|
|
|
|
|
|
by hluska
410 days ago
|
|
|
This is an interesting topic and I’m not sure it has an answer. In 1995 advertising was really spray and pray. Testing ads was a really difficult proposition so we saw things like bearer coupons (mention this ad or bring in this coupon for 20% off!). The dominant advice out of radio was to play an ad constantly. That advice worked well for traditional media but not so well for advertisers. That model worked so well for advertisers that thirty years later, people around my age in my city can all sing the same five advertising jingles. Google provided a toolkit to test ads and figure out which are most effective. Now the other side of that argument is that in industry, a massive of percentage of qualified people still spray and pray. The advertising industry as a whole is far from data driven. At one point, there was an argument this was good for the planet. My newspapers are much thinner than they were 30 years ago when I could collect a metre of newsprint a month if I subscribed to the Globe and Mail plus a local. But I don’t think anyone can claim now that data centres are environmental miracles. This has also decimated local journalism to such a point that people are less aware of environmental catastrophes in their own relative backyards. It’s possible the net effect was positive and advertising is more efficient. It’s more accurate to say advertisers have a toolkit to analyze effectiveness but many don’t or aren’t capable. Edit - I’m going to give a very specific example of a radio jingle. If anyone is around forty or older and from a major city in Saskatchewan, they will be able to finish this. “I said no no no no don’t pay anymore, no GST and no money down.” |
|
|