How Media Directors
View
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This study examines the current views of Media Directors at both traditional advertising agencies and the new interactive agencies. The study shows that Media Directors at traditional agencies are more inclined to view media planning from a traditional perspective similar in scope to that applied to traditional media, whereas those at interactive agencies are more likely to view this process from a direct marketing perspective. The results of this study were contrasted with those of a similar study by one of the authors, conducted in 1981 and again in 1993. Comparisons show that Media Directors still consider reach and frequency to be the keystones of media planning as they did in 1981 and 1993. However, there is considerable dissatisfaction among these directors regarding the available knowledge about how to plan for interactive media, especially the Internet. Although this study was limited by a low sample size compared to the previous studies due to the online process used in the recruitment of the directors, the results provide the only currently available snapshot of Media Directors’ views on media planning in the “interactive age.” |
Introduction
During the last two decades, the advertising and media environment has experienced a lot of changes, especially due to the recent evolution of the interactive medium, the Internet. In the same period, the increased number of media channels and the advent of this interactive medium have created confusion for media directors. Additionally, the accompanying explosive media and market data require media directors to perform more acute analysis and faster execution of media plans.
With the advanced media and purchasing behavior data services, such as IRI’s Behavior Scan, media planners can alleviate their problems in part, but these types of immense amounts of information may increase the need for other tools to meaningfully “mine” and analyze raw data.
After the inauguration of estimating reach and frequency distribution for Life magazine in the 1920s, models for estimating reach and frequency distribution have traditionally served as one of these tools (Leckenby and Kishi, 1982; Leckenby and Boyd, 1984). The importance of reach and frequency distribution estimations has not been lessened by the increased usage of the concept of “effective reach and frequency” among practitioners (Lancaster, Pelati, and Cho, 1991; Sissors, 1982; Turk and Katz, 1992).
In the same time period, the number of proprietary and nonproprietary models for estimating reach and frequency distributions for different media has proliferated. Firms such as Telmar and Interactive Market Systems (IMS) have provided computer programs to analyze large-scale databases, and at the same time, considerable research has been conducted in the academic area also for reach/frequency estimation models (Boyd and Leckenby, 1985; Chandon, 1976; Danaher, 1992; Headen et al., 1979; Ju and Leckenby, 1989; Kim and Leckenby, 1993; Leckenby and Boyd, 1984; Leckenby and Hong, 1998; Leckenby and Kishi, 1982; 1984; Leckenby and Rice, 1985; Lee, 1988; Rice and Leckenby, 1986; Rust, 1985; 1986; Rust and Leone, 1984).
The 1982 study by Leckenby and Kishi (1982) and the1993 study by Leckenby and Kim (1994) revealed that the majority of the leading advertising agencies were using at least one method to estimate reach and frequency distribution. It was also observed that most media directors responding to the questionnaire believed that at least some improvements in reach and frequency estimation were required.
With all the changes in media environment and data availability during the last two decades, the applications and perceptions of methods for reach and frequency distribution estimation may have changed. In line with this concept, this study basically intends to replicate two previous studies conducted by Leckenby and Kishi (1982) and Leckenby and Kim (1994). This study will examine how media directors perceive the traditional methods they are using and see how satisfied they are with current methods in the “interactive age”. Additionally, this study will look at the conceptual and actual differences between major advertising agencies and interactive agencies.
Methodology
In September 2000, an online questionnaire was posted on the Web (http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/reports/measurement/agencies.html) and was emailed to the “Top 200 U.S. Agency Brands” and “Top 100 U.S. Interactive Agency Brands,” as ranked in 1999 by gross income, requesting participation in this media planning study. In the same period, the same questionnaire was sent to the “Media Planning Discussion List” listserv group, asking members to participate in this study.
A total of 55 responses were collected from these 300 agencies and the discussion list, but only 53 were analyzed because of two incomplete questionnaires. The overall response rate is comparatively low and is approximately 17 percent because the number of media planners on the discussion list is unknown.
The response rates of two similar previous studies were 45.5% (1984) and 33.3% (1993), respectively. However, it may be not reasonable to compare directly with those response rates because the data gathering methods were different for the present study. Those previous studies used the traditional mail system instead of an online data-gathering system.
