%@ Language=VBScript %> <% CheckState() CheckSub() %>
Taken from Advertising in a Recession - the benefits of investing for the long term Published by NTC Publications, 1999 |
Alex Biel
This study examines the
allocation of funds between advertising and sales promotion. In recent years,
marketers have been increasingly turning to sales promotion as a seemingly
attractive strategy.
Although many marketers agree
that resource allocated to advertising is an investment in long-term brand
building, there is far less confidence that advertising is an effective tool in
the short or intermediate term. While it is generally accepted that promotions
generate short-term sales, some of those sales are simply ‘stolen’ from
future purchases by the same consumer.
I am concerned that this
short-term orientation has destructive longer term effects. A major question
which marketers must confront is whether excessive emphasis on promotion
actually erodes perceived brand value.
If a brand is on ‘special’
price too frequently, consumers are likely to start to think of the
‘special’ price as the normal price for the brand – and learn never to buy
the brand unless it is discounted. Clearly, we need to pin down the benefits of
sales promotion: Does it really build profits for a marketer, as conventional
wisdom suggests? Or does it have a negative impact on earnings?
Those questions led to the
second collaborative study between the Center for Research & Development and
SPI.1 This time
the SPI investigative team was headed by Robert D. Buzzell, Professor of
Marketing at Harvard Business School. Again, the PIMS database was used.
For this second study, we
further refined the database of 749 consumer businesses to examine businesses
with basically similar promotional mechanisms. This led us to examine a group of
314 consumer non-durable businesses – the fast-moving consumer goods (fmcg)
businesses included in PIMS, and on which we had both advertising and promotion
spending data. Sales promotion, as defined in PIMS, includes both trade and
consumer activities (the average US package goods marketer spends 60% of his
below-the-line money on trade promotions, and 40% on consumer promotions); most
consumer promotions relate to price: temporary cut-price offers, premiums,
direct couponing and money-back deals. Contests, games and sweepstakes are also
included in this category.
To examine the relationship
between various strategies on the one hand and payout on the other, the sample
of business units was divided into three approximately equal parts, based on a
frequency distribution of their allocation patterns:
Businesses using promotion as
the dominant strategy were defined as all businesses spending less than 36% of
their marketing funds in advertising. The average business in this group spent
only 23% of their marketing money on advertising and 77% on sales promotion.
The group using the ‘mixed
strategy’ actually skewed slightly towards promotions. This segment of PIMS
fmcg businesses spent between 36% and 50% of their marketing money on
advertising. On average, they placed about 44% of their marketing expenditures
in advertising, and 56% in promotions.
The final group comprised that set of businesses which used advertising as their dominant spending strategy. To be included in this group, businesses had to place over 50% of marketing investment in advertising. The average business in this group allocated two-thirds of its marketing funds to media advertising, and the rest to promotion. Table 1 gives the performance of each group.
Advertising/promotion mix | Average ROI (%) |
Advertising emphasis | 30 |
Mixed strategy | 22 |
Promotion emphasis | 18 |
Those companies spending the bulk of their funds – 76% – on promotion,
achieved an average return of 18.1% (pre-tax and pre-interest charges).
Those employing the mixed
strategy, where on average 44% went to advertising and 56% went to promotions,
earned a considerably more respectable average return on investment of 27.3%.
The group of marketers using
advertising as their dominant strategy – that is, businesses investing more
than 50% of their marketing resources in advertising – registered the
healthiest return on investments of all, averaging 30.5%.
The other measures of
performance included in the analysis, such as return on sales and share of
market, all showed similar patterns; but as might be expected, the magnitude of
the differences varied. It is clear that there is a positive relationship
between the emphasis on investment in advertising and profitability. Conversely,
those businesses that allocate most of their marketing budgets to promotion tend
to have lower profit margins and rates of return on investment.
One final piece of evidence
comes from another source. These other data were developed by Information
Resources Incorporated, a leading US research firm. They studied the impact of
extra advertising spending on sales for 15 fmcg brands in a highly controlled
experiment. The average brand they studied increased its advertising spending by
70% during the one-year test.2
The IRI measurement system, ‘BehaviorScan’,
is state-of-the-art, and quite high tech. It controls the advertising reaching
test homes and measures what members of these households purchase through
scanners at the checkout counters of stores in the market. This makes it
possible to compare households receiving the extra advertising with a matched
control group receiving only the normal advertising spend.
As Table 2 shows, the average increase in sales among those receiving the additional advertising pressure during the year of the test was 22%. Not bad, but the story does not end there.
Year | Average sales increase (%) |
Test year | 22 |
1st post-test year | 17 |
2nd post-test year | 6 |
Cumulative total | 45 |
At the end of the one-year test, the extra advertising completely stopped. Both
groups of households – the test group that had previously received the higher
level of advertising, and the control group – received exactly the same level
of advertising pressure over the next year for the test brands.
One year after the test, there
continued to be higher sales among those households which had received the
heavier advertising weight. These on average bought 17% more than those
receiving the base level advertising. In year three – two years after the
heavy spending test – those who had received the higher weight during the test
continued to purchase 6% more of the average test brand than those in the
control group. So it seems that additional advertising pressure has an enduring
effect in addition to its immediate effect.
In another analysis of the
profitability of more than 60 trade promotions using the same technology for
data collection, IRI found that overall only 16% of the promotions paid out. In
addition, for established brands, the long-term effects were likely to be
negative due to stockpiling by loyal buyers on the one hand and ‘training’
buyers to wait for deals on the other.
I will summarise what these
various PIMS and IRI studies are telling us.
First, when we look at
advertising alone, it makes a measurable direct contribution to perceived
quality, and share of market, which leads to profitability.
Second, advertising appears to
have a carry-over sales effect that extends beyond the period during which it is
actually running.
Third, when we separately
examine the way in which businesses allocate their expenditures to sales
promotion and to advertising, we see that those businesses emphasising
advertising enjoy a higher return on invested capital.
Finally, we see a significant
relationship between changes in market share and changes in advertising
spending, but not between share changes and promotional changes. Clearly, money
invested in advertising not only drives profits on a yearly basis, but also
builds strong brands.
Design, packaging, public
relations, sales promotion, experience with the brand and word-of-mouth all
contribute to – or, in some cases, detract from – these values. But
advertising has traditionally played the leading role in shaping and defining
the image of strong brands.
In this reading I have presented
evidence from PIMS showing that advertising makes a measurable, significant
contribution to brand profitability. It does this in the year in which the
advertising budget is spent, so there is an attractive short-term payout.
Data from IRI were also
presented, however, illustrating that the carry-over effect of advertising
continues to produce higher sales in the years immediately following the
expenditure: a longer term payout, and a welcome additional benefit.
Advertising produces these
results by adding value to products and services. It produces these results by
turning products and services into strong brands that have more leverage with
middlemen; brands that can credibly pre-empt the truth; brands that enjoy higher
loyalty; brands that are more forgiving of owners who occasionally stumble;
brands that command better margins and are more resistant to price competition;
brands that can be extended.
Advertising builds brands that
mean more to the consumer. These brands can, in principle, live forever.
In other words, advertising works by building strong brands.
From
‘Strong brand, high spend. tracking relationships between the marketing mix
and brand values’, Alexander L. Biel, Admap, November 1990.
http://www.warc.com |
(c) Center for Marketing, London Business School |