Marketing Communications

256 CHAPTER 8 MEDIA PLANNING

In conclusion, several reasons have been reported in the literature as to why a high (but

not excessive) repetition level of advertising might be beneficial:

   It makes the message more memorable and raises brand recall.^14

   It makes attitudes more accessible and raises consumers’ confidence in their attitudes,^15

making them more resistant to attitude change and brand switching.

   It increases the believability of the ad claims.^16

   It leads to a greater top-of-mind brand awareness.^17

   It functions as a signal or cue for brand quality.^18

However, the difficulty remains to determine the optimal frequency level, which is inevitably

linked to the advertising objective, the type of message used, media clutter, the product

category, the competition level, the target group and the media used. Controversy also exists

concerning the frequency level that is sufficient to evoke the intended response in the

consumer. This frequency level is also referred to as the motivational frequency or the

effective frequency, defined as ‘the minimum number of exposures, within a purchase cycle,

considered necessary to motivate the average prospect in the target audience to accomplish

an advertising objective’.^19 Some researchers think one exposure is sufficient, while others

assume an effective frequency of at least three.^20 One exposure may be sufficient if the

consumer is reached at the right moment, with the right message. For example, a consumer

is driving home from work and a small stone shatters the car window. One ad for Car Glass

mentioning that it repairs car windows 24 hours a day may be very effective at that moment.

On the other hand, a consumer may need to see a yoghurt ad 15 times before it becomes

effective. Moreover, two exposures may be sufficient for market leadership or an established

brand image, while at least four might be necessary for new campaigns targeted at infrequent

users, if the objective is to increase the usage of a product or when medium clutter is high.^21

In other words, situational variables play an important role.

Given the large amount of money that is annually spent on advertising, the question of possible inefficiency in

the use of advertising money is a very relevant one. However, it is not easy to measure such efficiency or inefficiency

and the resulting loss of sales as a consequence of inefficient use of advertising money. Measuring, minimising

inputs, maximising outputs and benchmarking are vital to detect and correct problems. Defining efficiency as

the ratio between outputs (sales attributed to advertising) and inputs (advertising media expenditures), a

recent study used data envelopment analysis (DEA) to evaluate and benchmark the efficiency of the top 47 US

advertisers’ ad expenditures in print (magazines and newspapers), broadcast (TV and radio) and the Internet. The

advantage of DEA is that it can handle multiple inputs and multiple outputs, and that it is capable of calculating

the efficiency of the 47 advertisers relative to each other. The results showed several clear inefficiencies. More

specifically, 34 of the 47 advertisers appeared to be inefficient in their ad expenditures and they were least efficient

with Internet advertising. As compared with the other advertisers, Federated Department Stores, for example,

would have to reduce print media investments by $2.3 billion, broadcast media expenditures by $68 million and

Internet ad spending by $7 million to become an efficient advertiser. John Wanamaker’s famous saying, ‘Half of

every dollar spent on advertising is wasted; the problem is I just don’t know which half ’, could well be true. The

good news is that with recent techniques such as DEA, advertisers can get an idea of which part they need to

cut down.^22

researCh insight

Is advertising money used efficiently?

M08_PELS3221_05_SE_C08.indd 256 6/6/13 9:23 AM