Marketing Myths: McFlurries aren’t the only Placed Products we’re not buying (into)

 

In a continuation from my last blog about The Future of Advertising Project, I thought I’d share a few more findings from the Advertising Research Foundation’s recent study. Respondents gave some surprising answers and I think some of these statements go against what you think and, even more so, what your clients believe. I’m hoping you can use this survey to approach those tough clients with new ammunition.

Some marketing myth-busting found in ARF’s batch of studies:

Each 1% increase in advertising produces roughly a 0.1 point change in sales or market share. As a result, an optimal ad budget is approximately 10% of gross profits. That rule doesn’t necessarily hold for all marketers (it would, if followed strictly, have Procter & Gamble cut its global ad spending by half or more). More effective advertising, or ads for new products, produce as much as 250% greater lift than average and justify correspondingly larger outlays.

Store redesigns and other factors that make it easier and faster to shop actually increase purchases, contrary to the old strategy that making things hard to find boosts sales by making people spend more time in the store.

Though most campaigns cluster ads in a short period of time, consumers retain information better if it’s spaced out over longer intervals.

Obvious branding works in ads. The more often a brand appears in a TV ad, the more likely consumers are to remember what brand it was for.

But obvious brand placements in TV shows are more likely to backfire. They’re better remembered, but more likely to be remembered negatively. Even brand placements consumers don’t consciously remember, however, can have a favorable impact on brand awareness and attitude.

[Source: Journal of Advertising Research, June issue.]