Why Marketers Should Go Round in Circles

In the midst of the marketing awards season it is prudent to consider that there are many factors at work that will aide or hinder a marketers’ efforts.  Most of the time marketers will be aware of the uncontrollable aspects that may reduce their marketing’s effectiveness, such as unanticipated competitor activity, BSA rulings or changes in the regulatory environment.  But marketers will often be less likely to point out how their efforts are often given a significant boost by such factors as well – after all, we all like to take what credit we can get!

The problem lies in the dated and incorrect models of marketing and advertising such as AIDA, the four Ps and SPIN (Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need).  These all take a linear approach that assumes that advertising simply acts to take a person from one state of mind to another, more preferable one.  Market researchers have often been just as guilty in promulgating this view, citing similar stepwise process models as the basis for their advertising research.

However, the truth is more complicated, which need not be a bad thing, and which is relatively easy to manage.  Recognising the truth of how advertising works can be invaluable in shaping market strategy and execution.

Put simply, the circular (i.e. non-linear) model of how advertising works recognises that people process and interpret advertising in the context of what they think and do already.  Most readers will be implicitly aware of this, but how many stop to consider how this influences their marketing?

For example, it is now well established that consumers are more likely to notice advertising for the brands that they already use.  This explains why, for example, the new VW driver will suddenly notice all the other VWs being driven moreso than before.

For advertisers, this means that if a commercial is aired that advertises a major market leader, that commercial will be more effective than if the same commercial was advertising a much smaller brand within the same category.  This ‘double jeopardy’ effect means that larger brands can stay larger, with more effective advertising, than smaller brands which have a much steeper uphill climb.  This also means that the two brands’ marketers will have vastly different marketing effectiveness results to put on their CVs. In addition, this also means that large brands can dominate advertising tracking research, whilst actually having only weak levels of equity.

This result also explains why advertising pre-testing can be so fraught with problems.  If the afore-mentioned commercial was pre-tested without accounting for the issues discussed above, the commercial for the smaller brand could well be approved – only to sink when exposed to the wider market.  Advertising research must be able to measure how respondents’ pre-existing usage is influencing their advertising receptiveness.

Accounting for these factors is not just a matter of adjusting media plans or research though – it often means that any advertising at all is unsuitable.  In particular, when launching an entirely new brand or product, the simple lack of any current users means that the advertising’s effectiveness is usually extremely poor – unless the execution truly becomes a talking point – a risky and expensive gamble.

Fortunately this issue is less problematic now than ever before, because new media, especially viral emails which can be quickly and cheaply distributed throughout the target population.  However, the new focus on viral advertising and YouTube as advertising fora cannot help but place undue emphasis on the entertainment value of any advertising – which is another column altogether.

Jonathan Dodd