Recency Planning
RECENCY PLANNING IS BASED on the sensible idea works through a chance encounter with a ready
that most advertising works by influencing the
brand choice of consumers who are ready to buy,'
This idea is called "recency." In a remarkably
short time—about three years—recency has chal-
lenged effective frequency as the advertising plan-
ning model for fast-moving consumer goods
(tmcg).^ This is in step with our more sober view of
thf power of advertising and our new appreciation
of the consumer's unique contribution to making
ERWIN EPHRON ads work.
Ephron, Papazian & Let's step back 30 years. When I started at
Ephron. Inc. BBDO, 1 learned advertising worked by repetition,
leaving "tiny footprints on the mind."^ Frequency
generated awareness, created interest, aroused de-
sire, and triggered action. In the 1960s, advertising
effects were judged so strong, public policy de-
bated whether advertising "makes people buy
things they don't need" {Mayer, 1958; Galbraith,
1958). The issue wasn't deception. It was power.
That concern seems remote today. We now un-
derstand advertising is a relatively weak market-
ing force, among many forces that affect consum-
ers. Its strength is it can be applied continuously,
because it does what it does at a very small cost
compared to the major alternative, which is price
promotion (Ehrenberg, 1992; Jones, 1990).
We have also gone through a reevaluation of
what makes consumers buy. We now appreciate it
is events in the consumer's life—the empty cereal
box, the high telephone bill, the broken dishwasher, the
expiring car lease—that get consumers to consider
making a purchase, not the repetition of advertis-
ing messages. We understand that advertising
'TWs is not a new idea. ]ohn Philip Jones' origiml title for When Ads
Work was "The Advertising Trigger."
H believe the first public discussion (^ recency (as "propinquity"i VMS in
1993, See Envin Ephron. Flights of Fancy, Inside Media. May J2,1991
^Oscar Lubow's elegant phrase in a Dniiiel Starch and Company pro-
motional bnychure (1969).
J u l y . August 1 9 9 7 JOyilllRL OfflOyERTISIIlGRESKH 6 1
consumer. We now think whether the consumer is
"in the market" is more important than the num-
ber of messages he or she receives. This new view
of advertising as a weak but cost-effective market-
ing force is closer to reality. For example, the old
(strong) model says that advertising is important,
because it is how consumers iearn about brands
and become brand buyers.
The new (weak) model says most advertising
messages aren't important to consumers and while
they may be reminded by advertising, they don't
learn much, because the advertising is usually for
products and brands they already know. Consum-
ers know advertised brands in the product catego-
ries they use. That familiarity is part of brand eq-
uity. The old model suggests advertising messages
control consumers. The new model says consum-
ers control messages by screening-out most and
selecting only the few that are relevant to them at
the time. The new model accepts the relevance that
what makes ads work is provided by what is hap-
pening in the consumer's life and seldom by the
advertising.^
To understand the pivotal role of recency in this
revolution, we need to look at the work of John
Philip Jones (1995). His widely circulated analysis
of Nielsen panel data shows a single exposure can
strongly influence which brand is purchased. This
has been confirmed independently by the work of
Gibson (1996), Schroeder et al. (1997), and Mc-
Donald (1996), Jones's work had destroyed our
confidence in effective frequency planning, but it
*The sophisticated anisumer is n relatively mii' phenomenon. Adivr-
tising used to teach people abotil titiv products to hii\f. I rcmmibrr my
mother discovered the dishwasher from television. She continued a si-
lent diiihi^uf u'ilh the comntercials jvr a few months md finally bought
a Westitighouse. Today my wife known as much about dishwashers as
she caref lo. Commerciats have no immediate setting effect on her. She'tl
buy ii ne!V one vhai Ihc old one stops twrkinj;.
RECENCY PLANNING
Consumers know advertised brands in the product cat-
egories they use. That familiarity is part of brand equity.
seemed to conflict with a weak theory of
advertising. If advertising is a weak force,
how can a single ad tnessage produce a
strong effect? The key is "recency": the
insight that advertising messages wnrk
most directly with the few consumers
who are in the market at the time. Weak
effects ill the aggregate ritarket are not ineon-
sistent with strong effects on individual
consumers.^
Recency planning starts with the idea
that when is more important than how
many. If, whether a consumer is "in the
market" is the critical variable, then ad-
vertising effects are controlled by when
the message is received. "There is a win-
dow of advertising opportunity preceding
each purchase. Advertising's job is to in-
fluence the purchase. Media planning's
job is to place the message in that win-
dow" (Ephron, 1996).
