Why GRP is the correct metric
When you buy a new shirt, what does the world around you see? The money you spent on it or the shirt you are wearing? Obviously, the shirt!
For me, in the media world parlance, the shirt you see is equivalent to the GRPs (Gross Rating Points) and the money you don’t see is equivalent to the brand spends.
Hence, when you talk about the most-viewed ads, to me the correct metric will always be GRPs—the exposure that the consumer sees and not the spends that the consumers doesn’t see.
You can spend crores and still not be viewed enough because you are not buying enough GRPs; you can also spend little and still be amongst the most-viewed ads if you are buying the right GRPs. To me, GRPs are what differentiates a great media strategy and media buy from the sub-standard. GRPs are what make the brand budget come alive in the consumer’s mind.
Assume you have two brands with a budget of Rs 1 crore each and that one brand gets an exposure of 1,000 GRPs and the other 1,500 GRPs. Which would be the most-viewed ad? Of course, the one with 1,500 GRPs!! A ranking by spend would absolutely nullify this GRP difference.
Let us assume another scenario where both brands have achieved 1,000 GRPs, but one has a lower budget than the other—would we have a problem ranking both the brands as equally viewed? Obviously not! A ranking by spend would, however, differentiate these two brands unnecessarily.
The normal arguments that I hear against GRPs are that:
- They are totally dependent on the competence of the media agency involved in planning and buying these GRPs, or
- They are independent of the creative quality, or
- They may end up comparing different creative durations (e.g.: a 30” spot on a cricket match and a 10” spot on the same match will have the same GRP—but hey, hold on; if a brand finds a 10” duration sufficient to communicate whatever it needs to say, then let us say “hats off” to the brand rather than penalise it and equate the competing 30” spot to three 10” spots. For the consumer does not see the 30” as three 10” spots, does he? To him it is one exposure!!), or
- GRPs treat all exposures as equal— be it an exposure on a niche channel of 0.1 rating and the exposure on a mass channel of 3.0 rating, both being bought for the same cost, or
- A metric needs to be uniform; the GRPs can, however, vary depending on how you cut the data (be it by target audience or markets, etc.), while the spends remain the same.
But none of these arguments holds sway when you want to define what are the most-viewed ads— to me, viewed means consumer exposures, and exposures means GRPs—however you may want to define it!
And to those who differ from this point of view, all I can say is that they fall in the league of George Gobel who said: “If it weren’t for electricity, we’d all be watching television by candlelight”!!
Punitha Arumugam is Group CEO, Madison Media.
