12 BANDT.COM.AU OCTOBER 01 2010 I recently read something in the marketing press that prompted my usually mild-mannered bullshit detector to move to DEFCON1 status. The line was “Catalogues are the sole remaining mass media”. This was a direct quote from Richard Allely, managing director of PMP, as reported in Direct magazine in August. Now, it is of course unsurprising to find PMP pimping the letterbox medium. But catalogues the sole remaining mass media? Really?! Funny, because I’d heard television and newspa- pers were still around and boasting pretty signifi- cant penetration levels, and that outdoor media was still out there as well. So let us catalogue the error in this statement. And instead of the word ‘catalogues’ , let’s use the colloquial term of ‘junk mail’ . According to the lat- est data from Roy Morgan, 17% of Australian households have a letterbox that says ‘No junk mail’ or something similar. Unsolicited mail should not reach these parts, and so the reach of cata- logues suddenly appears far less mass-tastic than it might first appear. However, reach and frequency is only one part of the story – we also need to look at engagement levels with regards to junk mail. For the 73% of households that do receive it, many pieces of collateral will only ever make the leap from letterbox to recycling bin without get- ting a look. On the Salmat website you can down- load research suggesting that even the most read letterbox catalogues are ignored by at least 30% of recipients. In some industry categories, such as telecommunications and ‘tyre & auto’ , unad- dressed advertising material is ignored by around 85% of recipients. That doesn’t sound much like the sole remaining mass media to me. And the whole notion of “mass media” implies the nation sharing an identical piece of content at the same time. So when was the last time the nation huddled around a piece of junk mail, in the style of the MasterChef finale?! It’s a personal observation based on a sample size of one household and one male ‘main grocery buyer’ , but all the “$7bn letterbox channel” does for me each week is provide some glossy lining paper for my recycling bin. So back to where we started. In the spirit of pimping the medium, would it be too blatant of me to suggest that inserting a catalogue into a news- paper might be a more targeted and effective option for many advertisers? A study of Australian marketing managers revealed that over half (59%) track brand aware- ness as an indication of advertising effectiveness. Despite this, few managers had an intimate knowl- edge of the differences between the brand aware- ness metrics that are used. Recently the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute con- ducted some research looking at the common brand awareness metrics used. It revealed that certain brand awareness metrics are more appro- priate to use depending on the customer group – current customers or non-customers. In most circumstances advertising is skewed to target either non-customers (in order to attract new ones), or current customers (retaining current customer base). So, if marketers want to know whether the advertising has cut-through to current customers or non-customers, it is important that they understand which of the commonly used brand awareness metrics is most appropriate. There are three common ways to test advertis- ing’s effect on brand awareness. The first is to test people’s ability to recall the brand name when pro- vided with a category prompt, i.e. what car brands are you aware of? Normally the first brand men- tioned, and total brands mentioned, are collected as two separate metrics. Another method to test brand awareness is to provide the person with a brand prompt, i.e. are you aware of Toyota? The respondent is required to answer yes or no. Changes in all these scores indicate advertising effectiveness. To give you a better idea of how it works, here are some clear guidelines for each of the brand awareness metrics: First mention category prompted awareness Only current customers recall the brand first men- tioned. Therefore, using it to indicate the effec- tiveness of advertising aimed at non-customers will not see changes in this metric. Total mentions category prompted awareness Marketers using total category prompted can see the effect of advertising on both current and non- customers. However, for this reason it is unclear (at the aggregate level) whether the advertising affected the awareness of both groups, or one group independently changed. Total mentions brand prompted awareness Current customers are certain to recognise the brand in a brand-prompted task. Therefore, cur- rent customers score never fluctuates (always 100%). Therefore, this metric will only detect changes in non-customers’ awareness levels. comment A catalogue of errors Brand awareness metrics revealed TO MAKE A COMMENT EMAIL [email protected] Adam Joseph Readership director, Herald Sun Melbourne Sam Wight Research associate, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science BT.OCT01.PG012.pdf Page 12 23/9/10, 3:58 PM
Catalogue of Errors B&T Oct 2010
Jun 25, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
12 BANDT.COM.AU OCTOBER 01 2010
I recently read something in the marketing pressthat prompted my usually mild-mannered bullshitdetector to move to DEFCON1 status. The line was“Catalogues are the sole remaining mass media”.This was a direct quote from Richard Allely,managing director of PMP, as reported in Directmagazine in August.
