[Goose]

You don’t think advertising works?  I’d like a further explanation on that……


Before you answer that, if you live in Calif answer these three  questions:  1.  What is Prop 27. 2.  Who  do the “Yes” folks say. It benefits  3.  Besides Prop 26 name any other prop on the ballot…..  (You will be able to answer this I’m sure.  Most Californians can’t)

Actually, I do live in California but I could not have answered your questions about Prop 26 and 27. I don't watch much TV, and what little I do watch causes me to just ignore any commercials about propositions on the ballot. I am going to read the propositions and the "for" and "against" arguments, but the TV adds are so misleading in most cases I consider them worthless and don't listen. I realize I am not typical and that isn't the basis for my beliefs about advertising during NCAA football games.

I do believe that some advertising is successful some of the time with some audiences. Clearly, we are all familiar with advertising campaigns that we watched and enjoyed watching. The Miller Lite commercials didn't make me buy much (any?) of their beer, but they were clever and interesting. However, they were not sandwiched between five or six other commercials that were none of the above. The ratio of commercials to product on NCAA broadcasting has become almost intolerably high. People simply tune out and don't watch. I think that producing an effective commercial that people will actually watch today is much harder. I also think that for every consensus successful advertising campaign there are "several" (4 or 5) that are not. However, since it is hard to measure "success" directly and since there is a perceived need to market your product it is difficult to ask the question "Do we need to do this?" and "Is this a good utilization of our budget given that we are saturating an already saturated advertising venue?" IOW I think that today most advertising is not effective but is continued because nobody knows what else to do.

The thing is we all have agency.  We dont  have to watch.

BC

Yep, and I don't. Even watching Stanford football on TV is now an activity that requires only about 15% of my attention. There is so much crap mixed in between plays you really don't need to concentrate at all. Too bad, because the low information entropy it makes it much less enjoyable than it used to be.

[Goose]

You don’t think advertising works?  I’d like a further explanation on that……


Before you answer that, if you live in Calif answer these three  questions:  1.  What is Prop 27. 2.  Who  do the “Yes” folks say. It benefits  3.  Besides Prop 26 name any other prop on the ballot…..  (You will be able to answer this I’m sure.  Most Californians can’t)

Actually, I do live in California but I could not have answered your questions about Prop 26 and 27. I don't watch much TV, and what little I do watch causes me to just ignore any commercials about propositions on the ballot. I am going to read the propositions and the "for" and "against" arguments, but the TV adds are so misleading in most cases I consider them worthless and don't listen. I realize I am not typical and that isn't the basis for my beliefs about advertising during NCAA football games.

I do believe that some advertising is successful some of the time with some audiences. Clearly, we are all familiar with advertising campaigns that we watched and enjoyed watching. The Miller Lite commercials didn't make me buy much (any?) of their beer, but they were clever and interesting. However, they were not sandwiched between five or six other commercials that were none of the above. The ratio of commercials to product on NCAA broadcasting has become almost intolerably high. People simply tune out and don't watch. I think that producing an effective commercial that people will actually watch today is much harder. I also think that for every consensus successful advertising campaign there are "several" (4 or 5) that are not. However, since it is hard to measure "success" directly and since there is a perceived need to market your product it is difficult to ask the question "Do we need to do this?" and "Is this a good utilization of our budget given that we are saturating an already saturated advertising venue?" IOW I think that today most advertising is not effective but is continued because nobody knows what else to do.

The thing is we all have agency.  We dont  have to watch.

BC

Yep, and I don't. Even watching Stanford football on TV is now an activity that requires only about 15% of my attention. There is so much crap mixed in between plays you really don't need to concentrate at all. Too bad, because the low information entropy it makes it much less enjoyable than it used to be.

[Phogge]

"Advertising works. On some people".   --Don Draper, Partner and Creative Director, SCDP Advertising, 1965. 

Very true, and only for some products. When was the last time you saw 'Dave Lennox' selling heating and air conditioning? Carrier, Trane and Lennox spent millions and millions on consumer advertising until they realized nobody cares what brand of furnace or a/c they have, as long as it blows hot and cold air.

