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
