awareness fallacy

29
AWARENESS Fallacy. (mark lester 8.26.10.)

Upload: mark-lester

Post on 27-May-2015

8.110 views

Category:

Business


3 download

DESCRIPTION

A summary of the principle arguments against the use of awareness as a measure of the success of advertising.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Awareness fallacy

AWARENESS Fallacy.(mark lester 8.26.10.)

Page 2: Awareness fallacy

Driving AWARENESS is still a default objective for many advertisers.

This is a summary/reminder of why it shouldn’t be.

Page 3: Awareness fallacy

The traditional model of advertising (AIDA).

AWARENESSINTEREST

DESIRE

ACTION

Est.1898

Page 4: Awareness fallacy

Problem #1. Common Sense.

Page 5: Awareness fallacy

A presumption that AWARENESS necessarily converts into INTEREST is flawed.They’re two very different things.

AWARENESSINTEREST

?

Page 6: Awareness fallacy

Unprompted AWARENESS went through the roof.

Page 7: Awareness fallacy

Problem #2. It’s not the 1950’s anymore.

Page 8: Awareness fallacy

In the mid 20th

century, innovation

was rife and break

through products

ubiquitous.

Advertising’s primary role was to make consumers aware of these new products and educate them on their benefits.

Page 9: Awareness fallacy

This approach continues to be successful in the technology sector where breakthrough products are still commonplace.

Page 10: Awareness fallacy

AWARENESS

INTEREST

DESIRE

ACTION

However, most markets are now mature.

Product differentiation is marginal and advertising and retail environments are cluttered.

In this environment a direct relationship between AWARENESS and these other three measures can no longer be assumed.

One solution is to measure DESIRE (PERSUASION) instead, which AIDA claims to have a more direct relationship to ACTION (SALES).

Page 11: Awareness fallacy

“[Of] 1165 aired TV commercials in 16 different product categories, brand recall's contribution to brand sales is, on average, 25%, while

persuasion's is 75%.” Journal of Advertising Research  US validation study, 2005

“The correlation between awareness and sales is relatively weak… This is good enough to say there is a relationship but not good enough to construct a predictive model.”

Greg Clark, Buy (c) Test

“‘[There is] little or no association between the campaigns' short-term volume sales effectiveness and their ad awareness effectiveness.”

Broadbent and Colman, Advertising Effectiveness Across Brands

Page 12: Awareness fallacy

“It is unlikely that there is a strong relationship between standard measures of TV commercial recall and persuasion for established brands and their ability to predict sales impact.”

IRI Behavior Scan data examining 103 individual advertising tests between 1982-1988

Some studies go even further:

Page 13: Awareness fallacy

Problem #3(a).Low Attention Processing.

Page 14: Awareness fallacy

AIDA = Common sense

Common Sense =“The collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen”

Albert Einstein

Page 15: Awareness fallacy

Neuroscience has demonstrated the entire AIDA model is inaccurate.

Our unconscious brain takes care of most decision making, generating feelings which help guide behavior.

The average person is only aware of about 5% of their thoughts and feelings on a topic.(Norretranders, 1999)

Page 16: Awareness fallacy

Using AWARENESS to measure the effects of advertising is like watching fishing from the surface.

We need to get into how the brain processes advertising.

deeper

Page 17: Awareness fallacy

The Iowa Gambling Task.Researchers played a simple card game with volunteers.

Participants were asked to pick between different decks of cards which had different levels of winnings attributed to them.

Participants developed an unconscious hunch (which they acted upon) after an average of 50 cards but it generally took 80 cards before they could consciously articulate their change in strategy.

Page 18: Awareness fallacy

In one study, Stella Artois advertising tracked at only 4% AWARENESS (compared with 29% for a competitor).

It’s quality rating was 45% (compared with 19% for the competitor).

Econometric analysis demonstrated this effect could only have been caused by the advertising.

Page 19: Awareness fallacy

Problem #3(b). The (confusing) relationship between attitudes and behavior.

Page 20: Awareness fallacy

[We are] very well trained and very good at finding reasons for what we do, but not very good at doing what we find reasons for.”

Robert Abelson (1972)

Page 21: Awareness fallacy

AIDA effectively assumes =Attitude

sBehavior

But the evidence shows =(Festinger, 1964)

Attitudes

Behavior

And to some degree =Behavio

rAttitudes

(Festinger, 1964)

Page 22: Awareness fallacy

The Batson Experiments.Daniel Batson and a series of colleagues set out in the late 90’s to investigate the relationship between attitudes and behavior.

A typical example of the experiments: people were asked to assign a fun task with a reward and a boring task with no reward to themselves and another participant.

95% said the moral thing to do was give the fun task to the other person. Only 20% gave the fun task to the other person.

People don’t play the game they talk.

Page 23: Awareness fallacy

People say they want more black females on magazine front covers but then no-one buys them.

People say they value their health above all else but continue to smoke.

People say time is better spent not watching TV but they watch 5 hours a night.

People say drink driving is wrong but then do it.

Page 24: Awareness fallacy

Specificity matters.(Fishbein and Azjen)

General attitudes have poor correlation with specific behaviors.

Attitudes on health are poor predictors of likelihood to go running.

Attitudes more directly pertinent to the situation can show stronger correlations.

Attitudes on running are a better predictor of likelihood to go running

Page 25: Awareness fallacy

HowBehavior

Attitudes

In the 1980s and 1990s seatbelts became mandatory. Initially these laws were opposed by many, now most people in these jurisdictions favor mandatory seat belt laws.

Since desegregation the percentage of Whites in the US favoring integrated schools has more than doubled and now includes nearly everyone.

In the 1970s many National Hockey League players did not

wear helmets. They became mandatory and now

players see them as an important safety measure.

Page 26: Awareness fallacy

What are the implications for research in practical terms?

Page 27: Awareness fallacy

Finding practical alternatives to survey data is a larger problem.

Alternatives such as IAT, Semiotics and Andrew Ehrenberg’s Saliency model are available but still need more widespread testing. Digital data also potentially offers an opportunity, the full extent of which is not yet currently known.

Given the poor correlation between claimed and actual behavior, legitimate alternatives must be found.

PERSUASION and AWARENESS data is generally collated simultaneously from the same source. A shift in emphasis from one to the other is practically actionable.

Page 28: Awareness fallacy

"We do things much the same way as we did 50,60 or even 70 years ago. The answers may not be wrong, but we haven't experimented to see whether they are or not."Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO, WPP Group

Page 29: Awareness fallacy

SummaryMeasuring PERSUASION should be almost universally preferred to AWARNESS.

AWARENESS can no longer be presumed to convert to INTEREST/DESIRE/ACTION. The majority of studies show it’s statistical relationship to SALES is in most cases, at best, weak.

Neuroscience appears to explain the phenomenon that advertising can be effective without being remembered.

A large body of research also shows that attitudes and behavior have a volatile relationship, challenging the validity of surveying as method.

Alternatives need to be explored further, ensuring measured attitudes are as specific as possible may help to increase the correlation with a specific behavior in the meantime.