Yeah, but you just named 3 HVAC companies.  Name recognition is part of the battle.

I am ashamed to admit this but I donated a car years ago. Who did I donate it to? Well the company that immediately came to mind is the one that has that incredibly obnoxious ad with the kids singing that I turn off as soon as I possibly can. But I remembered the freaking telephone number so I called them and donated my car. 

Obviously that’s an example of extreme laziness related to that donation choice, to which I plead guilty. But what can I say

Those “kids” are actually an 85 year old dwarf and the son of two dwarfs who met on the Munchkin set of the Wizard of Oz.

[Phogge]

"Advertising works. On some people".   --Don Draper, Partner and Creative Director, SCDP Advertising, 1965. 

Very true, and only for some products. When was the last time you saw 'Dave Lennox' selling heating and air conditioning? Carrier, Trane and Lennox spent millions and millions on consumer advertising until they realized nobody cares what brand of furnace or a/c they have, as long as it blows hot and cold air.

Yeah, but you just named 3 HVAC companies.  Name recognition is part of the battle.

I am ashamed to admit this but I donated a car years ago. Who did I donate it to? Well the company that immediately came to mind is the one that has that incredibly obnoxious ad with the kids singing that I turn off as soon as I possibly can. But I remembered the freaking telephone number so I called them and donated my car. 

Obviously that’s an example of extreme laziness related to that donation choice, to which I plead guilty. But what can I say

Those “kids” are actually an 85 year old dwarf and the son of two dwarfs who met on the Munchkin set of the Wizard of Oz.

[BostonCard]

What’s the old saw?  Only 50% of a marketing budget makes any sort of return; the problem is no one knows which 50%.

BC

[BostonCard]

What’s the old saw?  Only 50% of a marketing budget makes any sort of return; the problem is no one knows which 50%.

BC

[Goose]

What’s the old saw?  Only 50% of a marketing budget makes any sort of return; the problem is no one knows which 50%.

BC

The old saw was probably correct in it's day. Today it is more like 80% 20% and nobody knows which 20%, at least IMHO. I guess you can spend the money on commercials during football games or pop-up adds on Google.

[Goose]

What’s the old saw?  Only 50% of a marketing budget makes any sort of return; the problem is no one knows which 50%.

BC

The old saw was probably correct in it's day. Today it is more like 80% 20% and nobody knows which 20%, at least IMHO. I guess you can spend the money on commercials during football games or pop-up adds on Google.

[bnarver]

I will record a football game I want to watch and start watching the recording 30-60 minutes after the game starts.  I fast forward through the commercials, time outs, and most of the halftime reports.  I may watch some of the highlights from other games that are shown at halftime.  I can do my own instant replays.  If I catch up to actually being live at some point, I'll either keep watching from that point or turn the TV off, go do something else, then come back and watch the rest of the recording.  If there's another game on at the same time that I want to watch, I'll record it as well and switch back and forth between the 2 recordings, essentially watching 2 games in the time it takes to watch 1 game live.

[bnarver]

I will record a football game I want to watch and start watching the recording 30-60 minutes after the game starts.  I fast forward through the commercials, time outs, and most of the halftime reports.  I may watch some of the highlights from other games that are shown at halftime.  I can do my own instant replays.  If I catch up to actually being live at some point, I'll either keep watching from that point or turn the TV off, go do something else, then come back and watch the rest of the recording.  If there's another game on at the same time that I want to watch, I'll record it as well and switch back and forth between the 2 recordings, essentially watching 2 games in the time it takes to watch 1 game live.

[Mick]

The madness behind all this is that the companies paying for these commercials actually believe they are selling product. OK, I can see getting your name out there, but after one commercial, what is the marginal benefit of the second one? I can't believe there is any. My suspicion it is one consultant assuring another consultant this is all a good marketing plan and nobody willing to say the emperor has no cloths. Hopefully some day somebody will and the madness will end.

