|
In summary, we believe that the efficiency of almost any
kind of advertising, in just about any advertising medium, can be systematically
and incrementally improved by:
- Incorporating a direct response element in the advertising
- Split testing a variety of approaches, each with the same constant
direct response element
- Incorporating the discoveries thus made into the rollout of the
campaign.
In the distance, we can hear screams of outrage at the idea
of testing advertising such as "The Marlboro Man" cigarette ads, or the
famous Wendy's 'Where's the Beef?" commercial, or the potential impact
of "Herb" on Burger King Sales by adding a response element and measuring
the responses.
But who can say how much more effective the Marlboro Man
advertising might have been if just a tiny percentage of the hundreds
of millions of dollars spent on it had been devoted to measuring various
elements within the advertising itself in the actual media arena where
it is meant to do its job? Besides, that leaves all the many advertisers
who don't have Marlboro's or Wendy's or Burger King's megabucks to lavish
on burning an indelible image into the public mind.
If you can afford an annual budget of "only $5 million or
$2 million or $1 million" - or less - to convert your true prospects into
customers, can you afford anything less than knowing for sure which of
a number of advertising approaches will produce the most reaction from
the people you most want to reach? Can you really afford not to use direct
response split-run testing to get the answer?
Split-run testing is so inexpensive that almost any advertiser
can do it. It can add strong new effectiveness muscle
to your advertising.
Note: Thanks to Tom Collins,
co-author of Maximarketing, saying thanks for sharing
parts of Maximarketing.
|
