TV’s emotional impact

Dimitri — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:34:26 +0000

In my previous post I listed some empirical evidence that shows that TV advertising is becoming increasingly effective. One of the reasons is that TV is a superior medium for driving emotional engagement. The role of emotional engagement in driving purchasing behavior has been hotly debated in the last couple of years. This is as a result of advances in neuroscience that have demonstrated that the decisions people make are often a result of what happens in their sub-consciousness. As a result the traditional linear AIDA model, where the role of communications and advertising is to move customers down a linear path from awareness to interest to desire to action by grabbing their attention, has been severely challenged.

Robert Heath has published extensively on this topic and has shown that the role of emotions in the decision making process are very important. In a 2009 Admap article about how TV builds brands he said :”Early advertising models that addressed the role of emotion in advertising reflected the thinking of the time, which was that ‘conscious thinking’ leads to ‘feeling’, which leads to ‘attitude change’, which, in due course, leads to a purchase decision. They were not to know at the time, but they got it seriously wrong. Feelings and emotions are processed much more quickly than thoughts.” Heath has used brain scanning technology to show that we usually make decisions up to 1/5th of a second before we are aware of them. He says that “we always form an attitude about a decision through emotional and subconscious rational processing before we start to consciously and actively ‘think’ about it. So our conscious thinking tends either to support the decision or counter argue it. There is empirical evidence […] showing that the presence of brands inhibits processing of product attributes and encourages consumers to use shortcut to validate their brand choices.” This is illustrated in the diagram below.

If people use brands as subconscious short cuts, then brands need to be built through communicating at the subconscious level.

This is where TV is especially powerful. Contrary to other media such as print that require conscious processing of information (ie reading), TV more than any other medium can work at the subconscious level by evoking feelings through the uses of visuals and sound. This is why TV is such a powerful medium for creating brands. It does this through emotional communication. And Binet and Field have demonstrated, in the study of the IPA databank I mentioned in my previous post, that emotional campaigns consistently outperform rational campaigns in terms of driving sales, share, price elasticity, loyalty and penetration.

TV still works

Dimitri — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:00:06 +0000

In my previous post I talked about how, contrary to popular belief maybe, people are watching more TV than ever and that they are engaging with TV advertising. In this post we will look at whether TV is still an effective medium.

There is an increasing amount of empirical evidence that suggests TV advertising is getting increasingly effective. Perhaps the most often quoted analysis is the one done by Les Binet and Peter Field in 2008. They mined the IPA databank which holds more than 1000 marketing effectiveness case studies from around the world gathered as part of the IPA Marketing Effectiveness Awards. They found that campaigns that used TV have been growing in effectiveness over the past 3 decades. The graph below shows the average % increase in market share growth for campaigns that include TV for the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s.

In June 2009 Joel Rubinson of the ARF performed one of the most extensive reviews of quantitative evidence available in an attempt to validate the hypothesis that TV is losing its effectiveness. He combined 7 different databases of quantitative evidence of the impact of TV campaigns on sales. They included data from the IRI panel, econometric modeling companies like PM Group, Dratfield and Marketing Evolution and research data from Pointlogic and Milward Brown. This combined database contained more than 300 cases across 74 different product categories. Rubinson was not able to validate the hypothesis that TV is becoming less effective. On the contrary – 6 out of the 7 databases showed that TV advertising has become more effective over time. The Pointlogic data for example showed that among 25 different types of touchpoints measured in their survey between 2004 and 2007, TV moved up from 7^th to 4^th in terms of people impacted per $1,000 spent. In an interview with Brandweek Rubinson said that his study concluded that “units sold numbers increased as a result of increased TV impressions. [When you observe it] across 388 case histories, I think you’ve got to believe it.

These findings are also confirmed by marketing science company MMA. “We haven’t seen a significant trend in the erosion of effectiveness of TV,” said Douglas Brooks, senior VP of MMA in an interview with Advertising Age in Feb 2009. In fact, MMA, which reports to clients each year on its findings regarding aggregate TV effectiveness, has seen a slight uptick in effectiveness in recent years.

The DoubleThink » Binet

TV’s emotional impact

TV still works