After 35 years in marketing, I'll say yes, it pays off, and pays off big. Sure, it would be better if all of your friends said to you "buy x type of insurance so when you crash y type of truck after drinking z kind of alcoholic beverage," but that rarely happens.

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

It's also helpful for combating negative news, like when Ford is trying to sell electric vehicles and yet another massive price rise becomes the focus of the news:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie...dfef4311f9

Or when Ford's Timberline package is inferior:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/5-o...dfef4311f9

Customers go through a buying curve and it starts with name recognition.  Starts there. Other things have to happen, sure, but it's useful.

BTW, for an excellent, fun little book on marketing of services, you can read Harry Beckwith's "Selling the Invisible."  Old-timers like me remember Harry's time on Stanford's football team.  He's on this board, too.

[Mick]

The madness behind all this is that the companies paying for these commercials actually believe they are selling product. OK, I can see getting your name out there, but after one commercial, what is the marginal benefit of the second one? I can't believe there is any. My suspicion it is one consultant assuring another consultant this is all a good marketing plan and nobody willing to say the emperor has no cloths. Hopefully some day somebody will and the madness will end.

After 35 years in marketing, I'll say yes, it pays off, and pays off big. Sure, it would be better if all of your friends said to you "buy x type of insurance so when you crash y type of truck after drinking z kind of alcoholic beverage," but that rarely happens.

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

It's also helpful for combating negative news, like when Ford is trying to sell electric vehicles and yet another massive price rise becomes the focus of the news:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie...dfef4311f9

Or when Ford's Timberline package is inferior:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/5-o...dfef4311f9

Customers go through a buying curve and it starts with name recognition.  Starts there. Other things have to happen, sure, but it's useful.

BTW, for an excellent, fun little book on marketing of services, you can read Harry Beckwith's "Selling the Invisible."  Old-timers like me remember Harry's time on Stanford's football team.  He's on this board, too.

[gailtate]

"Or, as the byline on the article states: "It can still be hugely lucrative to provide an experience that fans come to despise.""

Made me think immediately of watching Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football. . . .

Cosell was knowledgeable and entertaining and original but as the years rolled by he became a caricature of himself. Still, I prefer him to the smilin' Chris Collinsworths of the broadcast world.

[gailtate]

"Or, as the byline on the article states: "It can still be hugely lucrative to provide an experience that fans come to despise.""

Made me think immediately of watching Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football. . . .

Cosell was knowledgeable and entertaining and original but as the years rolled by he became a caricature of himself. Still, I prefer him to the smilin' Chris Collinsworths of the broadcast world.

[BobK]

I not only read Selling the Invisible I still have it. For a former salesman I loved the book

And now a pm to Mick

[BobK]

I not only read Selling the Invisible I still have it. For a former salesman I loved the book

And now a pm to Mick

[Phogge]

"Or, as the byline on the article states: "It can still be hugely lucrative to provide an experience that fans come to despise.""

Made me think immediately of watching Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football. . . .

Cosell was knowledgeable and entertaining and original but as the years rolled by he became a caricature of himself. Still, I prefer him to the smilin' Chris Collinsworths of the broadcast world.

I worked with Howard just once. We shot an interview with Peggy Fleming in front of the Arboretum in Golden Gate Park. He was incredibly gracious to the public who gathered around by talking to many people while we set up. He stopped a jogger and talked with him about changing his gait. Did it with non judgmental humor.

[Phogge]

"Or, as the byline on the article states: "It can still be hugely lucrative to provide an experience that fans come to despise.""

Made me think immediately of watching Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football. . . .

Cosell was knowledgeable and entertaining and original but as the years rolled by he became a caricature of himself. Still, I prefer him to the smilin' Chris Collinsworths of the broadcast world.

I worked with Howard just once. We shot an interview with Peggy Fleming in front of the Arboretum in Golden Gate Park. He was incredibly gracious to the public who gathered around by talking to many people while we set up. He stopped a jogger and talked with him about changing his gait. Did it with non judgmental humor.