When recency is applied to media plan-
ning, the first casualty is "effective fre-
quency." The Jones analysis shows in the
seven days preceding purchase "the first
advertising exposure has much more ef-
fect than what is added by subsequent ex-
posures" (Jones, 1995). In media terms,
the "first exposure" is reach and "subse-
quent exposures" are frequency, so
Jones's data says reach is far more cost-
effective than frequency, during the aver-
age week of a campaign (Ephron, 1995).
Reach is also far more necessary. Since
purchases are made each week and plan-
^i believe reccnc\f's other importmil contribution to adver-
tising practice is the notion tiint advertising effects occur in
Ihe siitirt term. This means we should be nbh' to tell wlietlter
n canijiiiign is vorking—or not zrorking—before we spend
all the innney.
6 2 JDUROHL OF flDUERTISinC HESEHIICII July . August 1 9 9 7
ners don't know who will make them, the
media goal is to reach as many different
consumers as possible in as many differ-
ent weeks as possible in order to reach the
few that are in the market at any time. Not
being there with a message for consumers
who are ready to buy is like being off the
supermarket shelf. Tt is a short- and
longer-term reach strategy, which stresses
more continuous advertising. The idea is
to cycle through the market at the lowest
cost by maximizing total weekly, four-
week, and quarterly target reach points
across the year.
Not being there with a message for consumers who are
ready to buy is iike being off the supermarket sheif.
This is a reach strategy that abhors
flighting. To generate more total weekly
reach points, a recency plan uses lower
weekly weight and more weeks of adver-
tising than a conventional plan. Reach
builds most quickly at lower TRPs, so
more weeks at lower weight will generate
more total weekly reach points than high-
TRP flighted schedules (Ephron, 1995).
Low TRP "drip feeding," the logical
scheduling solution for small budget
brands, doesn't appear to work in the
United States. From experience, the TRP
threshold seems to be 50 to 70 points a
week (Gold, 1992; IRI, 1990; Donius and
von Gonten, 1996). Below that level mar-
ket place effects are not readable. I believe
the problem with very low TRPs is insuf-
ficient weekly reach. My rule-of-thumb is
at least a 35 reach of target during the av-
erage week, a 65 reach of target during the
average four-weeks, and an 85 reach of
target during the average quarter.**
Recency planning is succeeding in the
United States, because it's mostly com-
mon-sense (Ephron, 1995)7 But the ideas
are revolutionary. Plan for reach not fre-
quency, continuity not flighting, use a
one-week not four-week planning pe-
riod,** shop for lowest cost-per-reach-point
not just lowest CPM, use dispersion, not
concentration. Four-weeks is too long for
planning, because the goal of advertising
is to influence brand selection and people
select brands every day. Revolutions in-
vite reactions and they have boen quick to
come. The balance of this paper looks at
the most common objections to recency
planning (Surmanek, 1995).
-ii'trk uiui yjiitnlrihi h'ikh^i'iil-<:iiiiiiiutri'ii mm-
will cycle through the etitire market. Rcceiicu plan-
ning would appear to reset the clock each week, which imtild
make reaching the same 35 percent of target acceptable, but
many iidx'frtising-stimuhited hriind I'urchases result in re-
purchases without the prod of advertising.
^The debate "recency versus effective freipienq/" is over.
The issue now is Iww lo implement recency. See Encfu
F.f'hron, How ti> Buy Reach as Ratings Cet Smaller, Ad-
vertisiiig Research Foundation }'.lertn>nic Media Research
Conference, December 5-6, 1995.
"I have been unnhle to trace the origins of the troiUlional
four-week reach/frequency planning interral. It was in use
in radio ivell before llw arrival of commercial television.
Some suggest it started with P£rC's desire to conform the
radio planning to the Nielsen Retail Index luonllily store
audit reports.

The gut-level reaction to recency disputes
the idea that "one exposure is enough."
With all the competing messages and
clutter on TV, a single exposure strat-
egy is likely to be ineffective and lose
sales (Surmanek, 1995).
ihere is a familiar confusion here. Cer-
tainly sales are lost because of too little
frequency, but more sales are lost because
of no frequency at all. Media planning
deals with the allocation of a fixed budget.
The question is "how do I spend the
money to make the most sales/' not "how
do I spend the money to ensure making
each sale,"
Recency planning never claims one ex-
posure is enough. That is foolish. It argues
ih.il, in the short-term, additional expo-
sures are more often wasteful, because the
Incipient is not likely to be in the market.
The scanner panel evidence bears this out.
It shows reaching three consumers once
will result in more sales than reaching one
consumer three times—and the costs are
.ibout the same (Reichel, 1994; Jones, 1995;
McDonald, 1996).'' The idea of attending
lo the easiest sales—and sacrificing the
liarder ones—has the logic and the emo-
tional pain of battlefield triage.
