5.7
Effective Frequency vs Recency
Two opposed rules for scheduling the same budget: buy enough repetition to cross a threshold, or spread continuous light coverage so an ad is present close to the purchase.
Effective frequency from Michael Naples (1979); recency planning from Erwin Ephron (1997), building on John Philip Jones' single-source work
What it does
Converts a budget into a schedule, which is the decision media planning actually makes. The two rules produce genuinely different plans from the same money — one concentrates weight on fewer people, the other buys presence across more weeks — and holding them against each other forces a planner to state what they believe about how the ad works.
When it breaks
Both break when treated as constants. The three-exposure threshold was a summary of the evidence available in 1979 and has never held as a universal number; recency assumes buying is continuous and randomly timed, which fails in seasonal and considered-purchase categories where there is a window and it is knowable. The deeper problem is that the two rules are not reconcilable — a planner citing whichever one supports the plan already chosen is using neither.
Case
Ephron argued from single-source data that the first exposure does most of the work and that what matters is being present near the purchase occasion, directly against the effective-frequency doctrine that had governed media buying for two decades. The dispute was never resolved empirically; both rules remain in active use.
Recency & receptivity — marketing lessons from Erwin Ephron ↗Diagram — not yet drawn
The same budget drawn twice on a calendar: concentrated bursts against continuous light weight, with purchase occasions marked as dots underneath and the number of dots each schedule sits next to counted.
In the wild
Unvetted · not part of the tier assessment
What has been written about this tool in the last twelve months. Machine-retrieved and unchecked — everything above this line was checked.
Loading…