[Goose]

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

I would be interested to know how you concluded that buying out all the advertising at the local airport "worked"? I am not saying it didn't, but I would like to know how you evaluated that choice.  I would expect most of the 800 clients of your competitor already knew your firm existed at least (you were not selling a "commodity" item). So  why was that a "good idea"?

[Goose]

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

I would be interested to know how you concluded that buying out all the advertising at the local airport "worked"? I am not saying it didn't, but I would like to know how you evaluated that choice.  I would expect most of the 800 clients of your competitor already knew your firm existed at least (you were not selling a "commodity" item). So  why was that a "good idea"?

[Mick]

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

I would be interested to know how you concluded that buying out all the advertising at the local airport "worked"? I am not saying it didn't, but I would like to know how you evaluated that choice.  I would expect most of the 800 clients of your competitor already knew your firm existed at least (you were not selling a "commodity" item). So  why was that a "good idea"?

As opposed to just getting under their skin?   ;)

We did subsequent prospecting of the competitor's clients, both for recognition's sake and for prospecting's sake.  Yes, I'm very familiar with ABA Rule 7.3 re: solicitation, and you're right, at that level of client, there are numerous pre-existing relationships and other recognition. Slightly less than half mentioned the ads -- and about 4 in 5 of those where we drove additional opportunities -- so we concluded it was worthwhile.

The Chair of the firm at the time -- a man who had argued in front of the USOC on two occasions -- said it was the best marketing he'd ever seen.

[Mick]

It's why when a competitor had their big annual three-day event with 800 clients coming in from all around the country, I bought out all the advertising at the local airport for a month (among other things).

I would be interested to know how you concluded that buying out all the advertising at the local airport "worked"? I am not saying it didn't, but I would like to know how you evaluated that choice.  I would expect most of the 800 clients of your competitor already knew your firm existed at least (you were not selling a "commodity" item). So  why was that a "good idea"?

As opposed to just getting under their skin?   ;)

We did subsequent prospecting of the competitor's clients, both for recognition's sake and for prospecting's sake.  Yes, I'm very familiar with ABA Rule 7.3 re: solicitation, and you're right, at that level of client, there are numerous pre-existing relationships and other recognition. Slightly less than half mentioned the ads -- and about 4 in 5 of those where we drove additional opportunities -- so we concluded it was worthwhile.

The Chair of the firm at the time -- a man who had argued in front of the USOC on two occasions -- said it was the best marketing he'd ever seen.

[BostonCard]

Mick, the Supreme Court or the Olympic Committee?

As I am sure you know, just because your Chair was a brilliant lawyer and company chair doesn’t mean you would give much credence to what he said regarding marketing.  I don’t know him, but I bet he appreciated that you did get under your competitor’s skin, even if the campaign had been ineffective on the targets.

Of course, Unlike most ad campaigns, you do have the chance of measuring the impact of your ad spend.  Compare the increase in business amongst that competitor in particular’s clients compared to control group of clients of a different competitor who you didn’t target.

BC

[BostonCard]

Mick, the Supreme Court or the Olympic Committee?

As I am sure you know, just because your Chair was a brilliant lawyer and company chair doesn’t mean you would give much credence to what he said regarding marketing.  I don’t know him, but I bet he appreciated that you did get under your competitor’s skin, even if the campaign had been ineffective on the targets.

Of course, Unlike most ad campaigns, you do have the chance of measuring the impact of your ad spend.  Compare the increase in business amongst that competitor in particular’s clients compared to control group of clients of a different competitor who you didn’t target.

BC

[Goose]

Mick, the Supreme Court or the Olympic Committee?

As I am sure you know, just because your Chair was a brilliant lawyer and company chair doesn’t mean you would give much credence to what he said regarding marketing.  I don’t know him, but I bet he appreciated that you did get under your competitor’s skin, even if the campaign had been ineffective on the targets.

