More obvious news for advertisers

Cognitive scientist Mark Changizi of R.P.I. has discovered the obvious: our unconscious minds are constantly weighing the cost of obtaining a brand against its value or benefit, and the subconscious "cost-benefit" calculus we use is influenced by how frequently we are exposed to its advertising.

Now for something a little less obvious (unless, of course, you're really thinking about it):  Professor Changizi also found that if we conclude that a brand is too available, by evidence of our overexposure to its advertising, we'll suspect that it's not that valuable and thus we'll want it less. According to Changizi, advertisers who inundate us with images of their products may actually be detracting from the brands' desirability.

On an equally obvious front, a Gallup & Robinson study of 12 years' worth of surveys about recall and likeability of Super Bowl advertising has found a direct relationship between the confidence people have in the economy and the attention they pay to the commercials (I'm sure this has something to do with the amount of alcohol consumed). Organizations that are spending tons of money to run Super Bowl commercials should be "more cautious" this year, said Scott Purvis, president of the Pennington, N.J., market-research firm.

More cautious?  How about "more intelligent?"  I wonder, since NBC is peddling the 30-second spots at a cool $3 million each, they must really believe in the efficacy of the product.  So one would assume, since G.E. owns 80 percent of NBC, we're bound to see G.E. eating its own dog food. Let's count the number of Super Bowl spots for G.E. brands and find out.

Posted January 21, 2009
Email this post   Bookmark and Share   

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef010536e4a4ba970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More obvious news for advertisers:

Comments

Ann

You make a very interesting point on how much it costs to put a simple 30 sec video during major prime time viewing. In the growing trend of on-line video and advertising, what is cost comparison of releasing an online commercial via YouTube to a Super Bowl Commercial.
Previously, the best/worst Super Bowl commercials ensured a brand to get either good or bad publicity. Wouldn't you agree the potential viral affect of online video has the same risks/rewards, but at much smaller cost?
Are online video's less obtrusive to consumers? Allowing them to choose when to view the information or skip the ad? Does on-line commercials have an advantage over TV ads?

Posted by: Ann | January 23, 2009 at 06:38 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.