Filed under: Comment
Hello, I’m back.
I know you did your best to get immigration to arrest me, but I’m afraid you failed.
Oh well, there’s always next time.
So the last proper post I wrote was about the presentation Chaz, from BBH, and I were giving at the Asian Effectiveness Awards.
In it, we highlighted 5 ‘truths’ about Asian marketing that are, errrrrm, not quite as true as they’d like to believe.
Of course this was all wrapped up in the theme of ‘being more effective’ … but the thing we didn’t talk about is that ‘effectiveness is relative’.
Sure, at the end of the day, it all revolves around the point that what you invest gets you – at worst – an equal amount of value back, but as an industry we don’t really go into the details, preferring instead to talk about effectiveness as an all-encompassing term, something that gives us the flexibility to reinterpret what ‘effectiveness is’ to suit our particular needs.
Like fucking awareness.
But I digress.
The reason I say all this is because Rodi recently pointed me to an article that highlighted the sort of effectiveness most agencies could only dream about achieving … where the return isn’t just quantifiable in genuine commercial terms, but is like winning the lottery of business.
Would you like to get $14 back for every $1 invested in the US?
What about $11 for every $1 you spend in the rest of the World?
You bet your sweet ass you would.
Of course, with returns so high, there’s always going to be an element of risk … but then so is putting a couple of million bucks into a television campaign when it’s been designed to please a board of directors rather than your audience.
So what is this license to print money?
That’s right, it’s government bribery.
So next time I am asked to judge communication effectiveness, I think I’m going to judge everything by this simple 3 criteria:
1. Has it quantifiably and financially benefited the brand?
2. Did the brand actively do something to encourage this or have they simply benefited from fortunate circumstance &/or distribution?
3. Could they have made more with a bribe?
Don’t laugh, while #1 & #2 might be the basis for identifying genuine effectiveness, #3 might be the only way to get big business to start looking at adland again.
30 Comments so far
Leave a comment