay for the management of both currencies and the MSS research –

50/50 split. • Media:Tijd is 50% funded by media owners, advertisers and agencies. The Institute for Social

Studies funds the other half. • The Public Broadcaster and agencies (PMA) agreed to contribute extra towards the Media:Tijd

study to facilitate their choice of fusion partner. • The agencies (PMA) contribute extra if funding becomes an issue. • Total contributions are comprised of media owners (80%), agencies (15%) and advertisers (5%). • Approximately 5% of JIC budgets are allocated to ad hoc surveys, tests, new technologies and

methodologies. • The data access is regulated through software bureaus and revenue is generated through data

sales and user licenses. Future of Audience Measurement (F.O.A.M) • Is a think tank concerned with the future design and governance of media audience

measurement, which aims to establish some form of governance, albeit informal. • F.O.A.M lacks formal status but consists of CEOs from agencies, major broadcasters, print and

online publications. Discussions are underway to formalise this arrangement.

NETHERLANDS


Overview • Media industry is organised into multiple JICs for Television (ARMA), Radio

(ARA) and Print, Online and Outdoor (BRAT). • Stakeholders including respective media, agencies and advertisers are

represented on the structures of the JICS.

Research • Each JIC conducts media specific or currency research. • The TAM system is regulated. Processes and procedures for awarding the

TAM contract are prescribed by law and involve the Audio-visual Regulatory Authority.

• There is no joint or inter-media research and very little collaboration between JICS.

Funding • Media owners contribute the bulk of the funding for all the research. • Agencies currently contribute 20% towards the TAM system. This will

decrease 15% in 2016. • Data sales and subscriptions contribute a small portion of revenue.

ROMANIA

Overview • Association for the Research of Media Communication (AIMC) is a SUPER JIC

similar to the pre-2015 SAARF. o Conducts research for all media types as part of an Establishment Survey

similar to AMPS – the General Media Study (EGM). o Conducts a separate products and brands survey known as AIMC

Marcas. o Provides technical audit services to third parties.

• Television, Radio, Online, Print, Outdoor, Cinema and Agencies are represented on its structures.

• To expand the EGM sample, Radio, TV and Print conduct telephone interviews independently.

Funding • Media owners contribute 70% of the funding, as calculated on audience share. • Agencies and advertisers contribute 30%, as calculated on annual billings.

SPAIN


Overview • Media owners are organised into a mixture of JICS (Radio, Outdoor and Print) and non-profit

organisations (TV). • The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) represents media agencies on the boards

and structures of all the above organisations. • Advertisers are represented by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA) but do

not have representation on all structures and in some instances, do not have voting rights. Research • Research is conducted independently for each media type. • There is some collaboration between media for specific research, which primarily involves

online consumption measurement. • Touchpoints, a consumer-focused, multimedia planning tool has two offerings:

o Hub Survey – provides a view of “a day in the life” of consumer behaviour. o Channel Planner – multimedia channel planner that integrates media currencies

within the Hub Survey. Funding • Media owners contribute the majority of funds for the currency surveys - ranging between

80% and 100%. • The IPA (agencies) underwrite a portion of the cost for a number of these currencies – 12%

NRS (Print), 15% Route (Outdoor), 18% BARB (TV). • The IPA also owns 50% of Route. • Touchpoints is paid for by the IPA and sold on to media owners, advertisers, researchers,

etc. to offset the cost. • IPA’s underwriting of media currencies is offset by subscriber fees and nets down

considerably. • Access to data is regulated through software bureaus with revenues generated through data

sales, subscriptions and user licenses.

UNITED KINGDOM

“We believe that neither the minimal form of a SUPER JIC like in RSA (small board), nor the

extensive form like in Belgium (huge board) will help the decision making process and keep the

cost under control. We have by far not found the right solution and the current setup with different

JIC’s working closer and closer together is not ideal either. We are still wasting resources, spend

(too) much time coordinating and have to deal with perceived differences of interest.” – Johan Smit,

Director PMA (Media Consultancy Agencies)


4. Key Insights 4.1 International This sub-section presents a summary of global structural and funding considerations, which need to be taken into account. Structurally speaking, the following key learnings can be gleaned from the status quo of international media and marketing research bodies:

• Globally media and marketing research is structured in accordance with three distinct models:

o Multi JIC: In countries such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia and Romania, media owners have organised themselves into media specific JICS, which are concerned with currency research.

o SUPER JIC: Belgium, Germany and Spain have created SUPER JICS similar to the pre-2015 SAARF. The SUPER JIC is responsible for all media specific currencies as well as inter-media and Hub Surveys.

o Commercial: Across the majority of Asian countries and, to some extent, in countries such as France and Australia, independent research companies conduct research.

