If, as has famously been said, â€˜I know that half of my advertising has been wasted but I donâ€™t know which halfâ€™, itâ€™s time we understood more about the link between budgetary spend and waste. Essentially there is budgetary waste if you go on â€˜preachingâ€™ to the converted, and there is budgetary waste if you spend your time â€˜preachingâ€™ to the unconvertible. Setting generalized media exposure goals (3+ OTS) against generalized target groups (18-34 men) is a recipe for waste. A means of predicting differences in the rate at which sub-sections of the target audience will â€˜take-upâ€™ OTS (opportunities to see advertising) and retain the knowledge over time is required to provide a more effective means to determine and distribute advertising weight. In a standard media schedule evaluation comparison we judge one schedule against another on the basis of â€˜effectiveâ€™ reach. What constitutes â€˜effectiveâ€™ reach is in reality extremely complex but in practice is made using a simple concept of frequency (for a given cost). Effective reach may be taken as total gross contacts delivered, net contacts delivered â€“ at least 1, at least 3, at least 5 etc. or weighted net reach where a (relative) value is applied to each level of exposure (= a â€˜responseâ€™ curve) and summed to provide an â€˜effective reachâ€™ score.
Symposium: 2005: Prague, Session 2 - Response and Non Response
Authors: Crundall, David, Underwood, Geoffrey, Van Loon, Editha
Organisations: Bucknull & Masson, Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham
Topics: Advertising Effects, General