This comparatively low response rate is mainly due to the use of undesignated media directors’ names in the first email. For the first attempt, emails were sent simultaneously to all 300 prospective agencies’ representative emails, e. g., webmaster@mail.com, or info@mail.com, and asked them to forward the requesting message to their company’s media director, without mentioning the media director’s name. This procedure produced a very poor response rate. Fewer than 5 percent of the email requests were acted upon.
The follow-up participation-requesting emails were sent in a different way after a week. To increase the response rate, for the second attempt, an email was sent to all 300 prospective respondents individually. For the follow-up requesting mail out, the researchers tried to find out the media directors’ names and email addresses from their agency’s website or the 2000 Standard Directory of Advertising Agency. Fewer than 30 percent of media directors’ email addresses were found in both sources. In the case of knowing a director’s email address, an email was directly sent to him or her, but in other cases, participation-requesting emails were sent to them by way of an agency’s representative email. However, at this time, these emails included the media director’s name in each email, if it had been found. For example, the message included “Please forward this email to your media director, Mr. or Ms. (name of director), if you are not a media director.” The response rate was greatly increased--up to around 17 percent. But the reason for the increased response rate might not be due only to the “naming effect,” because some respondents may answer any follow-up request.
The structure of the questionnaire was basically the same as those in the 1982 and 1994 studies by Leckenby and Kishi, and Leckenby and Kim, respectively, except for a few additional questions regarding interactive media planning.
It consisted of four major parts:
1. Questions regarding the future of advertising media and an overall comparison between a traditional agency and an interactive agency
2. Computerized estimation model usage for media planning and overall media planning functions
3. Issues of reach/frequency distribution estimation model performance from the standpoint of estimation accuracy and model improvements needed
4. Specific questions about media planning in an interactive agency
Results
Although the total response rate was decreased in the present study, compared to the two previous studies, media directors’ interest in this study is still high and even slightly increased. 76.2 percent of the respondents requested the results of this study and gave their email addresses. The previous request rates had been 74.7 percent and 69.8 percent, respectively.
As shown in Table 1, most of the participants were VP/Media Director, Media Director or Media Researchers (91.5%) by various titles, because the subject of the email was a “Media Planning Study,” and a request that recipients forward this message to the media director was written in the front of the message. Clearly, this study obtained opinions from media-related personnel:
Table 1. Title of Survey Participants (%)
Title
‘00
‘93
‘82
Senior VP/Media Director
3 (5.7)
11 (17.5)
9 (9.9)
VP/Media Director
13 (24.5)
12 (19.0)
18 (19.8)
Media Director
17 (32.1)
26 (41.2)
21 (23.1)
Media Planner/Manager
2 (3.8)
3 (4.8)
-
VP/Director Media Research
2 (3.8)
2 (3.2)
6 (6.6)
Manager/Director Media Research
2 (3.8)
3 (4.8)
18 (19.8)
Media/Marketing Director
4 (7.5)
3 (4.8)
4 (4.4)
Other Titles
4 (7.5)
3 (4.8)
14 (15.3)
No Response
6 (11.3)
-
1 (1.1)
Total
53 (100.0)
63 (100.0)
91 (100.0)
Future of Amount of Expenditure on Media Type in Next Five Years
Almost all respondents (90.7%) foresee the expenditure amount on Internet advertising will increase in the near future and only a small portion forecast that the Internet would stay at the same level. No one foresees a decrease of advertising expenditure in the next five years for the Internet. When making a ‘future index (maximum: ±53),’ calculated by subtracting the number of respondents who checked “decrease” in the survey from that of those who forecast an “increase,” among fourteen media types, the Internet gained the highest score, 39 points; following upon the Internet were ‘Direct Mail’ (22 points), ‘Spot TV’ (21 points), ‘Outdoor’ (17 points), and ‘Spot Radio’ (15 points). However, ‘Telephone Directories’ and ‘Flyer’ were forecast to decrease in the next five years and earned negative scores, -9 and –4, respectively.
