|
How can I know my advertising is working? |
|
|
|
Wednesday, 28 March 2007 |
A short ramble from the good doctor.
In an advertising agency there has been, in a sense, the celebrated focus – and the real power. The openly celebrated are the creatives – the copywriters, art directors, producers – taking the bows and bringing home the metal and glass memorabilia that fills the shelves in the agency hallway entrances. And then, without a smirk or a nod, there is the quiet secret – where the real money is spent and where the agency’s longevity with their clients is often determined. Media. And measurement. Did they watch – how many? Did they remember – can you convince me that they got it? Is it better than the last campaign? Better than last year? Let’s use Arbitron, Nielsen . . . OK, Starch -- and show that the metrics have had a positive effect on sales. “Look . . . we sold the advertising campaign as an investment – not an expense – now we gotta show the bean counters the RETURN. Right? Right!”
Well, perhaps that’s not a perfect description of the importance of media measurement but it is painfully close. The metrics of media have become well defined and established over the past forty years and helped satisfy a need for answering the famous John Wannamaker concern about which half of his store’s advertising was, in fact, effective. CPM has ruled – and in most circumstances still does. So, how does one answer questions about measuring the effectiveness of experiential advertising and promotion campaigns – and do so in a manner the client will accept and that reflects an understanding of research practices and what it is that advertising can really do? The issue is the stuff perhaps of its own blog – but starting a discourse about it here may be a good thing.
I think that the questions of measuring interactive efforts, mall interactions with consumers, guerilla campaigns and the rest and providing some answer that encompasses anticipated or realized return on investment is now – or will soon be de rigeur. The best answer will be a three-part approach. The three areas are briefly described below and with some additional work quantifying each class of measurement for communication and comparative purposes is very doable.
First, we can measure baseline brand position or likeability within the competitive set; doing so before and after the exposure to the event or process has occurred and looking for shifts in that ranking -- or perhaps even seeing the brand now a member of the competitive set whereas before hand the brand was excluded. Another expression of that condition can be derived from examining well-designed likelihood of purchase. Secondly, a series of measurements on a convenience sample drawn from those exposed to the event or process can deal with brand message comprehension, i.e., did those exposed draw from the experience those brand attributes that the work desired to introduce or enhance. Third, web-based metrics can be designed that track traffic to the site as a consequence of exposure to the experiential campaign and the viral spread can also be well estimated. Equally important is the dwell time, interaction and information exchange that takes place and quantifying that activity with comparison to web behavior observed with previous or conventional media approaches.
In short, a dynamic and meaningful metric set and terminology – one that goes beyond CPM of impressions is needed and attainable – for so-called alternative or experiential advertising techniques. Let’s go do it.
 |
