July 20, 2011

Sore Loser Stuff

I may be good about admitting when I'm wrong, but I must confess -- I'm a sore loser. Even when faced with solid evidence my "unlikely to succeed" predictions weren't right, I still look for ways to prove a hit isn't really a hit.

Of course, it's too easy to say, "Oh, so-and-so is probably just spending at a loss to support retail." That happens, but most campaigns that air enough media to get on my True Top 50 must be delivering some sort of ROI. Otherwise, the margins would be too tight and even retail couldn't make up the difference. One or two times and a company could survive that. Three or four times and a company would go bankrupt. (At least, that's my understanding. Let me know if you have a successful business model that contradicts that understanding: I'll be all ears!)

Besides, that explanation is really just a cop-out. Not knowing the real numbers, I would have no way of knowing which campaigns are just retail pushes and which campaigns are delivering great CPOs. If I'm going to be a sore loser, I at least need to have some measurement to substantiate my complaints ... which is why I went back and compared my "got it wrong" items from the winter to my most recent chart for the spring.

What I wanted to see is how many campaigns I got wrong survived from winter into spring. With the exception of clearly seasonal items, a strong DRTV item should stay on the charts for more than three months. To be fair about it, I went beyond the Top 50 and also looked at spending. Here's what I found:

  1. Style Snaps. No. 23 on my winter Top 50 and now No. 18 on my spring Top 50, so I was definitely wrong.

  2. Aluma Wallet. No. 29 on my winter Top 50 and now No. 3 on my spring Top 50. Definitely wrong again!

  3. Sunny Seat. I predicted it would disappear from my Top 50 by spring -- and it did. Spending dropped 83% from winter to spring.

  4. One Second Needle. To date, I still have no idea why this one was a hit, and nobody has explained it to me. It also fell way off the Top 50. Spending declined 95% from winter to spring and barely even registered in the spring period.

  5. Fushigi. A fourth-quarter item to be sure, so the fact it didn't register on the spring rankings makes sense. It may have been short-lived, but I understand it was a real hit.

  6. Comfy Control Harness. I suspected this was a retail play, but I may be wrong about that. Even though the campaign doesn't appear on the spring Top 50, it would have been No. 63 on a hypothetical Top 100 -- not bad. Spending dropped a bit, but not by much. Seems this is a real hit.

So there you have it. Am I just a sore loser? Or is there something to this method for validating TV winners? I blog; you decide.

3 comments:

  1. You are a winner in my book! I do not read your reports expecting 100% accuracy, it is simply a prediction from an experienced DR genius :) You give great insight, and always validate your predictions based on your "tried and true" criteria- which is my favorite part! I absolutely love the SciMark Report!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I second that...

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are Charlie Sheen winner in my book. The fact that you make any prediction puts you head and shoulders above Jordan Whitney. JW used to regularly express an opinion if the spot was poor and they were not a subscriber, not so much these days. The fact that you review your own predictions for accuracy is amazing. Winning!

    ReplyDelete