Lesson 1
What we will be studying in this
course
The same neural knowledge that
made the cover of Time this week
Addiction is neurological
Addiction
Habitual Purchase/behaviour
Awareness
Here is a list of
addictions
Addiction
Habitual Purchase/behaviour
Considered Purchase/ behaviour
Awareness
What you will learn:
• How human memory works
• How emotions influence advertising
effectiveness
• How emotions influence brand-loyalty (addiction)
• That these can be measured
• The biggest paradigm shift since it was realised
that the earth is not the centre of the universe:
– Emotions determine rationality
The biggest paradigm shift since
it was realised that the earth is
not centre of universe:
Emotions determine
rationality
Paradigm:
Your view of the world
Paradigm Shift:
When everybody’s view of the
world shifts
E.g.:
1. The world is round not flat,
2. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the world
3. Etc.
The paradigm shift about
emotions (happening now):
Old Paradigm:
Emotions interfere with Rationality
New Paradigm:
Emotions cause Rationality
You are rational BECAUSE you are emotional
The Old Paradigm:
• D’escarte (1596-1650): I think therefore I
am.
• Freud: Phobias and sub-conscious
• The Hidden Persuaders
• Left Brain – Right Brain theories
• Herbert Krugman (1960’s)
• Probably Robert Heath and Hidden Effect
of Advertising
Emotional versus Rational
Consumer Decisions:
Important
Infrequent
Rational
Bank
Car
House
Unimportant
Habitual
Emotional
NO!
Cigarettes
Cold Drink
Your Perception is
Your Reality
Perception = Reality
• Different people have a different perception of the
same reality
• Example: Zidane’s head-butt outrage at the 2006
FIFA Soccer World Cup as seen in different parts
of the world:
French soccer player Zinedine Zidane
head-butts Italy’s Marco Materazzi
during the 2006 World Cup final
Perception = Reality
• Germany
• France
• Italy
• America
• Media
Emotions determine ‘How you think about it’,
Not the other way around!
EMOTION = Perception = Reality
We will be studying MEMORY
People most concerned with the study of
memory are COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Objective:
How to memorise (learn) better,
How to teach better.
What is the best way to memorise for an
exam?
Review the notes:
On day of lecture,
1 day later
2 days later
4 days later
8 days later
….
Review means ‘just read through and think’,
don’t memorise
04-Sep
04-Sep
05-Sep
06-Sep
07-Sep
08-Sep
09-Sep
10-Sep
11-Sep
12-Sep
13-Sep
14-Sep
15-Sep
16-Sep
17-Sep
18-Sep
19-Sep
20-Sep
21-Sep
22-Sep
23-Sep
24-Sep
25-Sep
26-Sep
27-Sep
28-Sep
29-Sep
30-Sep
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
sun
mon
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
sun
mon
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
sun
mon
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
sun
06-Sep
11-Sep
13-Sep
18-Sep
20-Sep
25-Sep
27-Sep
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
Prof. Bahrick,
Ohio
P99
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
rev
Benefit
• If you just review you will find some slides
that you do not understand.
• E-Mail me.
• I will review those slides in the next class.
Course Program
4 sep.
tue
1
6 sep
thur
2
11sep
tue
13 sep
thur
1.Introduction, what the course is about,
etc. Basically three hours discussing the
core of the remaining 7 lectures.
1.The advertising system (marketer,
agency, media agency, media, research
company, depts. in each, finances of each,
what is brand equity, how each makes
money, etc.)
3 1.The human brain – how it remembers
(learning), how it interprets, classification
(cluster analysis of the brain), what is
recognition, Where is the memory of
advertising and the brand?,
4
The human brain: attention, emotion,
memory. What is emotion? Freud and
others. Moods vs. emotion. How we see
without seeing. Emotion in advertising.
18sep
tue
20sep
thur
25 sep
tue
27sep
thur
5
1.Elements of marketing/advertising
strategy (who, what where, when – Fishbein
– economic value – cascading objectives –
bottom-up-marketing – integrated marketing
– points of contact) MB Brandz- for
Denmark.