This result implies that in the near future advertising practitioners will increase their efforts toward a more specific target audience or area. Considering the diverse media channels and huge amounts of available consumer information, this would be an easy and effective way to target a certain specified number of audience members or an area. Along the same line, the future view of “spot TV” is brighter than that of “network TV”; “Radio” holds a similar position to television.
View of Media Planning for Interactive Media
The majority (62.2%) of media planners consider that the media planning for interactive media, e.g., the Internet WWW, is more like the activities conducted in direct marketing than those in traditional media planning. The number of respondents who believed interactive media would develop media planning like that in traditional media are only 8, compared to 28 who responded that interactive media involves activities more like the ones conducted in direct marketing. Furthermore, when considering the weight of the answers, the implications go further. Weighted on direction, on a 7-point scale, the vote for traditional media planning is 14 and the vote for direct marketing is 43. Overall, at the current time, it appears that media planning for interactive media is considered somewhat different from that for traditional media. About 20 percent of media planners consider interactive media planning to be located in between traditional media and direct marketing.
They feel that the major differences between the traditional media planning process and a direct marketing approach for the Internet WWW are located in “more precise targeting of the prospects, i.e., corporate versus consumer (in direct marketing),” “greater emphasis on results for direct marketing approach than for traditional,” “accountable - know who clicks/buys (in direct marketing),” “real time results (in direct marketing),” and “accountability, tracking actual response (in direct marketing),” for example. Most of the respondents focused on the feature of selecting a target audience and the accountability of real behavior of direct marketing among interactive media characteristics.
Stages Used for Forecasting Effects in Media Planning
The respondents were asked to indicate what “advertising effect” they used in developing media planning. Overall, most of the media directors indicated that they estimate “media exposure effects (e.g., reach, frequency)” (91.3%); this figure is in line with the previous two studies.
However, forecasting “advertising exposure effect” (65.2%) and “action effect (e.g., purchase rate and purchase repetition behavior rate)” (59.1%) is much increased from the previous studies. This is considered to be partly due to the advanced technology for measuring those effects and largely due to the advent of the interactive medium, the Internet.
Factors Used in Media Evaluation
The most-often-used factors for media schedule evaluation are shown in Table 2. “Reach,” “Total schedule cost,” “CPM to target market,” “Average frequency,” and “Effective reach” were the five most-often-used factors, in that order. Although the usage of other factors has not dramatically changed across time, “effective reach” has gained importance and “qualitative factors” have lost standing in the evaluation of alternative media schedules since 1981 and 1993.
In a comparison between traditional agencies and interactive agencies, the overall usage order is not much different, except for less emphasis on “average frequency,” “frequency distribution,” “GRPs,” and “continuity.” Interactive agencies seemed more concerned about “reach,” “effective reach,” “total schedule cost,” and “CPM to target market.” These results imply that interactive agencies try to reach as many people as possible within a limited budget. The representative Internet advertising format, banner advertising, is easy to ignore if the audience does not have enough interest in that product or service, compared to other mass media advertising. Therefore, media planning for the Internet appears to try to reach as many people as possible who have interest in its product or service, instead of trying to be remembered or to change psychological attitude in the long term by focusing on frequency. Another implication from this result is the purpose of interactive advertising. Through interactive advertising, product or service providers want the audience to act, to do something via advertising. The Internet has a unique feature that other advertising media cannot easily have, i.e., it is itself an advertising medium and at the same time it is a purchase channel. Advertisers want to utilize this unique feature by focusing on reach instead of frequency.
Beyond the description of “cool or hot media, e.g., television or newspaper,” the Internet is considered an interactive medium, which implies that audiences have power at least equal to that of the medium or have more involvement with this medium. Unlike showing or distributing advertising in usual ways, the advertising on this new medium is considered a “channel” to instant “action” when people encounter the advertising. This is still unclear, but it gives some possible explanation as to why interactive media people focus more on “reach” than “frequency.”