The next obvious aincem is that recency
planning will be an excuse to spend less.
If brands need only a frequency of one,
advertisers can cut budgets and that
may be a wrong decision (Surmanek,
1995).
Recency planning isn't a way for advertis-
ers to save money. It recommends cutting
'Rfnch ii'iiis OS tonfi as the shape of the response cunv is
concaiv dowti—luul tht-rc is general agreement it is.
Recency planning never claims one exposure is enough.
That is fooiish. It argues that, in the short-term, addi-
tional exposures are more often wasteful, because the
recipient is not likely to be in the market.
weekly weight to add weeks. Since most
brands don't run 52-weeks of advertising,
recency simply reallocates the current
budget. Brands do not spend less, they,
hopefully, spend more effectively.
Recency planning encourages the big-
ger budget brands that can afford to buy
weekly frequency (e.g., McDonald's,
Coke, AT&T) to shorten the planning
period to 104 half-weeks or even 365
days and still focus on reach. Why?
Because that next purchase occurs each
day.
Another concern might start with the
protest "But, a car is not a box of frosted
flakes!"
Recency planning comes from pack-
aged gotids where the empty box sig-
nals the need to buy. Surely more fre-
quency is needed for considered pur-
chase (Surmanek, 1995).
Every product category has its "empty
box." The car lease is up, the telephone
bill is too high, the dishwasher doesn't
work. Each day, for some reason, usually
independent of the advertising, people are
in the market for products of all sorts. Ad-
vertising usually works by influencing
that small group of consumers.
Recency does not eliminate frequency.
When John Jones finds that a single expo-
sure close to the purchase can trigger a
response, this is not the first exposure, but
the most recent in a series of exposures. It
J u l y . August 1 9 9 7 JOUflllflL OFflDUERIISlflGRESKH 6 3
RECENCY PLANNING
is effective because it reaches a consumer
who is in the market at that time. This
continuous series of messages creates fre-
quency—which in a recency model is bet-
ter thought of as "presence." This idea ap-
plies to cars as well as cereals.'"
Frequency is to presence as teaching Is
to reminding. Telling a child "Please wash
your hands before you eat" three times at
n AM is using frequency to teach. Saying
it once, before breakfast, lunch, and din-
ner, is using presence to remind. Adver-
tising works by being present to remind.
A similar itch relates the need for
greater frequency to a product's longer
purchase interval.
A low level of weekly frequency might
be right for a product that is purchased
every week or so, but not for a product
that is purchased every four or five
years (Surmanek, 1995).
Recency planning ignores length of pur-
chase interval, because it targets the pur-
chase not the consumer who makes the
purchase. The goal is to place a brand
message close to a purchase, so as long as
there are purchases each week, it doesn't
matter how often, or seldom, the average
purchaser buys.
'"Recency is aotmtimes characterized as sayinf; "all you
need is one exposure"-~an obviously extreme and indefen-
sible view.
RECENCY PLANNING
. . . when the consumer is in the market, ads have greater
relevance and are more likely to be attended.
The concern here is if a consumer has
not been in the market for the product in
several years, greater frequency is needed
to jump-start awareness. But the counter-
argument is when the consumer is in the
market, ads have greater relevance and
are more likely to be attended. Don't you
notice more automobile advertising when
you're thinking about buying a new car?
Most brands are fighting for share in
markets that are not growing, so the ef-
fects of recency planning on share of voice
is a concern.
If I choose continuity and my competi-
tor flights, won't I be overwhelmed?
Won't consumers be influenced more
by his advertising because they see
more messages? (Surmanek, 1995).
Yes, but only short-term. More weight,
weeks one through five, usually means
less weight, weeks six through ten. Heavi-
er-weight for 30 weeks is exhilarating. Go-
ing naked for 20 weeks is drafty. Ail
brands would like more weight for more
weeks. The problem isn't scheduling, it's
budget (Ephron, 1994). Recency planning
approaches advertising weight questions
by defining too little advertising as insuf-
ficient weekly reach, and excess advertis-
ing as too much weekly frequency.
Recency planning approaches advertising weight ques-
tions by defining too little advertising as insufficient
weekly reach, and excess advertising as too much
weekly frequency.
6 4 JOUIillfiL OF riaOERTISinG flESEB July . August 1997
After these specific concerns have been
addressed, there's the argument of last re-
sort, usually from people who should
know better:
The importance of frequency to build- Each campaign's pattern of response is
ing new brands is another issue. different, so you can't generalize about
reach and frequency. It depends.