6 NERS – how emotion impacts on brands,
measuring brand emotion. (Fleming
Hansen)
7 Advertising Emotion, what is emotion,
relationship with brand emotion? Brand
equity,
8 Media Planning. Basics, GRP=Reach X
Frequency, Venn diagrams for media plans,
the response curve, the current debate, my
view. Need to be based on impact ability of
ad, measurement of ads (LINK) and ATP.
Review and Exam questions.
My Way of Teaching:
• 2 Books:
• Reading:
– Journal of Advertising Research March 2006
• Good synopsis of Advertised mind
• 19 references to AM – relevance to today’s thinking
– TIME: Addiction
• I will be working to my own schedule, not the
sequence of the books
• I do not require pre-reading, but suggest postreading as per the schedule I showed you
• .PPT slides will be on website evening before
class, use these to make notes on
• There will be smoke-breaks
• Ask questions as we go, I might decline to answer
Assignments and exam
Now: What we will be talking
about the next 7 lessons
Everything is integrated,
Understanding only a few pieces of the
puzzle is not good enough!
Understanding how it all fits together is the
most important outcome of this course
It is all integrated and
interdependent
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brand
Marketing and business
Profits
Advertising
Consumer
The consumers brain
The consumers memories
Media Planning
Account Planning
Creativity
Emotions
Sales
Production, Human Resources, Etc.
Society
Culture
Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Question I had to face:
How do I teach you the things I feel I am expert on,
And make you understand how they are interrelated?
And, since a Business School is about practical things, how
do I make it practical to you?
My Approach:
Tell it like a story, my story.
The practical questions I had to face and answer.
How I answered them.
How I learned
This I do in Lesson 1, and why Lesson 1 is important.
At the end of the series of lectures return to this lecture.
The Road I walked:
• Everything in this series of lectures relate to this,
• Brief summary:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Information Manager at SFW,
Never done any media planning,
Brand Manager at SFW,
Spirits not advertised on TV
Media Director BBDO,
Research Director BBDO,
Set up Impact Information – research company
Sold to Millward Brown
• For each of these jobs there are different
questions you ask!!!
As Media Director BBDO
• 1st or 2nd largest media spender in SA,
• Media Director ‘sells’ client how he should invest
his millions,
• Just like an ‘agent’ – will come back to this,
• Analyse a lot of numbers,
• Make recommendations,
• Say ‘In my Experience …’
• What is ‘experience’?
– Well all the clients I recommended this to bought it,
– So it must work.
• No feedback!!!
At that time (1970’s)
Response Curve
Effect
Effect
Frequency of Exposure
Frequency of Exposure
Effect
Effect
Frequency of Exposure
3+
Frequency of Exposure
To ‘sell’ my proposed media
schedule I said:
“American Research Says that …”
Which is what all the USA agencies were saying!
What happened?
• Everybody bought what I proposed.
• 28 years old, no media experience,
• Never any feedback on whether it worked
or not,
• But,
– If this is what the Americans say, how can it
be wrong?
– It is called ‘EFFECTIVE FREQUENCY’ what a
beautiful term to brand an idea with?
What does 3+ frequency say?
• Irrespective of whether a 3 minute or 10
second?
• Irrespective of creativity?
• Irrespective of new brand or old?
• Irrespective of Communication
Objectives?
• Etc.
• All advertisements work on 3 plus?
3+ was changed to :
“inside shopping cycle”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Matches?
Cigarettes?
Motor cars?
House?
Job?
Canned food?
Take Away?
• Well, we just looked at the budget and tried to work
out how many 3+ exposures we can get you over the
year.
So I started my own research
company:
Impact Information
We needed a basic product to
differentiate us:
ADTRACK
The ADTRACK thinking:
• How do we develop a product every marketer
should need?
• How do we minimize cost?
• Obvious ‘idea’ was:
– Feedback on media scheduling, all ads
– I.e. omnibus: sell results off the shelve.
• ADTRACK:
– All TV ads (we had copies week after launch)
– Phone two hundred people every week, ask:
• Have you seen an advertisement for …
• Describe it …
We had space in questionnaire:
• What else can we ask?
• Message?
• Liking?
– Clients of agency say: “I allways liked that ad?”
– When new ad proposed say: “Our Job is not to
entertain, but to sell”
– They ‘bought’ the agency based on what ads they
liked….?
• So we asked:
– (If verified) “How much do you like the ad in terms of
points out of 10?”