Table 2. Factors Used in Media Evaluation (%, rank order)
Used Factors
‘00
‘93
(N=63)
‘82
(N=91)
Overall order among used 11 factors ‘82-‘93-‘00
Overall
(N=53) (rank order in used)Traditional agencies (N=32)
Interactive agencies (N=21)
Reach
81.5 (1)
82.8
82.4
81.0 (1)
93.4 (1)
1-1-1
Total Schedule Cost
77.8 (2)
75.9
82.4
77.8 (2)
85.7 (6)
6-2-2
CPM to Target Market
75.9 (3)
75.9
76.5
77.8 (2)
89.0 (4)
4-2-3
Average Frequency
75.9 (3)
82.8
58.8
73.0 (6)
90.1 (3)
3-6-4
Effective Reach
74.1 (5)
72.4
76.5
68.3 (8)
59.3 (9)
9-8-4
GRPs
72.2 (6)
82.8
52.9
73.0 (6)
91.2 (2)
2-6-6
Media Type Budget Allocation
70.4 (7)
75.9
58.8
50.8 (10)
53.8 (10)
10-10-7
Qualitative Factors
70.4 (7)
72.4
58.8
77.8 (2)
87.9 (5)
5-2-8
Frequency Distribution
63.0 (9)
72.4
41.2
74.6 (5)
84.8 (7)
7-5-9
Continuity
57.4 (10)
62.1
29.4
65.1 (9)
70.3 (8)
8-9-10
Other
3.7 (11)
3.4
0.0
11.1 (11)
9.9 (11)
11-11-11
Usages of Reach/Frequency EstimationThe majority of the respondents’ agencies use computerized models to estimate reach and frequency distributions for major media types, i.e., television, radio, newspapers and magazines (77.3%, 66.2%, 71.4%, and 85.7%, respectively). This usage rate has seemed stable as time passes. For example, the reach/frequency estimation usage rate for magazines lost strength from 88.9 percent (1982) to 80.2 percent (1993), but has regained power again at this moment, 85.7 percent.
Interestingly, only slightly greater than one-third (35.9%) of the agencies used computerized methods to estimate reach and frequency distributions for the interactive media. While they consider the reach and frequency concepts important in placing their media plan, only a small portion of them use the computerized models.
The respondents were asked to indicate which personnel are the major users of estimated reach and frequency distribution results. As observed in the previous two studies, “media planners” still most often request such information. “Media buyers” request such information second most often and are followed by “research personnel” and “client personnel.”
Models Employed in Estimation and Performance of Models
The media directors were asked to check the models to estimate reach and frequency distributions which they were using in their agency. Among the 6 used models, “Telmar (other than MEDIAC)” was most often checked for reach and frequency distributions. “IMS (other than MODAL)” was used next often. Around 13 percent of the agencies used proprietary models.
In model performance, their satisfaction with currently used models was asked in a five-point semantic differential question. Even though an almost neutral degree of satisfaction was observed in both reach (3.3 point) and frequency (3.2 point) distribution estimation model performance (1=dissatisfaction, 5=satisfaction, mean=3), when considering the number of satisfied and unsatisfied people, the model performance evaluations seemed to lean slightly toward satisfaction.
The media directors were asked how accurate they guessed their agency’s reach and frequency distribution methods are, compared with “actual” reach and frequency distribution. The responses to this question for the five major media are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Perceived Accuracy of Models for Five Media (%)
Perceive Accuracy
TV
Radio
Newspaper (N=33)
Magazine (N=38)
Internet (N=22)
Network (N=32)
Spot (N=35)
Network (N=31)
Spot (N=36)
Within 1 %
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
4.5
Within 2-5 %
37.5
28.6
22.6
13.9
21.2
31.6
18.2
Within 6-10 %
28.1
34.3
38.7
50.0
36.4
36.8
22.7
More than 11 %
31.3
37.1
38.7
36.1
42.4
28.9
54.5
Up to nine agencies out of ten perceived their reach and frequency distribution estimates for “spot radio” were different from the “actual” by 6 percent or more. Model accuracy for “network television” and “magazine” were perceived to be relatively better than for other media, and perceived accuracy for the Internet was neither quite good nor bad.
Table 4 shows these media directors’ perception of the need for improvement in accuracy of reach and frequency distribution estimation methods. Almost all respondents recognized the necessity for at least “some” improvement in their estimation methods. In the previous two studies, the overall corresponding recognition was 87.8 percent and 94.2 percent, respectively. Over two decades, media directors still yearn for improvements in reach/frequency distribution estimation. However, this result does not necessarily mean the estimation methods have not improved, because more models have raised greater expectations for estimation accuracy, generally.
