Blurry picture in the low-ad zone

By DITA DE BONI

A year ago today, TV One was gearing up to experiment with a new, "low ad zone" on weeknights between 9.30 pm and 10.30 pm.

Instead of the regular 12 minutes of commercial advertising, the zone would deliver two four-minute ad breaks which would be less intrusive on programming, it said. Channel promotions would be cut from 90 seconds to 30 seconds.

The experiment, which was to start on January 31, "sounds like a stunt but it isn't a stunt," proclaimed TV One general manager Shaun Brown at the time.

"It's clearly a stunt," said more than one bemused media buyer.

"Or a nod to the new Labour Government."

What has happened in the course of a year has been that One's average audience share at that time of night has increased.

In 1998, 9.1 per cent of 25- to 54-year-olds tuned into One during low-ad time. In 1999, the figure was down to 8.3 per cent.

Last year, it was back up, to 9.5 per cent - a significant recovery, even if the figure was somewhat inflated by the popularity of the Olympic Games.

The rate card has reflected that upswing, and then some. Rates have increased 14 per cent in the year overall, which is considered by most to be rather steep, especially in a slow business year.

Rates vary according to each agency's arrangement with TVNZ. But a year ago, 30 seconds on One cost advertisers an average of $4500; now it is an average of $5170.

The only real consensus to emerge is that the quality of programming on One has vastly improved. But now, some sources say, TV One is having trouble finding sufficient programmes to meet that higher standard.

Critics say the low-ad-zone experiment was not conducted on the most scientific basis for advertisers. It is hard to conclude whether the premium charged for advertising time in the zone is justified.

Are viewers tuning in for fewer adverts, or, as many suspect, because of the leap in the quality of programming?

To further muddy the waters, ACNielsen-Dataline showed that in the first month of the low ad zone, the time taken by adverts and promos was sometimes as much as 22 per cent above the channel's pledge.

The zone also occasionally started at 9.45 pm or after - once as late as 10 pm.

TV One did not respond to questions put by the Business Herald.

Lynne Clifton, of the Communications Agencies Association, says her members, overall, do not consider the zone a roaring success.

"Let's face it, if the viewership had gone through the roof as a result, we would all know about it.

"I'm a great believer that a media organisation can increase the value of zones and certain spots by reducing the clutter in that environment. That's an argument we've been making to the networks for a long time."

But timing is everything, she says, and in our price-sensitive market, most retail and consumer goods are aimed at the mass market, certainly not the upper-end "high-involvement" viewers thought to most appreciate the low ad zone.

Julie Powell, media director at Goldsack Harris agency, Wellington, and convener of the CAANZ media committee, says the amount of advertising taken out of the zone - about 35 per cent - has made little difference to viewers or advertisers.

"The 'experiment' was done to see what would happen, but no research on it would really be valid, because too many things changed at the same time, including programming, which was definitely better."

She is indifferent about the experiment continuing or expanding into other time slots.

"Unless there was a drastic change, there would be no clear benefit to viewers, no cut-through benefit to advertisers and, in fact, it could be a drain in funding for the channel."

Another industry source says that the number of minutes' advertising around Sunday's Montana Theatre had been light for a long time.

Mike Fredricson, associate media director at Colenso BBDO, says the only issue he has with the zone is that it is inflationary.

"There has been a rise in rates with not much of a change in audience numbers," he says.

But what about the argument that fewer minutes for ad breaks means less advertising clutter?

"The way they've restructured the breaks works against advertisers," he says.

"There are more spots within less breaks. If I was to pay a premium, I would want fewer ads around me."

Colenso BBDO uses the zone, he says, but is mindful of the premium.

Kath Watson, media director at DDB, says the agency does not queue up to advertise in the zone, and shares Colenso's concerns about clutter in the longer ad breaks.

"In principle, I would support an overall reduction in advertising minutes, as long as the [ads] were not all crammed into longer breaks.

"Viewers have cottoned on to the fact the breaks are longer, and can more easily avoid them."

She says that from an advertiser's perspective, the low ad zone is "not a positive thing at all."

In the first 10 weeks of last year, rates for the zone rose 15 per cent, compared with just under 4 per cent for the rest of the peak schedule.

"We just don't think it is justified."

Martin Gillman, from Total Media, believes the original motivation for the low ad zone was political.

But, he says, "we've all felt that there are too many commercial interruptions and so the 'experiment' would appeal to a number of sectors.

"High commercial clutter means you've got to have a higher ad frequency to cut through. Our weekly ad weights are much higher than they are in the UK, for example, where ads run for 8 minutes against our 15 minutes."

He says that whether it is worth paying a low-ad-zone premium is largely immaterial, as it would cost more anyway.

"A reduction in ad minutage from 12 to 8 would increase average prices by 50 per cent - which is why it is surprising that ad rates were only 30 per cent higher. Halving ad content would double the cost to advertisers; otherwise TVNZ would lose revenue dramatically."

Ultimately, only TVNZ will know if its experiment has worked, and if it will be worth extending into 2001. Mr Gillman says a continuation of the zone may result in lower revenue.

"If TV One became the 'broadcaster with a conscience,' it might extend the experiment as long as it had secured financial support from the Government to do so. As it stands, I doubt that sufficient support would come from advertisers. Private broadcasters should be allowed to find their own level."

Alistair Duff, head of sales at TV3, has obviously pondered the question, but says the rival channel has no plans to do anything similar.

"It is certainly an interesting concept. But you have to ask, do the public really acknowledge it? Is that slot normally fully sold, or would some of it be given away as a bonus anyway? Is it done more for political reasons?"

If it does not make cents, it does not, ultimately, make sense, he says. "No broadcaster wants to give away revenue ... There are few Robin Hoods in this industry."