Census
(i.e. all TV ads in the country)
• All ads measured at same time in life (about 2-3
weeks after first appearance)
• Current database about 40 000 ads!!
• By far the largest in the world
– No biases (e.g. client or subscriber specific)
For every one of these 40 000 ads
Since 1986 we knew:
•
•
•
•
How many people thought they saw it.
How many could describe it. (RECALL)
The length (sec.s) of the ad.
How much media pressure (TVRs) it had
before we measured it.
• How much people liked it (out of 10)
• What it looked like (we had a hard-copy)
• By demographic
From early days we knew:
• Longer ads are better recalled than shorter ads,
but not linear,
• The more media pressure before we measure
recall the better the recall, not linear,
• Younger people remember the ads better than
older people (contrary to viewing habits)
• The more the ad is liked the better the recall.
Best Predictor of Recall is
Ad-liking
Recall
Liking
Number
Of
ads
Liking
The ‘average’ Adtrack RECALL at
that stage was about 20%!!
• This was very unpopular among agencies and
even clients that believed it should be closer to
100%,
• Unilever took an ad that had about 4% recall
and tested it with a competitive research
company (showing the non-branded ad) and
came back with 80% RECOGNITION,
• The competitor worked up a paper for a local
conference on why ‘Recognition’ is appropriate
for TV advertising, not Recall (brain hemispheric
theories and Krugman)
The essence of his argument
was:
1. Kruggman: Brain Hemispheric Theories
2. TV should be measured by Recognition
3. Print should be measured by Recall
The essence of my argument was:
1. There is only one memory of an ad,
2. Recognition and Recall are just two different measures of the same memory,
3. You will always get higher results from Recognition
See JAResearch March 2006 for how this argument is still discussed
This started my interest how the
brain (memory) works,
what is known by the disciplines
outside of advertising research
etc.
I.e. why I am here talking to you
Lets do a history review of
copy testing
The word ‘copy-testing’ is often used from the days when
there was only print advertising and the ‘copy’ was tested.
These days the word ‘pre-testing’ is an equivalent – i.e.
what does the ad say (do) to you?
Lets be realistic: what questions can you ask
about an advertisement?
• Do you remember it?
• Do you remember what Brand it is for?
• What does it tell you about the brand?
– That you knew – reinforce
– That you did not know
• Will this change what you think of the brand?
• Will it make you buy the brand (if you did not do
so before)?
• Will it make you buy more of the brand? (If you
used to buy it)
How do we test this?
• I show you the ad and ask you the
questions while you look at it.
• I show it briefly and then ask you the
questions.
• I ask whether you have seen it before,
then ask the questions.
What Happened in real life?
P. 166 in ADV Mind
• Starch (1932)
– Showed people the ad and asked whether
they ‘Recognise’ it,
• Gallup
– Asked them simply whether they ‘Recalled’
seeing it.
• The argument about RECALL versus
RECOGNITION became the issue!!!
• Has the issue died?: JAR March 2006
Then came Pre-Testing
using Recall, because one cannot use
recognition of something that has not
appeared.
• We show them a ‘show-reel’ of several ads and
afterwards ask them to mention the names of
the ads they saw.
• The justification being that this simulates an adbreak on TV, and represents reality.
• Since there is a primacy/recency effect we got
more sophisticated and started to rotate the ad
in the material.
• Based on this we assume we can predict the
‘penetrative power’ of the ad.
Our experience with Palmolive
• In SA Palmolive was positioned as a family soap, with two
kids in a bath, etc.
• Lux was positioned as the ‘beauty soap’ using movie stars.
• Palmolive decided to out-sex Lux.
• Wanted to use a TV ad produced in South America showing
a very sexy lady prancing in the sea foam. (which turns into
soap foam and was what made her so sexy).
• We were asked to do a pre-test. Which was supervised by
Palmolive management in USA, and local and the
advertising agency.
• This test included everything and the kitchen sink.
• Based on the show-reel recognition results we (me)
concluded that this ad will have no penetration problems!!
Client also bought the ADTRACK
tracking results!