Noticeably, two-thirds of the media directors thought a “great deal” of improvement is needed in Internet estimation.
Table 4. Improvement Needed in Models
Improvement needed
TV
Radio
Newspaper (N=34)
Magazine (N=39)
Internet (N=30)
Network (N=35)
Spot (N=37)
Network (N=34)
Spot (N=37)
Great Deal
31.4
40.5
0.0
37.8
38.2
23.1
66.7
Quite a Lot
11.4
18.9
41.2
27.0
29.4
12.8
23.3
Some
54.3
40.5
29.4
35.1
29.4
59.0
6.7
None
2.9
0.0
1.8
0.0
2.9
5.1
3.3
To know the importance of different elements in the processing of banner ad placement, respondents were asked to rank order from 1 to 7 (“1” for the most important, “2” for the second most important element, and so forth) in the order of importance. When the first and second most important choices were summed, “media vehicle sites selected based upon highest online purchase rate” were considered the most important element in banner ad placement, followed by “media vehicle sites providing highest clickthrough rate” and “media vehicle sites providing the highest unique visitor rate.” “Visitor duration rate,” “hit rate,” and “page-view rate” were ranked low and considered less important elements.
As “site-centric” Web measurement systems which analyze “hit rate” and “page-view rate” have lost popularity because of instability and incorrectness, the last two elements, “hit” and “page-view rate,” are not considered very important. In contrast, comparatively reliable measurement systems, i.e., “user-centric” Web measurement systems which can give “clickthrough and unique visitor rates” are welcomed by interactive agencies because those analyses help media planners estimate “reach” for each site. Here, in banner ad placement processing, reach was emphasized again. However, interactive media directors are concerned with most “purchasing rate.” This indicates that media planning for interactive agencies approaches and looks more like direct marketing than that of traditional agencies.
Implications and Summary
Even though diverse media planning models have been widely adopted in the advertising industry, increasing concern about the methods used to estimate reach and frequency distributions still has been observed in this study. This kind of concern has been continuously found since the early 80s and 90s, regardless of the development of computerized systems in media planning. But this concern may not be because of decreased importance of these methods but because of increased concern about the accuracy of model performance.
There are some reasons for making this inference. First, “reach” is still noted as the most often-used and important factor for media evaluation. Secondly, “effective reach” is the factor which has increased the most in terms of usage, compared to the previous two studies. And reach and frequency are the most widely used and basic concepts in developing media planning.
As the interactive age develops, interactive advertising agencies appear to have adopted a direct marketing model in their media planning. Several indications of this were found in this study, such as the emphasis on narrow targeting in media-type forecasts, focusing on “purchasing rate” in banner ad placement, and considering “action effect” in the media planning stage.
Irons (2000) has recently examined the concepts of media planning in Internet advertising. “Considering reach, we can tell if the user visited a site that contained certain advertising. We can even tell how long the visitor to the site spent there. Yet we have no way of directly knowing if the user even saw the ad, let alone understood it.” In regard to clickthrough, “worse, clickthrough rates have been already dropped well below 1 percent for the vast majority of banner ads.” And “if we intend to rely on purchase intent to measure effectiveness online, we still need to find a better way of measuring it.”
The above comments may be correct at this moment. However, this study still has found some counter-indications to his comments. Even if interactive agencies take their cues from direct marketing and orient toward the “action or behavior,” they still consider “reach and frequency concepts” critical and use those concepts in their media planning, as illustrated by their endorsement of these in the “factors used in media evaluation” and in “forecasting effects in media planning” portions of the questionnaire used in this study. To induce consumers to perform certain actions, media planners need to place their plans basically after considering reach and frequency, because these bifocal concepts are still considered the starting points. Irons ended the article noted above with this comment, “The starting point is the acknowledgment that what is known offline.”
The greatest limitation of this study is its sample size. The starting point of this study was the replication of the two previous similar studies. Therefore, this study required a similar sample size and distribution in participant agencies’ sizes for a reasonable comparison with the two prior studies in 1981 and 1993. The other focus was the comparison between major agencies and new interactive agencies. To achieve this objective, a sample size double that of the present study would be an improvement. For this reason, no direct statistical inference comparisons with the prior studies were conducted.
