11.01.2013 Views

Selecciones - Webs

Selecciones - Webs

Selecciones - Webs

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Belch: Advertising and<br />

Promotion, Sixth Edition<br />

IV. Objectives and<br />

Budgeting for Integrated<br />

Marketing<br />

Communications Programs<br />

7. Establishing Objectives<br />

and Budgeting for the<br />

Promotional Program<br />

brand 101 gained a 12.6 percent market share by spending 34 percent of the total<br />

advertising dollars in this category. Likewise, brand 401 in the toiletry industry had a<br />

30 percent share of advertising dollars to gain 19.5 percent of sales.<br />

To determine how much to spend, marketers often develop a payout plan that<br />

determines the investment value of the advertising and promotion appropriation. The<br />

basic idea is to project the revenues the product will generate, as well as the costs it<br />

will incur, over two to three years. Based on an expected rate of return, the payout plan<br />

will assist in determining how much advertising and promotions expenditure will be<br />

necessary when the return might be expected. A three-year payout plan is shown in<br />

Figure 7-20. The product would lose money in year 1, almost break even in year 2, and<br />

finally begin to show substantial profits by the end of year 3.<br />

The advertising and promotion figures are highest in year 1 and decline in years 2<br />

and 3. This appropriation is consistent with Peckham’s findings and reflects the additional<br />

outlays needed to make as rapid an impact as possible. (Keep in mind that shelf<br />

space is limited, and store owners are not likely to wait around for a product to become<br />

successful.) The budget also reflects the firm’s guidelines for new product expenditures,<br />

since companies generally have established deadlines by which the product<br />

must begin to show a profit. Finally, keep in mind that building market share may be<br />

more difficult than maintaining it—thus the substantial dropoff in expenditures in later<br />

years.<br />

While the payout plan is not always perfect, it does guide the manager in establishing<br />

the budget. When used in conjunction with the objective and task method, it provides<br />

a much more logical approach to budget setting than the top-down approaches<br />

previously discussed. Yet on the basis of the studies reported on in Figure 7-17, payout<br />

planning does not seem to be a widely employed method.<br />

Quantitative Models Attempts to apply quantitative models to budgeting have met<br />

with limited success. For the most part, these methods employ computer simulation<br />

models involving statistical techniques such as multiple regression analysis to determine<br />

the relative contribution of the advertising budget to sales. Because of problems<br />

associated with these methods, their acceptance has been limited, as demonstrated in<br />

the figures reported earlier in Figure 7-17. Quantitative models have yet to reach their<br />

potential. As computers continue to find their way into the advertising domain, better<br />

models may be forthcoming. Specific discussion of these models is beyond the scope<br />

of this text, however. Such methods do have merit but may need more refinement<br />

before achieving widespread success.<br />

Summary of Budgeting Methods There is no universally accepted<br />

method of setting a budget figure. Weaknesses in each method may make it unfeasible<br />

or inappropriate. As Figure 7-17 shows, the use of the objective and task method continues<br />

to stay high, whereas less sophisticated methods vary. More advertisers are also<br />

employing the payout planning approach.<br />

In a more recent study of how managers make decisions regarding advertising and<br />

promotion budgeting decisions, George Low and Jakki Mohr interviewed 21 managers<br />

in eight consumer-product firms. Their research focused on the decision<br />

processes and procedures used to set spending levels on the factors that influence the<br />

allocation of advertising and promotion dollars.<br />

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3<br />

Product sales 15.0 35.50 60.75<br />

Profit contribution (@ $0.50/case) 7.5 17.75 30.38<br />

Advertising/promotions 15.0 10.50 8.50<br />

Profit (loss) (7.5) 7.25 21.88<br />

Cumulative profit (loss) (7.5) (0.25) 21.63<br />

© The McGraw−Hill<br />

Companies, 2003<br />

Figure 7-20 Example of<br />

three-year payout plan ($<br />

millions)<br />

227<br />

Chapter Seven Establishing Objectives and Budgeting for the Promotional Program

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!