Relevance of ‘Frequency’?
Pushkar Sane | December 30, 2010
Most marketers understand concepts of reach and frequency very well. Significant amount of time (and money) are spent in maximising reach and optimising frequency to achieve brand goals — awareness, consideration, trial, sales, advocacy, etc. The concept of frequency emerged when the world was disconnected and the media was analogue. The basic assumption behind ‘frequency’ was based on a simple belief — repeat exposure to advertising leads to better comprehension and therefore awareness or consideration or trial or sales.
In a nutshell it assumed that the people receiving advertising were a bit slow (in message comprehension) and repeat frequency was required to educate them. It almost looked like a ‘social service’ that is paying dollars for repeat exposure so that wider society can be educated about greater good of products and services sold in the marketplace. The concept was very promising and marketers flocked to it. It was included in the marketing theory and maximising reach at three plus frequency (at least) became a gospel. As a result we now get bombarded with the same ad copy (often boring) again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Until media planners run out of options to spend their budgets.
This approach worked well for many decades and the industry kept getting better at it. It was a picture perfect party before Internet came to the party along with band of digital devices – mobile phones, gaming consoles, MP3 players, tablets, etc. – connecting people across demographics, geographies, and passion points. It made access to information and entertainment really easy. It provided avenues for people to observe, express, and share their opinions in real-time. It permanently changed the way people receive, accept, and interpret advertising.
Today, in this hyper-connected world, people respond to advertising in a very different manner. When a person is exposed to an advertising message for the first time it either fails to catch attention or generates curiosity. If it fails to catch attention then repeating it a few more times with a hope that next time the person will be receptive is similar to ‘not writing an exam but hoping to pass — behavior.
Let’s consider the second scenario when the ad actually generates curiosity. There are multiple reasons for being curious. The person exposed to advertising might be in-market for buying the advertised product (service) or have just bought it or is in general interested in the category (for example auto enthusiast, techie, foodie) or has an opinion based on past/peer group experience. In any case curiosity is likely to trigger information search, evaluation of reviews, seeking guidance and expressing opinions in non-linear manner. So next time the person is exposed to the same advertising message it looks less relevant, as it is the same mass message and the person knows much more than what is stated in the message. Third time the same ad is displayed or aired it becomes a mild irritant and fourth time it turns into nuisance.
There are exceptions when the advertising is very entertaining and in such cases people actually share it as entertainment through various digital platforms leading to free exposure through ‘earned media’. When one takes a hard look at ads around us it is disappointing to see that they’re largely about exaggerated product claims and are terribly low on entertaining value. When was the last time you watched a boring piece of content and then repeated its viewing? But the industry ends up spending millions and millions of dollars on repeat exposure of advertising that is low on entertainment value thereby causing negative sentiment from people who are subjected to it.
So what should we do? First we must better understand people who receive advertising and respect the fact that people want simple yet meaningful messages delivered to them in real-time. Post that they’re smart enough to figure out things on their own and through support from their networks. Secondly we need to enable their quest for more information/evaluation/entertainment by providing tools and applications that can enhance their experience. Most importantly we need customised creative units that help in generating curiosity and provide a bit of entertainment.
This column was originally published on Sept. 13, 2010 on ClickZ.Asia.
Tags: Advertising, Attention, Earned media, Frequency, Reach, Relevance
Hi Pushkar, once again very interesting topic. And finely pointed out…these repetitive banging doesnt always help the company to increase the brand recall or awareness. On the contrary, they can be more irritating at times and may lead to a ‘phobic’ perception regarding that brand. Such bombardings may happen if you are desperately trying to chase (or follow) your immediate competitor or if it is a perfect excel-made media planning wherein you find it as the best way to exhaust your media budget!!! Here is where creativity comes into play, wherein customers can be educated about the product in a very ‘glued-to-the-screen’ manner…once again, has to be media specific.The best example i see is the Zoozoo campaigns by Vodafone…very catchy and bang-on message delivery.
Thanks Adarsh for your comments.
Your POV is interesting but marketers are in a catch22 situation. If one were to reduce frequency we run the risk of losing share-of-voice to our competitors. In such cases we don’t know what would really happen to our brands/marketshare. And given the business pressures we can’t take that chance.
Thanks Mary for your comments. I understand the business pressures and competitive pressures but following the competition blindly doesn’t help. The approach needs a change and if you don’t your competition or a new entrant might win by acting fast.
Interesting point of view. This mindset would not change unless marketers find better ways of equating advertising to sales. Currently GRP levels are used as a proxy and thats where repeat frequency comes in.
Agree with your observation. Thank you.
I agree with the last piece around making the advertisements more interesting thereby generating curiosity and enhancing the receptiveness to repeat ads.
In this age of social media, using advertisements to force-educate the audience is being replaced with a more subtle form of network education and advertisers should surely use this more efficient form of delivery.
On the other side of this relevant blog by Pushkar are advertisers who are less about influencing sale but more about brand recognition. Have you ever been in a situation where you are suddenly in need of a cab (when your ride to the airport did not work out) in a new city – what do you do? You look for the name of a cab that you remember and in most cases your recall is what drives the choice of a cab. For many commoditized products or in some cases less popular categories of products, the name recall is what tips the decisions in most cases. For those brand managers, it is all about investing in volume rather than quality of the ad. And we all remember both bad ads and good ads so it might work to the advertisers advantage if they manage to just be on your radar long enough to lead to a name recall. These banner ad folks who flash it anytime they get a chance invest in exposure and less in emotional response of the audience.
So while most of the advertisers want to compete for emotional response from their audience – there will always be 80% of advertisers who will optimise for exposure vs emotion. Those are the ones who focus on frequency and value it more than reach at times.
Sachin,
Thanks for an alternative perspective. Your observation is valid that the ‘frequency decision’ is category specific. Having said that I do believe that a lot of commoditized product categories are more about availability of product/service (distribution) rather than advertising frequency. Recall will play an important part but frequency may not be the only way to achieve it. This certainly requires a more detailed discussion. Happy connect one of these days to discuss my point of view and learn from yours.
Pushkar
Pushkar – Your observation like always is bang-on !! We as advertisers have started creating medium specific contents to engage with the customer better. Many a times, our print ads & digital ads talk differently & engage with customers differently. Our follow up ad on the digital medium is to take the discussion forward & make the understanding richer. On the Mobile ad front also though we have just started our journey but our belief is that the experience will be similar.. Good post
Kaushik,
Thanks for your comments. Creating medium specific content is good idea provided they don’t work in silos and connect with each other so that the customer gets relevant and meaningful information.
Pushkar