According to this, MRI Starch has named the top 10 print ads based on its 'engagement score.' The score is a percentage of readers who notice an ad and the percentage who read at least half of it.
If you look at the ads, you'll notice a couple of old standard rules of print advertising:
1) Food shots always work.
2) Product shots are winners.
3) Headlines are better when they're eight words or less.
4) Benefit advertising is compelling. (These are ads that answer the question: "What's in it for the consumer?")
I don't disagree with these rules. What I disagree with is the characterization of 'engagement' as the best benchmark of print ad success. Shouldn't print ads be measured more by functions of what action they illicit? It's not if a viewer reads the whole thing--it's if they feel compelled to act afterward. And even then, they need to feel compelled to act in the proper way.
Further, as you'll see if you read the article, these are not the most creative ads. They're not new. Shouldn't advertising stand out? These are like any ad in any magazine anywhere. Who knows the circumstances of 'engagement' that they succeeded under.
Ahh-the quintessential problem of advertising. It's like the quote of famous client John Wannamaker: "I always know half my ad budget is wasted. I just don't know which half."
2 comments:
I'd have to say that is the problem with advertising in general, there is very little data that I've seen connecting the ads to actual consumer action. Everyone believe that's it is true, but it seems like many times it's more about saving face. I don't think that you can really say a Superbowl ad increases the sales of Coke by an amount in reasonable proportion to the cost.
While I think that a lot of people don't understand the brand management aspect of advertising, I find it hard to correlate that into sales or other tangible results.
I think one of the thing that is needed in the advertising industry is better models of how these different types of reactions from consumers effect product sales. It seems like there are different types of ads, and they're needed at different phases of the product life cycle.
If you're introducing a new product that is defining a new market just getting people to read the ad is probably success. They'd learn what you're trying to teach. But, if you're trying to get people to love Coke and think it's better than Pepsi that's a fail.
I think you're right. What sucks is that you never know when/how advertising is working--but you know you can't NOT advertise.
Post a Comment