It is a dream cherished by every marketer, by the advertising industry, brands, advertiser associations. A useful intermediate comparison to have data on the potential to target the consumer, according to each medium/channel.
What is the percentage of the monetary investment that companies invest in advertising in the different media channels that actually reach the consumer?
Comparing average budgets under the question of what is the amount of money invested that reaches the medium. And asking in a second step how much of it reaches the target group and thus has some possibility of developing an effect, an impact, on it.
For this, it is essential to define assumptions about the obstacles that are created until people get the expected contact with the specific advertising element. Using specific and individual research data for various media. With transparent sources of understandable traceability for the most objective calculations possible.
The starting point is the media budget of one million euros for each media. From there the factor (PEPEP) “Budget efficiency by advertising element” is concluded. This factor describes how much is left of the budget with which an advertising piece can develop its effectiveness/impact on the target. Logically, the costs of creation and production (of each advertising piece used) are deducted from this calculation.
Nine media are considered: Facebook (representing social media), specialized magazines, cinema, analog or digital outdoor advertising, radio, television, magazines, and newspapers.
Conclusion of the intermediate comparison according to the PEPEP factor, budget efficiency by advertising element: 1. Cinema (90). 2. Analogue or digital outdoor advertising (88). 3. Television (86). 4. Newspapers (83). 5. Radius (81). 6. Specialized magazines (80). 7. Magazines (76). 8. Facebook (26). 9. Online (display) (10).
This innovative comparison allows you to clearly see the difference between classic and digital channels. The old media allow 90 to 76% of the media budget to flow in favor of their own utility. As from that moment, each one develops a different impact, which is already known, cannot be the subject of this comparison.
While display channels require an immense budgetary effort before reaching the final consumer. To justify their use and document their impact contribution, they require a budget commitment three times greater than the classic channels to achieve their effectiveness success.
Something that on many occasions they achieve without problems in the one-to-one discourse, in lead generation, and in e-commerce. While his contribution falters in what is classic brand advertising, the creation, and differentiation of brands as well as the power generation.
This shows that much of the advertising that is invested in the display is not effective. Something that matches the consumer interaction data, with an international click ratio of 0.05%, taking into account a share of erroneous clicks of 60 to 80%.
The ad industry’s solution to the dilemma, increasing more and more budgets in display advertising, does not seem very effective. It involves a consumer digital overkill. With a response from it installing more and more ad blockers. Decreasing in this way the great reach and the potential to reach a wide target group via digital advertising.
We, therefore, learn that the more display, the less effectiveness or advertising impact (we have already spoken in this medium about the cases of Adidas, P&G, Uber, in this regard). Advertising effectiveness declines worldwide since the great digital surge and the explosion of advertising pieces and daily messages on those channels.
The fault lies in the nature of the online medium and in large part in the distribution of programmatic advertising in it. Something that, according to comments, makes transparency about the distribution of advertising elements difficult. One reason ad giants like Unilever have radically revamped their media planning by relying exclusively on trusted publishers. It seems that direct business with publishers is the only promising way out of this display dilemma.
The proportion of non-perceived and ineffective advertising for sales is known to range from 89% (Dave Trott) to 99% (David Ogilvy). It should be a priority objective for advertisers to bet and have (the few) campaigns that are perceived by their target groups.
Anyone who is now committed to maximum efficiency of their budget will carefully make the necessary adjustments in their media mix, without further reducing the proportion of classic media. ”
Let us take note of these times of confinement-reflection. We are going to need it in the post-covid publishing era.