• Countries that lack structure, collaboration and cooperation such as Finland and Ukraine are characterised by a lack of research or the dominance of a single stakeholder or interest group.

• The golden thread that seems to drive success across the various models is

collaboration and cooperation. o The majority of the countries examined, institutions concerned with the design,

implementation and oversight of research have structures that facilitate collaboration between all stakeholders in the value chain.

o Media owners, media agencies and marketers are represented, to varying degrees, in the structures of these organisations.


o Media owners, media agencies and marketers seem to be well organised in the successful markets, which contributes to the effectiveness and maturity of collaboration. The focus is therefore on delivering reliable and dependable data.

o In Multi JIC environments, there seems to be significant collaboration between JICS, especially where the integrity of inter-media and Hub Surveys are at stake. Collaboration and cooperation takes place on an industry level whilst competition is left to the enterprise level.

Funding has proven to be the single biggest challenge faced in all of the countries examined. Cost containment is a priority and industries are at pains to ensure the best possible research within the budget parameters.

• Within the countries examined, with the exception of Asia, media owners contribute the vast majority of funding towards research.

• The levels at which media owners, media agencies and marketers contribute varies from country to country. A generalisation of contributions suggests that on average media owners contribute approximately 80% whilst media agencies and marketers contribute 20%.

o In the UK, media agencies underwrite 100% of the funding for the Hub Survey known as Touchpoints. Agencies underwrite between 12% and 18% of the costs for the Print, Television and Out of Home surveys.

o In Belgium media agencies contribute 50% of the funding for studies that concern all media.

o In the countries where media agencies contribute to funding, the cost-of-research is factored into their fee structures.

• Contributions are generally calculated as a percentage of net advertising

revenue/spend. o In some countries a complex calculation based on share of revenue, audience

and/or market is used to calculate contributions.


• In the majority of the countries, additional revenue is generated through data sales and access to data is regulated through software bureaus.

o The software bureaus provide an audited list of clients, which is compared with a list of funders. Those who do not contribute towards the funding of research are required to pay for data access.

o This revenue is used to offset the cost of research. o In Multi JIC environments the revenue is shared amongst JICS, usually through

a revenue sharing scheme based on the level of contributions. In other words, if a JIC contributes 50% of the funding towards a particular survey it will receive 50% of the data sales revenue from that particular survey.

4.2 South Africa 4.2.1 The Future Establishment/Hub Survey Principles There seems to be broad agreement across the industry on a number of principles, which should underpin the future Hub Survey (New AMPS). They can be summarised as follows:

• A single Hub Survey should be at the core of media and marketing research in South Africa.

• The research should be independent from any stakeholder grouping.

• It should be designed through the use of reputable experts and in consultation with the industry including software bureaus, to allow integration with other industry research.

• The Hub Survey must have an open and freely available sampling frame that is used for standardised sampling.

• It should conform with gold standard international norms of quality and validation. Composition In expressing preferences for the categories of questions that should be included in the future Hub Survey, industry level responses suggest that all the components of the current


AMPS are important. However, Individual groups deviate on the importance attributed to certain components and three distinct levels of deviation emerged:

• Low Deviation = Critical Demographics, Media Categories and Media Consumption Behaviour

• Medium Deviation = Important but requires review Living Standard Measurement (LSM), Retail Services and Attitudes

• Large Deviation = Critical for some, not for others Products, Brands and Lifestyles

Low and medium levels of deviation can be seen as areas of agreement and the starting point for discussions on the future composition of the Hub Survey. The scope and depth of the questions in the Hub Survey was not dealt with in this survey. The FPS Report3 should be used as a reference document for the technical discussions on the scope, purpose and design of the Hub Survey. 4.2 2 Industry Body During discussions with respondents it became clear that SAARF cannot continue in is current form or with its current ways. While there is no consensus around what to do with SAARF the sentiment is that what is needed is new and innovative thinking, and a fresh approach to media and marketing research. The vast majority of respondents perceived SAARF as out-dated, without a focus on the needs of the industry. SAARF is perceived as self-serving and obsessed with maintaining the status quo. Despite recent developments and strong views expressed by a number of stakeholders, the industry continues to lean towards having an industry body. It is worth noting that the majority of media owners, although by a small margin, shared this sentiment during the engagements. 3 Future-Proof SAARF Report – International Structures and Methodologies (Kuper Research, 2013)