• After launch we measured about 2% of people recalling
the new palmolive ad,
• We asked them to increase the ad-pressure (GRPs),
they did and still only 3% of people recalled the ad,
• We asked them to increase the branding, which they did
and now only 4% recalled the ad
• This is when they asked me to explain why I said, based
on the pre-test show-reel, there will not be a penetration
problem, and now I am the company saying there is a
big problem
• They actually asked me for a credit on either the pre-test
or the Adtrack.
We were the only company
(in the world) that had consistent post-measure of adpenetration (ADTRACK) for every ad we ever pre-tested
(using show-reels and recall)
• I did an analysis of all the pre-tests we did
compared to the Adtrack results,
• In about 50% of the cases we were right,
• In about 50% of the cases we were wrong.
• Client might as well have flipped a coin!!!
• What to do?:
– We are the only one that does post-tracking,
– So stop doing pre-testing!!!
– We will then always be able to criticise them (at least
50% of the times)
What we also learned from
ADTRACK:
• The length of ads had an effect on ‘inmarket recall’,
• The amount of media pressure (GRPs)
had an effect on ‘in market recall’,
• The variable in our data base that had, by
far, the most effect on ‘in market recall’
was the extent that people liked the ad.
Just before this the
(American Advertising Research Foundation)
ARF
Copy Research Validation Study (CRVS) results
were published!
Serendipity??
I am now stepping outside the
Impact (South Africa) story to what
has happened in the USA.
• The Best Reference for this is Alexander
Biels paper:
‘Love the ad, buy the Product’ in ADMAP
Sept 1990.
Copy Testing in the USA:
• Recall: Starch
• Recognition: Gallup
• Motivation: Scwerin
• Biel: “And since then the debate never
stopped”
Every company claimed that their
test was ‘best’
• The definition of best being ‘predictive’,
• ‘Predictive’ of what? Success? How
measured?
• No feedback to evaluate against.
• Most influential papers were:
– Larry Gibson: “Not Recall !!!”
Wrote me that I insulted him in my book – p166
Advertisers asked ARF:
Put an end to this confusion!
Reputable company discrediting
each other!
What works?
The ARF CRVP.
Copy Research Validation Project!
Alan Baldinger
• Industry organised. All research companies and clients
• 8 advertisers gave two ads each: one that was a demonstrable
success and one that was demonstrable failure
• A full copy test using all available ‘test measures’ was done (Recall,
Recognition, attitude to brand, etc..)
• According to Baldinger: “at the very end someone suggested we ask
whether people like the ad.”
• Outcome:
– All the standard used copy test measures were predictive of success
Ii.e. differentiated between bad and good ads)
– But the most predictive of success was whether people ‘liked’ the ad.
• Very unpopular result since no research company was using ‘liking’
as an ad-measure.
• (Except Impact in South Africa over a massive data base – a census
of ads, not a sample)
Reaction to CRVP:
• Every reputale research company that had
a pre-testing product published papers in
JAR saying that there is no evidence in
their data base that supports the ARFs
industry project.
• Alexander Biel published paper “Love the
ad, Buy the Product” in ADMAP.
Lets take another ‘step back’
• In 1960’s and 70’s it was big thing for
Psychologists to develop ‘batteries of
questions that classify people.
• Advertising Researchers also developed
such ‘profiling ‘ questions. This was known
as Viewer Response Profiles.
• I.e a battery of questions that can be used
to classify what people into what they think
of think of an advertisement.
A VRP:
• Basically the research steps were:
• Record what people say spontaneously,
• Reduce this to a number of metric
questions,
• Measure many people rating the subjects
(ads),
• Factor analyse the results
• Reduce this to a battery of statements on
which people express their opinions
7 of the published was reviewed
by Alexander Biel in …
Basic Conclusion was that all
came up with very similar
dimensions.
The Viewer Response Profile
Developed by Prof. Schlinger
7 Dimensions
P. 149 adv. mind
7 dimensions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Entertainment
Empathy
Relevant News
Brand Reinforcement
Familiarity
Confusion
Irritation
ENTERTAINMENT
1. The commercial was lots of fun to watch and listen to.
2. I thought it was clever and quite entertaining.
3. The enthusiasm of the commercial is catching - it picks you up.
4. The commercial wasn't just selling the product - it was also
entertaining me. I appreciated that.
5. The characters (persons) in the commercial capture your attention.
6. It's the kind of commercial that keeps running through your mind after you've
seen it.