Recency may be fine for established
brands, but isn't frequency needed for
That's like observing that each person has
new brands? (Surmanek, 1995).
their own unique blood pressure, so diag-
nosis is useless. The idea that advertising
Product introductions are a special case
effects are too unique to generalize is non-
for greater frequency, but only because
sense. Why else do we write learned pa-
the goals are different from those of estab-
pers to each other in journals like this?
lished brand campaigns. Although heavi-
The concerns I've listed are typical.
er weight will not generate as many sales
They suggest that many advertising pro-
per media dollar, getting sales more
fessionals are caught in Limbo, unwilling
quickly may still make it worthwhile. For
to defend the old ideas and yet uneasy
example, if a new product needs shelf
with the new ones. But then revolutions
movement to maintain distribution it will
don't make people comfortable. <^
be willing to "overspend" fo get it. Or if
the purchase inten'al is short and repeat
ERWIN EPHfioN is a partner at Ephron, Papazlan &
purchase is high, accelerating brand pen-
Ephron, Inc., a New York media consultancy. He is
etration with higher TRP-weight can pay
past president of both the Media Directors Council
out in more weeks of repurchase.
and the Agency Media Research Directors Councii and
Building new brands is a separate issue.
is an elected member of the Market Research
Certainly frequency is needed, but re-
Council. He has chaired major ARF initiatives for
cency does not eliminate frequency, which
improving television and print audience measurement.
is the sum of exposures across weeks.
Erwin is an honors graduate from Swarttimore
Brand-building is not ignored. It is en-
College and holds an MBA in economics from New
hanced by more continuous advertising.
York University.
Recency's contribution is to focus us on
the present—the next purchase—whether
the brand is new or established, cornflakes
REFERENCES
or cars. Because if you don't get enough
next purchases, brand-building doesn't
matter. s, JAMES, and MICHAEL VON GONTEN.
"Advertising Exposure and Advertising Ef-
fects: New Panel-based Findings." Presenta-
tion at the ESOMAR Managing Media Data
for Market Profit conference, Rome, Novem-
ber 1996.
EHRENBERC, A. S. C. "Comments of How Ad-
vertising Works." Marketing and Research To-
day, November 1992.

, ERWIN. "Flights of Fancy." Inside Me-
ilia. May 12, 1993.
. "A Car Is Like a Box of Frosted
I lakes," Presented at the ARF/ESOMAR
Worldwide Electronic and Broadcast Audi-
L'lice Research Symposium, San Francisco,
.\pril 1996.
. "More Weeks, Less Weight: The Shelf-
Space Model of Advertising." Journal of Adver-
tising Research 35. 3 (1995): 18-23.
. ' T h e Trouble with flighting." Presen-
l.ition to the Association of National Advertis-
t-rs TV Forum, New York, 1995.
. "How to Buy Reach as Ratings Get
Smaller." In Transcript Proceedings of the ARF
I'.lcclronic Media Research Workshop. New York:
Advertising Research Foundation, 1995.
-. "Guerrilla Media." Inside Media, Janu-
ary 5, 1994.
GALBRATTH, KENNETH. The Affluent Society 1958.
GIBSON, LARRY. "What Can One TV Exposure
Do?" }ournal of Advertising Research 36, 2
(1996): 9-18.
GOLD, LAURENCE N . "Let's Heavy Up in St.
Louis and See What Happens." journal of Ad-
vertising Research 32, 6 (1992): 31-38.
Information Resources, Inc. How Advertising
Works. Chicago: Information Resources, Inc.,
1990.
JONES, JOHN PHIUP. "The Double Jeopardy of
Sales Promotion." Harvard Business Review 68,
5 (1990): 145-52.
July . August 1 9 9 7 JDURnflL OFflDUEHTISinGRESEflflGH 6 5
RECENCY PLANNING
, YJhen Ads Work: New Proof that Adivr-
tisiug Triggers Sales. New York; Lexington
Books, 1995.
MAYER, MARTIN. Madison Avenue, USA. 1958.
MCDONALD, COLIN. " H O W Frequently Should
You Advertise?" Admap. July 1996.
REICHEL, WALTER. "Beyond Effective Fre-
quency." In Transcript Proceedings of the ARF
Effective Frequency Day. New York: Advertis-
ing Research Foundation, 1994.
SCHROEDER, GARV, BRUCE RlCHAUDSON, a n d
Avu SANKARALINCAM. "Validating STAS Using
BehaviorScan*." Journal of Adiyertising Research
37, 4 (1997): 33-42.
SURMANEK, JIM. "A Frequency of One, Fre-
quently Wrong." Advertising Age, November
27,1995.