Effectiveness of advertising

[x]

This is an offshoot of the Christmas thread. I wanted to make some comments about the effectiveness of advertising in general, not just as it relates to radio.

I've long felt that most of the time advertising is like the Emperor's New Clothes. There are times when it works and times when it doesn't. The times it doesn't far outweigh the times when it does, in my opinion. In my view, advertising is most effective when you're imparting new information. For example, when a new store opens, the best way to get people to start coming in the door is to advertise. However, if what you're thinking about advertising is something that everyone already knows about, there has to be something additional before it will have any significant impact.

Take soft drinks for example. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that Coca Cola and Pepsi exist? I'd say virtually everyone here has tried both at least once in their life. A TV commercial with beautiful people sitting on a beach somewhere drinking Coke and saying how great it tastes does absolutely nothing. Now, if you're introducing a new variant, then you need to have some exposure and advertising is at least desireable if not necessary.

Thoughts?

[yellow]

Why isn't this in the radio forum, since it's related to another post in that forum, "streaming christmas"? I bet that if you advertised in "streaming Christmas" more people would know this exists...... The people in "streaming christmas" would be your target audience, since they already have some interest; you'd simply have to make a post there and direct traffic where you want it to go.....
get the drift?

I agree with you on Pepsi and Coke; but what radio station is equivilant to Pepsi or Coke? Stations, contests, logos and other station promotions are constantly changing. And the one or two that have stayed consistant still have to compete with the other stations in SLC! They are all fighting for the same listeners, especially in this oversaturated radio market. Radio stations are more like the Fresca of the soda world (in case you haven't seen; Fresca is introducing new flavors).
I also agree about the emporer's new clothes. Sometimes promotion works, sometimes it doesn't. It's the same thing radio stations tell the people who advertise with them. Hopefully the promotion/advertising will have a big impact, but you just never know. I supposed that the big corporates have money to throw away on their smoke and mirrors, but not the small locally owned stations. So there's another paradigm that makes this market so interesting.

[x]

True. But I was trying to broaden the topic outside of radio, which is why I moved the discussion. I agree with your points on Fresca and the changing landscape of radio. If there's a change, people need to know. If there isn't, why bother? There have been some changes in radio recently (in relative terms, a lot of changes), but most of the stations are the same as they have been for at least a year. If your target listener isn't paying attention to you after you've been around (and presumably advertising) for a year or more, converting them is going to be somewhere between difficult and impossible. There's are related economic theories that come into play. One is called 'the law of diminishing returns' (http://www.bartleby.com/65/di/diminish.html) and the other is the 'law of diminishing marginal utility' (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility.asp) At some point it just doesn't make economic sense to keep plugging away.

[Sailor]

Some advertising is designed to "GET" market share. This is the advertising which wants you to try a new product, inform you about new flavors, or features, or price changes, rebates and deals. But there is also advertising which is aimed at "KEEPING" market share. These are the 'feel good' adds that say you're cool because you wear these kinds of pants, or drink this kind of soda, or drive a BMW. Those ads are desigend to reinforce your buying decision, make you feel good about your loyalty.

And of course nothing in life is simple any more, so there are schools of thought which try to do both, or sell to cross over markets, 'You loved our socks, now try our underwear.."

You talk about the futility of reinforcing buying decisions, like the Coke vs Pepsi campaigns. However there must be something there, because they keep doing it. I can't think that that these companies would keep doing it if they didn't see some benefit.

I am reminded of the old story about Mr. Wrigley and one of his top managers were on a train traveling to some meeting. They were going over budgets and financials, and the manager said, "Mr. Wrigley, we could save a lot of money if we cut back our advertising. Everyone knows our product and we dominate the market, we don't need to spend as much money on advertising as we are now." Mr. Wrigley thought for a moment, then said, "Son, how long do you think this train would keep going if someone shut off the engine? Advertising is the engine of our company and if we stop or slow down, it won't be long before our company sales will stop or slow down right along with it."

I think maybe Mr. Wrigley knew more than all the fancy web sites and college communications professors.

[x]

Mr Wrigley may have been right, but I don't think so. This is just a personal opinion and I can't back it up with jack squat, so take it how you will. I think that most people tend to tune out things like that. Heck, most people can't remember what network their favorite TV shows are on even though nearly every damn one of them sticks their logo in the corner for the entire program.

You bring up an interesting question though. Why do companies keep doing it? I think in large part that has to do with how ingrained that concept is in the advertising world. That's what's taught in college; that's the way it's been done for decades; it must be right. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't a good enough answer for me. It's much more advantageous to challange any assumptions that you come in with. If it passes, great. if it doesn't, throw it out. I'm not sure that enough of that has been done.

[DavidChandler]

You make a good point about advertising, and I think broadcast especially, is good for introducing a product quickly and creating a buzz about it. But, a reason to keep advertising is "Top of the Mind". Don't let current or past consumers forget about you. Most radio stations and many other companies make the mistake of waiting until the new guy is running an "introductory" campaign and then try to react.
On-going campaigns can be a way to be pro-active and not leave a hole in the market.

[x]

Good point. That can be true, but I would think that I would qualify it by saying that the "Top of the Mind" campaigns would be better suited for infrequent purchases. That is, if it's something you buy every week or two, you probably won't forget about it. A once a year purchase, you might.