Tag Archives | Advertising Effectiveness
Much has been written about the different demographics and views that Clinton and Trump supporters hold of our changing nation. Add to that now an indication that Clinton and Trump supporters may also differ in how they process messaging. In a new study, Trump supporters showed higher levels of positive emotional response and lower levels of negative emotional response than Clinton supporters when looking at apolitical bank advertising. Continue Reading →
Problem: Settling for Engagement.
As media choices grow, engagement has received interest as a metric for elevating cross-media assessment. All eyeballs are not equal and some media channels, particularly digital ones, assert they are better than others at delivering eyeballs that matter more to a particular brand. Engagement focuses on the qualitative side of communication and deepens traditional reach and frequency discussions.
But engagement is only a partial measure of total advertising effect. Engagement is loosely defined as producing a positive brand experience. It is often operationalized through such measures as views, clicks, likes, shares and comments. Knowing whether an ad experience has been engaging is more actionable than knowing where and when an ad ran, but it is not as actionable as knowing whether an ad influenced buying behavior. Achieving sustained performance improvement and brand building requires more than engagement. Continue Reading →
With hardly a word,
visuals can tell us a
Problem: Using Short-Term Measures to Determine Advertising Performance.
Marketing ROI calculations often measure activities such as sales, inquires, and clicks to gauge the effectiveness of a program. The strength is that these measure what someone actually does, as opposed to what he or she says they will do. However, activities, even ones as concrete as sales, are short-term behaviors; what someone does today is not always predictive of what he or she will do tomorrow. As a result, analyses that are based on activities tend to support programs that produce short-term effects at the expense of programs that also have material long-term benefits. For example, using sales data alone, couponing generally outperforms advertising, but this conclusion would not make for a sound marketing practice. Continue Reading →
Problem: Too Much Ad Liking
Many of today’s commercials over-use entertainment to engage audiences. A well-known celebrity, an amusing spokesperson, a well-told story, a parade of appealing images will attract audiences and increase ad liking. But when a TV spot or a print ad relies too heavily on liking, the core selling message is often missed and the full power of the advertising is reduced. Continue Reading →
Social Media helps advertisers improve the return they earn on their multi-million dollars investments
Social Media has changed the game for Super Bowl advertisers. A recent study by communications research firm, G&R, shows that social media enables advertisers to multiply the efficiency of their advertising investment by increasing the number of people who see the advertising (reach), the number of times that a person sees the advertising (frequency), and how well an ad registers with a person (ad engagement).
Traditionally, running advertising on the Super Bowl has been for the young and for the strong. New companies looking to get noticed in a hurry and established companies seeking to communicate with large sections of their markets simultaneously have fronted the now $4.5 million per :30 ad costs because of the unique advertising opportunity that the Super Bowl presents. No other advertising venue delivers as large an audience, has more opportunity for water cooler and press replay, and associates the product with such an esteemed event. Plus, viewers pay additional attention to Super Bowl commercials than they do the regular advertisement, as they search for the most entertaining spots and the regrettable but inevitable failures. Continue Reading →
Corporate advertising is sometimes portrayed as a wasteful use of corporate resources. Critics say it is self-indulgent ego-stroking by management that often backfires to reflect negatively on the company and/or is seen by consumers who don’t like or understand it. (See typical talking points with a good example of how not to do corporate advertising here.) Some go further and suggest it is subversive. (See this classic 1970 essay by Milton Friedman.) When done right, though, corporate advertising is a valuable tool for facilitating corporate survival.
Successful corporate advertising helps companies shape a coherent umbrella identity for their disparate products and activities and, for companies with contentious public relations issues, advance viewpoints and mitigate image problems. It does this through messaging that builds positive perceptions among the company’s many capital providers, including customers, public opinion leaders, employees, and shareholders. It differs from traditional brand advertising in that it is centered on the company and the benefits of the corporation to society, rather than an individual product produced by the company and simply increasing profits by acquiring and retaining customers.
Like all advertising campaigns, good corporate advertising is effective on different levels. Its value is always a function of its objectives and the quality of its content. Continue Reading →