Day 299 - 13 Nov 96 - Page 26


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   This is still about targeting the children.  On day
     2        48, page 19, line 14, Mr. Hawkes did agree there were more
     3        weeks aimed at children.  I think that was one particular
     4        example.  Obviously, everyone can see for themselves,
     5        anyway, he did agree on the same page that you can look at
     6        it in ways other than expenditure.  That probably does not
     7        matter.  We are arguing that anyway, whether or not he
     8        accepted that.
     9
    10        On page 20, he was going through, I think it was an
    11        argument saying that it was not any good looking at how
    12        many weeks there were, and he said that buying this sort of
    13        coverage normally you buy 70 percent of the target audience
    14        three times or something like that and that that could not
    15        be translated into absolute figures because there were more
    16        adults in the target audience than children, i.e., that
    17        there was a bigger universe, but he said the effect of this
    18        method that they use was that for each advertising campaign
    19        they hoped to reach 70 percent of adults or 70 percent of
    20        children three times, for them to get the advertising
    21        message three times.
    22
    23        In that case, the two things would be comparable in terms
    24        of how many times the message was being got per advertising
    25        campaign, and so that would strengthen our argument about
    26        looking at the number of weeks which the advertising
    27        campaign is run in the year and to see which has the most
    28        number of weeks out of adults and children, and obviously
    29        it is children in virtually all the cases.
    30
    31        In case you wanted to check it, it was day 48, page 20,
    32        line 58 where Mr. Hawkes said that the borders region
    33        looked like it was a new region, because of the three weeks
    34        of advertising to children and none to adults.
    35
    36        He claimed on page 21, the same day, that for 1988 there
    37        were heavy figures for the children's advertising because
    38        of TV AM, but obviously if you look at the charts, there
    39        are two separate lines, one for TV AM and one for
    40        children's advertisements, and not all of the Xs under TV
    41        AM coincide with the blocks for children's advertising in
    42        general.
    43
    44        The figure that was given for the number of weeks of
    45        children's advertisements, I think was 41, and that was got
    46        from how many weeks there were which had any advertising to
    47        children in it, including the TV AM figures, but there were
    48        a considerable number of weeks in which there was not only
    49        the advertising during children's television, but, on top
    50        of that, there was advertising on TV AM directed at
    51        children, so that would be extremely heavy exposure and
    52        targeting of children.
    53
    54        And he actually said on page 23, line 45 that he would be
    55        guessing in saying that TV AM was small exposure, which is
    56        what he previously said, meaning a low audience, that he
    57        did not know how many times the advertisements went out on
    58        TV AM for any given week.
    59
    60        There is actually a reference for the point about the

Prev Next Index