Media owners in particular seem to be polarised on this issue – there is either support for an industry body or the notion is rejected. There seems to be no middle ground in sentiment with 66% of respondents seeing an industry body as the best vehicle to represent industry interests when it comes to joint research, while 23% of respondents hold the opposite view. With regard to a possible mandate for a new research body, there is no clear agreement. However, from the responses, a few principles have emerged as enjoying greater support, namely:

• Must be independent of any single interest group;

• Must be representative of all data users;

• Should pursue innovation;

• Should be responsible for research development and testing new methodologies and technologies;

• Should facilitate cooperation and collaboration;

• Could take on the responsibility of training and developing data users; and

• Should be subjected to audits and continuous monitoring. These emerging principles seem to be a response to recent industry developments. During the engagements a number of respondents, from all stakeholder groupings, expressed concern over how the developments seem to have polarised stakeholders into opposing camps. They view this as counter productive in a converging media landscape. Many suggested that they are not opposed to media owners forming their own JICS and conducting their own currency research. As a matter of fact, many saw this as a positive development. However, many expressed concern over the manner in which it had been done. A number of media owners themselves acknowledged this and suggested that Public Relations work is required in order to address perceptions and concerns. The emerging principles therefore point to the need to communicate, interact and collaborate in order to facilitate change, innovation and knowledge building in the industry.


4.2.3 Funding The issue of funding has always been a dominant controversy across many discussions in the SAARF boardroom. This is however not unique to SAARF or South Africa as the international engagements undertaken through this report highlighted funding as one of the biggest challenges faced by research organisations. Over and above the normal challenges of securing adequate funding for research, in South Africa the “Who’s money is it?” argument has raged for many years. This has created an even bigger rift between stakeholders and added to the complexities of delivering reliable research to the industry. However, stakeholders seem to be moving beyond this argument. The majority of respondents suggested that there is a need to move beyond arguing about the money and rather focus on ensuring the integrity of data and research and accountability. In assessing the inherent appetite to contribute to funding, responses received from marketers in particular highlight critical viewpoints. In fact, 80% of the marketer respondents expressed a willingness to contribute towards joint industry research and 69% a willingness to contribute towards a representative industry body. Media agencies on the other hand argued that their business models and fees structures did not factor in the cost or research. Their view is that they simply do not currently have the means to contribute towards the cost of research. They did, however, express a willingness to review their fees structure, if needs be, in order to facilitate contributions towards funding. Yet this, they stated cannot happen overnight, as it will be subject to contractual arrangements and negotiations with clients. Media owners committed to continue funding support for research, but within reason. They stated that in future their funding would need to be more focused on the specific needs of the media industry, providing the research that informs the media purchasing decision of marketers and media agencies alike. They hold the position that stakeholders wanting to do research, which falls outside this scope should pay for the specific research themselves. Software bureaus and research organisations acknowledged that the cost of accessing the currencies and AMPS survey has, up to now, been much lower than comparable data sets in


other countries. Both groups agreed to, within reason, increased licence fees for access to the data. Software bureaus expressed a willingness to assist in regulating access to data by implementing a subscription framework. As is the case in other countries, data sales can be used to offset a portion of the research cost. Finding an effective and inclusive funding mechanism for the purpose of research is complex. No clear preference emerged from the answers received within the survey. However, 56% of the responses preferred a solution that involves funding derived from marketers, whether through levy collections by media agencies or direct payment. Since the possible solutions involve marketers and media agencies directly, it is important to unpack the responses from these stakeholder groupings themselves:

• Marketers: 72% of marketers prefer a solution that involves them contributing funds. 39% prefer the levy system, while 33% prefer the direct payment method.

• Media agencies: 76% agree that funding should be derived from marketers. 35% prefer the levy system, while 41% prefer the direct payment method.