Of course, Unlike most ad campaigns, you do have the chance of measuring the impact of your ad spend.  Compare the increase in business amongst that competitor in particular’s clients compared to control group of clients of a different competitor who you didn’t target.

BC

First, I really appreciate Mick actually answering the question and not dancing around the answer. I think that it is pretty clear that all advertising evaluations suffer from the fact you can't really do a controlled experiment where you hold everything else constant except the advertising campaign. It is just impossible to do. There is no placebo. Given that, it is always an expert opinion that decides what was effective and what was not. You can do lots of things to gather data on the "effect" of a particular campaign, like surveys (which now seem de rigueur these days), but no matter what one does, it will still be a judgement call as to what events were "caused" by the campaign and what events were independent of it.

As far as looking at the "targeted" vs "non-targeted" client groups, it is obvious the two groups could be different in many systematic ways. The targeted group had already self-selected by attending the meeting. If the result with the targeted group is worse than the non-targeted group, does that mean the ads were ineffective or that the groups were just "different"? Also, in the particular campaign Mick was reporting about, they "prospected" in the targeted group. How would they "prospect" the non-targeted group, as that is essentially "everybody else"?

[Goose]

Mick, the Supreme Court or the Olympic Committee?

As I am sure you know, just because your Chair was a brilliant lawyer and company chair doesn’t mean you would give much credence to what he said regarding marketing.  I don’t know him, but I bet he appreciated that you did get under your competitor’s skin, even if the campaign had been ineffective on the targets.

Of course, Unlike most ad campaigns, you do have the chance of measuring the impact of your ad spend.  Compare the increase in business amongst that competitor in particular’s clients compared to control group of clients of a different competitor who you didn’t target.

BC

First, I really appreciate Mick actually answering the question and not dancing around the answer. I think that it is pretty clear that all advertising evaluations suffer from the fact you can't really do a controlled experiment where you hold everything else constant except the advertising campaign. It is just impossible to do. There is no placebo. Given that, it is always an expert opinion that decides what was effective and what was not. You can do lots of things to gather data on the "effect" of a particular campaign, like surveys (which now seem de rigueur these days), but no matter what one does, it will still be a judgement call as to what events were "caused" by the campaign and what events were independent of it.

As far as looking at the "targeted" vs "non-targeted" client groups, it is obvious the two groups could be different in many systematic ways. The targeted group had already self-selected by attending the meeting. If the result with the targeted group is worse than the non-targeted group, does that mean the ads were ineffective or that the groups were just "different"? Also, in the particular campaign Mick was reporting about, they "prospected" in the targeted group. How would they "prospect" the non-targeted group, as that is essentially "everybody else"?

[OutsiderFan]

Brand advertising is way more effective than anyone realizes or wants to admit. Strong and recognizable brands with consistent presence are the key to future sales to the masses, and nothing reaches the masses in the U.S. like high level football.

As an aside, I'm finding myself barely interested in College Football this year. The Big Ten's actions - not just with taking USC and UCLA - and their implications have really turned me off a lot more than I thought was possible. I'm all for paying players, but the sport is rotten in so many ways it has killed my passion.

Give me the NFL now. At least it's honest (for the most part) and governed by some kind of accountable structure with rules all parties involved agree on.

[OutsiderFan]

Brand advertising is way more effective than anyone realizes or wants to admit. Strong and recognizable brands with consistent presence are the key to future sales to the masses, and nothing reaches the masses in the U.S. like high level football.

As an aside, I'm finding myself barely interested in College Football this year. The Big Ten's actions - not just with taking USC and UCLA - and their implications have really turned me off a lot more than I thought was possible. I'm all for paying players, but the sport is rotten in so many ways it has killed my passion.

Give me the NFL now. At least it's honest (for the most part) and governed by some kind of accountable structure with rules all parties involved agree on.

[M T]

  For a former salesman I ..

I bet you were a good one, knowing all the prospects names, their kids, their interests, who knew whom, etc.

[M T]

  For a former salesman I ..

I bet you were a good one, knowing all the prospects names, their kids, their interests, who knew whom, etc.