Now, it is of course unsurprising to find PMPpimping the letterbox medium. But catalogues thesole remaining mass media? Really?!
Funny, because I’d heard television and newspa-pers were still around and boasting pretty signifi-cant penetration levels, and that outdoor mediawas still out there as well.
So let us catalogue the error in this statement.And instead of the word ‘catalogues’, let’s use thecolloquial term of ‘junk mail’. According to the lat-est data from Roy Morgan, 17% of Australianhouseholds have a letterbox that says ‘No junkmail’ or something similar. Unsolicited mail shouldnot reach these parts, and so the reach of cata-logues suddenly appears far less mass-tastic thanit might first appear. However, reach and frequencyis only one part of the story – we also need to lookat engagement levels with regards to junk mail.
For the 73% of households that do receive it,many pieces of collateral will only ever make theleap from letterbox to recycling bin without get-ting a look. On the Salmat website you can down-load research suggesting that even the most readletterbox catalogues are ignored by at least 30%of recipients. In some industry categories, such as telecommunications and ‘tyre & auto’, unad-dressed advertising material is ignored by around85% of recipients.
That doesn’t sound much like the sole remainingmass media to me.
And the whole notion of “mass media” impliesthe nation sharing an identical piece of content atthe same time. So when was the last time thenation huddled around a piece of junk mail, in thestyle of the MasterChef finale?!
It’s a personal observation based on a samplesize of one household and one male ‘main grocerybuyer’, but all the “$7bn letterbox channel” does forme each week is provide some glossy lining paperfor my recycling bin.
So back to where we started. In the spirit ofpimping the medium, would it be too blatant of meto suggest that inserting a catalogue into a news-paper might be a more targeted and effectiveoption for many advertisers?
A study of Australian marketing managersrevealed that over half (59%) track brand aware-ness as an indication of advertising effectiveness.Despite this, few managers had an intimate knowl-edge of the differences between the brand aware-ness metrics that are used.
Recently the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute con-ducted some research looking at the commonbrand awareness metrics used. It revealed thatcertain brand awareness metrics are more appro-priate to use depending on the customer group –current customers or non-customers.
In most circumstances advertising is skewed totarget either non-customers (in order to attractnew ones), or current customers (retaining currentcustomer base). So, if marketers want to knowwhether the advertising has cut-through to currentcustomers or non-customers, it is important thatthey understand which of the commonly usedbrand awareness metrics is most appropriate.
There are three common ways to test advertis-ing’s effect on brand awareness. The first is to testpeople’s ability to recall the brand name when pro-vided with a category prompt, i.e. what car brandsare you aware of? Normally the first brand men-tioned, and total brands mentioned, are collectedas two separate metrics. Another method to testbrand awareness is to provide the person with abrand prompt, i.e. are you aware of Toyota? Therespondent is required to answer yes or no.Changes in all these scores indicate advertisingeffectiveness. To give you a better idea of how itworks, here are some clear guidelines for each ofthe brand awareness metrics:
First mention category prompted awarenessOnly current customers recall the brand first men-tioned. Therefore, using it to indicate the effec-tiveness of advertising aimed at non-customerswill not see changes in this metric.
Total mentions category prompted awarenessMarketers using total category prompted can seethe effect of advertising on both current and non-customers. However, for this reason it is unclear(at the aggregate level) whether the advertisingaffected the awareness of both groups, or onegroup independently changed.
Total mentions brand prompted awarenessCurrent customers are certain to recognise thebrand in a brand-prompted task. Therefore, cur-rent customers score never fluctuates (always100%). Therefore, this metric will only detectchanges in non-customers’ awareness levels.
comm
ent
A catalogue of errors
Brand awarenessmetrics revealed
TO MAKE A COMMENT EMAIL [email protected]
Adam JosephReadership director,Herald Sun Melbourne
Sam WightResearch associate,Ehrenberg-BassInstitute for Marketing Science
BT.OCT01.PG012.pdf Page 12 23/9/10, 3:58 PM
Related Documents