7. I just laughed at it - I thought it was very funny.
CONFUSION
8.
It was distracting - trying to watch and listen at the same time.
9.
It required a lot of effort to follow the commercial.
10.
It was too complex. I was not sure what was going on.
11.
I was so busy watching the screen, I didn't listen to the words.
RELEVANT NEWS
12.
The commercial gave me a new idea.
13.
The commercial reminded me that I'm dissatisfied with the
product I'm using now and I'm looking for something
better.
14.
I learned something from the commercial that I didn't
know before.
15.
The commercial told me about the product and I think I'd
like to try it.
16.
During the commercial I thought how this product might
be useful to me.
BRAND REINFORCEMENT
17.
The company is a good company and I wouldn't hesitate
recommending it to others.
18.
I know that the advertised company is dependable and
reliable.
EMPATHY
19.
The commercial was very realistic - that is true to life.
20.
I felt that the commercial was acting out what I feel at times.
21.
I felt as though I was right there in the commercial experiencing the same thing.
22. That's my idea - the kind of life that the commercial showed.
23. I liked the commercial because it was personal and intimate.
FAMILIARITY
24.
This kind of commercial has been done many times before - it's
the same old thing.
25.
I've seen this commercial so many times - I'm tired of it.
26.
I think that this is an unusual commercial - I'm not sure I've seen
another one like it.
ALIENATION
27.
What they showed didn't demonstrate the claims they were trying to make
about the product.
28.
The commercial didn't have anything to do with me or my needs.
29.
The commercial did not show me anything that would make me want to
use the product.
30.
The commercial made exaggerated claims. The product would not live up
to what they said or implied.
31.
It was an unrealistic commercial - very far-fetched.
32.
The commercial irritated me - it was annoying.
The COMunication MAP
Model
Brand Reinforcement
Familiarity
Relevant News
Empathy
HIGH LIKING/
High Attention
LOW LIKING/
Low Attention
Confusion
Entertainment
Alienation
Commap:
• Applicable to any form of communication
• Predicts how much people will like it
• If they like or dislike it they will give
attention – memory
• If they dislike it they might distort the
message (Emotion->Perception=reality)
• Quantitative measure (I.e. norms)
•Emotion in Advertising II (JAR March 2006)
•What Do Consumers Do Emotionally with Advertising?
•Subaru: The Emotional Myths Behind the Brand’s Growth
•How to Capture the Heart? Reviewing 20 Years of Emotion Measurement
in Advertising
•Measuring Emotion – Lovemarks, The future Beyond Brands
•Reconsidering Recall and Emotion in Advertising
•Memory Change: An Intimate Measure of Persuasion
•Effects of Advertising Likeability: A 10-Year Perspective
•Persuasive Talk: Is it What You Say or How You Say It?
•Using Viewer Attitudes to Evaluate TV Program Effectiveness
•The Demographic and Psychographic Antecedents of Attitude toward
Advertising
•Celebrity Endorsements in Japan and the United States: Is Negative
Information All That Harmful?
•The Role of Account Planning in U.S. Agencies
•Review of The Advertised Mind: Ground-Breaking Insights into How Our
Brains Respond to Advertising
•Review of Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking and Strangers to
Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious
19 references to du Plessis
If there is time left:
• Divide into groups of 10,
• Group assignment (10 minutes):
– Devise 3 questions I can ask in the exam that will
cover most of what this lecture is about.
– Should need an answer of about 3 written pages.
– At the end of 10 minutes one person writes the
questions on the board, and delete the ones that are
similar.
– I will select three as potential for exam.
• Objective: Making you work with the material of
the lecture.
Homework Reading:
• I know I said there will not be pre-reading but…
• Read Fleming Hansen's book Chapter X “Measuring
Advertising’s Effectiveness”
– P.303 to 344.
• Everybody in the class to give me a piece of paper on
Thursday on which one question is asked that proves they
have read and understood his pages and my lecture notes
and my book.
• Max length of question=1/2 page.
• Will be graded:
– 4/10 = Just another boring question,
– 7/10 = Good question (but the answer is in the notes and the book)
– 10/10 = Excellent, you read and understood the conflicting and
interrelated nature of the approaches.