References
1. Aoki, Toshinori (1989), “How Marketing Directors of the Top 150 Japanese Agencies View Their Agencies: Operations and Reach/Frequency Estimation Models with a Brief Overview of the Japanese Advertising Industry,” Unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
2. Chandon, Jean-Louis (1986), A Comparative Study of Media Exposure Models, New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
3. Coen, Robert J (1991), “Changes in Advertising in the Twentieth Century and the Implications for Media Planning,” Journal of Media Planning, 6, 2: 58-67.
4. Danaher, Peter (1992), “Some Statistical Modeling Problems in the Advertising Industry: A Look at Media Exposure Distributions,” The American Statistician, 46, 254-60.
5. Headen, Robert S., Jay E. Klompmaker, and Roland Rust (1979), “The Duplication of Viewing Law and Television Media Schedule Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (3), 333-40.
6. Hong, Jongpil (1998), “Advertising Media Models for Internet Reach/Frequency Estimation,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
7. Irons, Karl (2000), “Creating an Effective Online Advertising Strategy, Technology and the World of International Marketing Communications,” International Advertising Association, April, 70-2.
8. Ju, Kuen-Hee and John Leckenby (1989), “Performance of a Simple Reach/Frequency Model,” In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising.
9. Kats, Helen (1988), “The Role and Function of Media Research at Major U.S. Advertising Agencies,” Journal of Media Planning, 3, 2: 47-54.
10. __________ (1991), “How Major U.S. Advertising Agencies Are Coping with Data Overload,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 1: 7-16.
11. Kim, Heejin and John D. Leckenby (1993), “A Test of the Canonical Expansion Reach/Frequency Model,” In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising.
12. Kim, Hyo-Gyoo and John D. Leckenby (2000), “Internet reach/Frequency Estimation Accuracy by Data Collection Method,” In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising.
13. Kishi, Shizue and John D. Leckenby (1981), “Error Factors in Exposure Distribution Models,” In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising.
14. Kreshel, Peggy J, Kent Lancaster, and Margaretg A. Toomey (1985), “How Leading Advertising Agencies Estimate Effective Reach and Frequency,” Journal of Advertising Research, 14, 3, 32-38.
15. Lancaster, Kent M., Virginia Pelati, and Jungsik Cho (1991), “Perceptions of Leading Media Directors about Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Media Planning, 6, 1: 3-16.
16. Leckenby John D. and Marsha Boyd (1994), “How Media Directors View Reach/Frequency Model Evaluation Standards,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 5: 43-51.
17. ________________ and Jongpil Hong (1998), “Using Reach and Frequency for Web Media Planning,” Journal of Advertising Research, Jan/Feb 1998, 7-20.
18. ________________ and Shizue Kishi (1982), “How Media Directors View Reach/Frequency Estimation,” Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 4, 43-52.
19. ________________ and Marshall Rice (1985), “A Beta Binomial Network TV Exposure Model Using Limited Data,” Journal of Advertising, 14 (3), 25-31.
20. Liu, Shin-Yun (1992), “The Media Environment and Computerized Media Planning in Taiwan and Japan: A Comparative Study,” Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
21. Rice, Marshall and John D. Leckenby (1986), “An Empirical Test of a Proprietary Television Media Model,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26, 5: 17-21.
22. Rust, Roland (1985), “Selecting Network Television Advertising Schedules,” Journal of Business Research, 13, 483-94.
23. Turk, Peter B., and Helen Katz (1992), “Marketing Headlines: An Overview of Key Happenings in Media Planning, Buying, and Research Form 1985-1991,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14 (2), 19-34.
24. AdvertisingAge: Top Ten U.S. Agency Brands by U.S. Gross Income in '99 [http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp441.html]
25. _____________: U.S. Agency Brands Ranked 11 to 200 in ’99 [http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp440.html]
26. _____________: Top 100 U.S. Interactive Agencies [http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp454.html]
27. Media Planning Discussion List [MediaPlanning@mail.telmar.com]
28. Standard Directory of Advertising Agency (2000)