I’ve been invited to participate in a panel discussion at the Financial Services Forum next week: 5 speakers, each defending a different piece of the “integrated marketing mix”.
The premise is that we’ll all argue about which marketing “discipline” deserves the biggest share of your marketing budget and have a right old ding-dong.
I bet you can hardly wait?
Someone’s doing PR, someone else is doing Digital & Direct, someone’s doing Sponsorship etc.
I’ve got poor old, dusty old Advertising.
Of course, I’ll be arguing that all the disciplines in the marketing mix are important.
Of course, I’ll agree that all disciplines always work better when they work together.
I’ll be conceding that using new techniques to create deeper engagement and interaction can hugely increase effectiveness
(always assuming, of course, you have high quality people with enough bandwidth prepared to hold up your side of the debate)
But I’ll also argue that a strong central idea, compellingly expressed to enough people for an apparent consensus to form is still THE prerequisite of any successful integrated marketing communications intervention.
And for this, Advertising remains the Daddy.
It’s still the best place to set out your stall because the content remains under your control, unlike many of the other elements of the marketing mix.
And rumours of its demise have been greatly exaggerated, with a compound annual growth rate in global spending on advertising of almost 5% predicted between 2011-2016.
The European picture over the next three years shows all advertising media growing except Newspapers and Magazines (down 7% and 8% respectively). TV advertising remains the largest single medium and is predicted to grow at just under 2%. And, of course, spend on digital advertising, fuelled by mobile, is racing away, with almost 30% growth. It’ll be almost as big as TV by 2015.
Tracking advertising revenue vs. the time people spend watching/using, gives a useful way of predicting where the growth/decline in ad spend is likely to be. The figures below are from the US, but the European picture is extremely similar.
It shows a rapid decline in the amount of print media being consumed and a corresponding rise in Internet and Mobile usage.
But, if you look at the data, this merely reflects a switch in the way print media is ‘consumed’ as people begin to read publications through tablets and mobile apps. It’s very far from a death knell on print advertising.
TV viewing and ad revenue remain firm (and huge).
And Tablet and Mobile usage within the home appears to be more additive than substitutive, with 85% of users claiming to use their device whilst watching TV:
The figures also disguises, in my view, a significant increase in the influence of Advertising, because of the rise in video sharing on the internet and, increasingly, through mobile.
The convergence of technology now allows static ads to move, broadcast techniques to be targeted and two-way communication to become a part of previously one-way channels. An increase in effectiveness Vs. other disciplines is surely not TOO much to expect?
Internet soothsayers predict that audio will be the next sharing revolution.
So, if you have any sense, now’s a good time to get your creatives to remind themselves how effective radio advertising is constructed.
(I’m particularly delighted about this, since I’ve been predicting the comeback of the “jingle” since the turn of the millennium.)
Before we leave this, there’s one other area of significant advertising growth that usually gets left out of most pieces of analysis.
Gaming completely dominates tablet and smartphone usage once time spent is taken into account as well as reach:
(Ask anyone with a young child in the house, how much they get to use their own device)
Ad spend within the gaming market will have grown by a factor of 10x between 2010-2015 ($87M to $894M).
Looked at within the US numbers, ad-supported gaming revenue is showing a CAGR of almost 40%:
And again, this media usage and consumption of advertising appears for the moment to be largely additive, not substitutive.
I hope that this barrage of data from different respected sources has done something to persuade you that advertising has a brighter future than many would have you believe.
But I’m not expecting my City-based audience to equate commercial success and growth potential with effectiveness – despite them using this very same argument when hawking their own wares.
My reasons for believing that advertising still remains the primus inter pares amongst marketing disciplines is based on something a bit different:
Its proven effectiveness in generating consideration and trust through sheer familiarity.
This is not a speculative hypothesis. It is a fact.
Our brains are hard-wired to prefer familiar things and to suspect unfamiliar things
(See previous posts or just Google ‘Availability Heuristic’)
A brand that is well-known, that is apparently dynamic and that seems to be ‘up to stuff’ is always a comforting choice.
That’s why even bad ads work quite well.
Consider the completely nauseating Patek Philippe campaign running at the moment:
Pic of coiffed, preppy millionaire with equally repellant mini-me son-and-heir, with the line, “You never really own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation”.
Even whilst making you want to spew, it has worked its magic on you.
You don’t see the ad and think, “ooh, that’s an excellent reason to buy an obscenely expensive watch. Watches of Switzerland, here I come”.
But you have clocked (sorry!) that PP makes gorgeous, crafted timepieces (they do, in fact!) that appear to be desired by super rich over-achievers, world-wide.
And your brain has probably subconsciously salted away the “I’m not buying it for me” excuse that said over-achiever can use for treating him or herself.
Most importantly, because you’ve probably seen the ads quite a bit – as I have, you have had the idea of PP as a desirable status symbol ‘normalised’ because you recognise that others will have seen the same thing and reacted in more or less the same way. If Patek weren’t successful at selling beautiful watches to rich people they wouldn’t be able to afford their premium position advertising, after all.
Only a fool would invest in advertising that didn’t work, right?
And that’s the way lots of ads work… Car ads, ads for investment funds, and ads for hundreds of other things that are essentially just the same as each other.
(Try and explain to me, if you can, the real qualitative difference between a Patek Philippe, an IWC and an Omega).
Advertising sells branded analgesics like Nurofen, that are (by law) chemically identical in formulation to own brand versions but retail for three times the price. Customers prefer the branded versions and will swear they are more effective. Even though they can’t possibly be.
And all through familiarity.
Of course you can create familiarity and get well known without using advertising. Here’s 3 ways for starters:
1) Be so distinctive, appealing and successful that journalists will write constantly about you
2) Hone your customer proposition and service delivery to the point where your customers will always publicly evangelise about you in the digital ether, and never complain.
3) Develop a CRM programme so sophisticated that you hit the precisely the right people at precisely the right time with precisely the offers they want.
Let me know how you get on.