Too often, as marketers, we get caught up in arbitrary metrics, mainly the big two (reach and frequency). Unfortunately, there are huge problems with both of these.
Reach, for example, is the theoretical number of people who see your ad when it runs. Its theoretical for multiple reasons. First, its not based on actual viewing. Thesenumbers are based on who, based on a small sample of the viewership,
extrapolated to the larger audience watched a given show. Of
course, these numbers will never be correct, and I would suspect skew
higher more often then lower, considering the number of dollars small
differences in viewing can amount to. Secondly, these numbers are based more on when a tv is turned on, rather than when a person is actively viewing. How
many of us simply have the tv on as background noise when we are
getting ready for work, cooking dinner, working out, or using the
internet? The answer will always be more than zero, thus immediately affecting your actual reach. Now,
for the guys paying to keep the show on, then you have to think about
channel skipping or ad skipping with the remote or the DVR when the
commercials come one, further eliminating the actual commercial audience.
The point is, we simply rely on metrics that dont provide an actual audience, but more of a perceived audience. An audience we'd like to tell ourselves we have, rather than an audience we do have. The
situation is even more bleak for radio, when station jumping is just a
fact of life, especially with the coveted younger audience. And bleaker still for newspapers. All the ad numbers are based on circulation which is almost never a clear reflection of the actual readership.
But then, you place an ad on a certain page of a certain section of the paper. How
much of that circulation (already diminished by papers/mags left on the
racks) actually read that section, which further diminishes the number. Now,
what if you are on a page with content that only 5% of the readership
even chooses to stop on (not many people actual go through and read
each story, or even a story on each page of the paper). Then
how many people's eyes actually travel across your ad, of the total
circulation, and to a greater extent, how many stop to read your ad. Your CPM wouldn't look so hot if you would actually take an account for all this.
The good news is that most advertisers are waking up to these facts, and looking for real solutions. The solution has to be to first find new metrics. If we continue to base our livelihood on reach and frequency, technology will kill us. It's a notion that simply does not translate to this generation when every dollar has to be accounted for and proven.
Part of the answer lies with a look at the big guy that the dinosaurs of advertising actually think threaten the industry. Our friend Google. The reason these guys exploded was not just for their advanced search algorithms, but also for their brilliant ad model. They actual expected their advertising to work (at least somewhat anyway) before they received a nickel. Crazy, right? Not so crazy. Obviously. SEM as become to be hugely important to every level of product, even in some low-involvement categories (think sharpie).
On
a side note, this should tell every ad agency that we need
to be preparing for an environment when market speak and using numbers
to your advantage will NOT work. Its already
happening (demanded by P&G) to the extent that marketers
(advertisers) will be paid only based on the results they produce. Going
in to the business relationship, a set of metrics and benchmarks will
be agreed upon, and the marketer will be able to maximize its profits
only by reaching these previously agreed upon goals. Technology will only further solidify this as a rule.
Now, back to the metrics that are important. A natural extension of the impotence of reach, is the impotence of frequency. To begin with, if you cant prove the reach, you cant prove the frequency. Its that simple. Furthermore,
you cant really prove that someone watching an ad three times is
actually any more inclined to by a product than someone watching it
once, mainly because thats based on too many other factors. It
MAY actual hold some psychological water in the days when someone would
actual watch the ad all three times when it was played in front of
their turned on tv, but the fact is, they don't. Another factor is the creative. Is your creative connecting with the right audience? Is it as relevant as it should be, or as engaging and interactive as it could be?
Macintosh ran the brilliant 1984 spot one time, people, one time. And its had legs for twenty years. God bless Lee Clow. So, you think it would have had more impact if it were played three times? I doubt it. Now, take an ad for Mattress Giant that would generally make me want to shoot myself rather than be forced to sit through it. Does playing that awful piece of garbage 3 times make me more likely to go there? What if I wasnt even in the market for a mattress in the first place? Another knock on the whole reach argument.
The answer is relevant engagement In influencing the influencers. Simply
displaying your ad in front of an audience (even if it does fit the
loose frame of your target audience, which would take us to an argument
of relevancy does one 25 year old white male = every 25 year old white
male?uhh no.) does not make them sit up and listen.
The bottom line is messaging isn't just about playing ad and then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Advertising is a thing of the past, marketing is the thing of the future. PR,
Advertising, Promotions, Word-of-Mouth, Search, Interactive, Operations
and all the other core competencies yet to be created working together
as a team. A symphony of discplines all working to treat each individual as an individual, and responding to their needs. Its
about realizing were not just selling a product, but were working with
people to help them find the things they want and love, and then making
it easy for them to want and love us, and eventually for their friends
to want and love us, too, and so on.
We're
entering a period of the rebirth of the brand, and the ones who will
win will be the ones less concerned with reach and frequency, and more
concerned with engagement and empowerment, and even more importantly,
giving people what they want.