It should be noted that a number of media agencies (23% of media agency respondents) that selected the direct payment method expressed a willingness to implement a levy system should their clients (marketers) require it. Yet they where concerned that this would add considerable operational and financial burdens to their businesses. They also stated that a levy system would need to be phased in over time and could not be implemented as a quick-fix solution. Marketers shared the sentiment of a phased in approach to either solution. They stated that their organisational budget cycles would require at least 12 (twelve) months to allocate additional funds towards research or an industry organisation. Critically, all parties agreed that they would only begin to consider contributing funds towards an industry body if there was a concrete value proposition on the table. The final question in the questionnaire sought to explore such a value proposition by asking the question: If you


were running the industry body, what change would you make to improve the research for yourself?” What emerged were three broad categories of responses:

• 26% of the comments received were concerned about data integrity and reliability in the new dispensation. Respondents argued that an inclusive and transparent mechanism should be found to review and safeguard data integrity.

• 23% of the comments received concerned the need for innovation. Respondents argued for innovation through the exploration of new research methodologies and technologies.

• 21% of the comments received argued that the industry lacks cohesive leadership.

Respondents expressed a need for leadership, which is focused on industry needs.

• 16% of the comments received concerned a lack of research expertise. Respondents identified a need for knowledge building in the industry and expressed concern with the lack of research expertise in the industry.

These four broad categories could be seen as the beginnings of four pillars that form a possible value proposition for the industry as a whole. They could be value propositions for an industry body or any JIC for that matter.


5. Conclusion Throughout the engagements, South African captains of industry expressed a need for cooperation, collaboration and oversight when it comes to joint media and marketing research. All agreed that the new Hub Survey will be pivotal joint research, around which all other research should be built. How to structure the collaboration and oversight, however, remains a burning issue. Some believe that it should be formalised by means of an institution (industry body) with a clear terms of reference and memoranda that govern its functions and responsibilities. Others view this as unnecessary and argue that such an institution will only replicate the problems of the past. Those with this view believe that the same can be achieved through a loose association of JICS governed by memoranda of understanding and/or joint contracts with research companies. Whether through an institution or an informal forum, the general sentiment supports some kind of mechanism to facilitate the coordination and oversight of joint research in the industry. This becomes very important in achieving a collective consciousness, which underpins the research needs in the industry. Such a collective industry stance will empower it to grasp the needs of the individual stakeholders, putting it firmly in a position to develop best practices and methodologies. Yet this can only happen within a framework of continuous and consistent interactions. This becomes even more critical if one takes into account the diverse stakeholder groups, which characterise the industry. The diverse needs and requirements of these industry groupings are often seen as inhibiting factors in achieving the best possible research. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is the differences that make the industry unique. Many view the differences as enablers for positive change and innovation. They argue that by understanding the differences the industry is able to optimise and improve. Importantly, many argue that understanding these differences and acting upon them was lacking in the past and led to a partial institutional failure within SAARF.


Representation was sighted as a further contributing factor for the apparent meltdown. Although the structures of SAARF provide for various levels of representation with specific competency requirements at each level, this was not properly enforced. The result was a lack of competency in certain areas. The industry should take care not to repeat these oversights in future, no matter what mechanism or form of collaboration and cooperation is implemented. The best way to achieve this is through regular insight collection. Many stakeholders expressed appreciation for the survey processes that culminated in this report, together with the Future-Proof SAARF report. They felt that this exercise was long overdue and, had it been done earlier, would have avoided much of the unnecessary and disabling conflict and uncertainty. Insight collection should in future become the mainstay of any industry forum or body, whether a media specific JIC or joint structure. Such a consistent approach to stakeholder engagement enables a better understanding of industry needs and will provide developmental rhythm and direction. The industry has undoubtedly expressed an appetite for change and many stakeholders have displayed a shift in views and opinions towards active participation and collective responsibility. This change should be driven by innovation and a new way of doing business. It is important to focus on innovative ways of conducting research. The innovation should be aligned with stakeholder needs and requirements in order to maintain their continued support. The industry forum or body should instill confidence by exhibiting maturity. It should lead the new way of doing business by being an authentic leader that is focused on both internal and external stakeholders and setting best practice examples right from the onset. In closing, there is a real risk that the change in the industry will lose support and momentum if initiatives only focus on the known. Or as Henry Ford put it:

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

local & int insights saarf final report · pdf fileof global best practice and local...

Documents