It's not your fault. It's just physically impossible for you to pay attention to everything that marketers expect you to-like the 17,000 new grocery store products that were introduced last year, or the $1,000 worth of advertising that was directed exclusively at you last year.
Almost no one goes home eagerly anticipating junk mail in their mailbox. Almost no one reads People magazine for the ads. Almost no one looks forward to a three minute commercial interruption on Must See TV. Advertising is not why we pay attention. Yet marketers must make us pay attention for the ads to work. If they don't interrupt our train of thought by planting some sort of seed in our conscious or subconscious, the ads fail.
As the marketplace for advertising gets more and more cluttered, it becomes increasingly difficult to interrupt the consumer. As clutter has increased, advertisers have responded by increasing clutter. Over the last thirty years, advertisers have dramatically increased their ad spending. They've also increased the noise level of their ads-more jump cuts, more in-your-face techniques-and searched everywhere for new ways to interrupt your day.
Obviously, the mass market is dying. The vast splintering of media means that a marketer can't reach a significant percentage of the population with any single communication. That's one reason the Super Bowl can charge so much for advertisements. Big events are unique in their ability to deliver about half the consumers watching TV, so they're the perfect platform for Interruption Marketing aimed at the mass audience.
Other than buying even more traditional advertising, how are mass marketers dealing with this profound infoglut? They're taking four approaches:
(1) First, they're spending more in odd places. Not just on traditional TV ads, but a wide range of interesting and obscure media. Campbell's Soup bought ads on parking meters. Macy's spends a fortune on its parade. Kellogg's has spent millions building a presence on the World Wide Web-a fascinating way to sell cereal.
(2) The second technique is to make advertisements ever more controversial and entertaining. Coca-Cola hired talent agency CAA to enlist top-flight Hollywood directors to make commercials. Candies features a woman sitting on a toilet in its magazine ads (for shoes!). Spike Lee's ad agency did more than fifty million dollars in billings last year.
(3) The third approach used to keep mass marketing alive is to change ad campaigns more often in order to keep them "interesting and fresh." Tony the Tiger and Charlie Tuna and the Marlboro man are each worth billions of dollars in brand equity to the companies that built them. The marketers behind them have invested a fortune over the last forty years, making them trusted spokesmen (or spokesanimals) for their brands.
(4) The fourth and last approach, which is as profound as the other three, is that many marketers are abandoning advertising and replacing it with direct mail and promotions. Marketers now allocate about 52% of their annual ad budgets for direct mail and promotions, a significant increase over past years.
Of the more than $200 billion spent on consumer advertising last year in the US, more than $100 billion was spent on direct mail campaigns, in-store promotions, coupons, free standing inserts and other non-traditional media. Last year alone Wunderman, Cato, Johnson, did more than $1.6 billion in billings for its clients (folks like AT&T).
The next time you get a glossy mailing for a Lexus, or enter an instant win sweepstakes at the liquor store, you're seeing the results of this trend toward increased direct marketing efforts. Advertisers are using them because they work. They are somewhat more effective at interrupting you than an ad. They're somewhat more measurable than a billboard. Best of all, they give the marketer another tool to use in their increasingly frustrating fight against clutter. After all, there are only five or ten pieces of junk mail in your mailbox every day-not 3,000. And another few feet of shelf space at the supermarket can lead to a dramatic upturn in sales.
Direct marketing breaks through the clutter, temporarily. Even though they work better than advertising, these techniques are astonishingly wasteful. A 2% response for a direct mail campaign will earn the smart marketer a raise at most companies. But a 2% response means that the same campaign was trashed, ignored or rejected by an amazing 98% of the target audience! From the perspective of the marketer, however, if the campaign earns more than it costs, it's worth doing again.
Direct marketers are responding to this glut by using computers. With access to vast amounts of computerized customer information, marketers can collate and cross-reference a database of names to create a finely-tuned mailing list, and then send them highly targeted messages. For example, a direct marketer might discover that based on past results, the best prospects for its next campaign are single women who are registered.
Wasted money. If an ad falls in the forest and no one notices, there is no ad.
How was the read? Too long? Any ideas or feedback? Leave us a message or comments...
Have a Good Day.
"Rather than continuing to seek the truth, simply let go of your views"