Selecciones - Webs

Belch: Advertising and
Promotion, Sixth Edition
VI. Monitoring, Evaluation,
and Control
19. Measuring the
Effectiveness of the
Promotional Program
environment as well as one in which teenagers were
comfortable (teens are online 50 percent more than
adults). The website was supported by an economical
media plan designed to drive traffic to the site. Radio
(95 percent of teens listen 10 or more hours a week)
and other Internet venues received a lot of the
resources. TV was used in a more traditional sense—
e.g., MTV as well as a direct-response medium to generate
leads to be followed up on by Navy personnel.
In the first few months of the campaign, the Life
Accelerator had more than 200 million hits, which
were in turn referred to recruitment tables. Potential
prospects spent 50 percent more time at the site and
viewed more pages, and recruitment offices reported
an increase in candidates who came in with Life Accelerator
pages in hand. Overall, 225,318 leads were generated,
13 percent above the goal. The goal of 53,000
enlistments was easily achieved.
Reasons Not to Measure Effectiveness
Companies give a number of reasons for not measuring the effectiveness of advertising
and promotions strategies:
1. Cost. Perhaps the most commonly cited reason for not testing (particularly among
smaller firms) is the expense. Good research can be expensive, in terms of both time
and money. Many managers decide that time is critical and they must implement the
program while the opportunity is available. Many believe the monies spent on
research could be better spent on improved production of the ad, additional media
buys, and the like.
While the first argument may have some merit, the second does not. Imagine what
would happen if a poor campaign were developed or the incentive program did not
motivate the target audience. Not only would you be spending money without the
desired effects, but the effort could do more harm than good. Spending more money to
buy media does not remedy a poor message or substitute for an improper promotional
mix. For example, one of the nation’s leading brewers watched its test-market sales
for a new brand of beer fall short of expectations. The problem, it thought, was an
insufficient media buy. The solution, it decided, was to buy all the TV time available
that matched its target audience. After two months sales had not improved, and the
product was abandoned in the test market. Analysis showed the problem was not in
the media but rather in the message, which communicated no reason to buy. Research
would have identified the problem, and millions of dollars and a brand might have
been saved. The moral: Spending research monies to gain increased exposure to the
wrong message is not a sound management decision.
2. Research problems. A second reason cited for not measuring effectiveness is that it
is difficult to isolate the effects of promotional elements. Each variable in the marketing
mix affects the success of a product or service. Because it is often difficult to measure
the contribution of each marketing element directly, some managers become
frustrated and decide not to test at all. They say, “If I can’t determine the specific
effects, why spend the money?”
This argument also suffers from weak logic. While we agree that it is not always
possible to determine the dollar amount of sales contributed by promotions, research
can provide useful results. As demonstrated by the introduction and examples in IMC
Perspective 19-1, communications effectiveness can be measured and may carry over
to sales or other behaviors.
3. Disagreement on what to test. The objectives sought in the promotional program
may differ by industry, by stage of the product life cycle, or even for different people
© The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2003
Not all of the Ogilvy Awards are for services or nonprofits
(in the chapter we will discuss some winners in
the other categories), and not all of the winners
employ the same research methods or media strategies.
All do, however, use research to guide their strategies,
as well as to measure its effectiveness.
What is really interesting is that the Ogilvy Awards,
started decades ago as an advertising award in which
the ad campaign was based on research, have now
become much broader in scope. The above two examples
demonstrate that the award is really now more of an
IMC award, with an emphasis on the overall campaign—
whether or not advertising is a major component.
Sources: “2002 ARF David Ogilvy Research Award Winners,”
www.arfsite.org, Nov. 4, 2002; “The 2002 ARF David Ogilvy
Research Awards,” Journal of Advertising Research, July–August
2002 (special section).
623
Chapter Nineteen Measuring the Effectiveness of the Promotional Program