Ad Effectiveness: When Less is More

As I'm making my way through the first 25 pages or so of my latest issue of Businessweek magazine I start to notice an interesting little trend. There are "a lot" of advertisements. From the front cover to page 25 there are 11 full page ads; In it's entirety - 88 pages, 33 full page advertisements. **insert homer simpson head-scratch** Airbus, Canon, Movado, Cingular, Samsung, Nadurra, Ebel... and this doesn't even include all of the many quarter-page and half-page beauties.

Yikes.

I toss the magazine down on the desk, walk over to my little “mag hanger” and start looking through the last 4 BW print editions. Is this a new phenomenon or have I just been completely oblivious. Answer: I’ve been oblivious.

The realization of all these intrusions has got me thinking about the effectiveness of magazine ads - the mad ad flops versus those that engage readers to stop, look, read, and remember and the rare gems that actually move consumers from the "reader" category into the "buyer" category. What makes one print ad more effective than another(?) particularly when readers are forced to scroll through so many in just one sitting...

Measuring Ad-effectiveness
I did some research on the web and came up with a short list for measuring impact and reader engagement:

· Ad awareness
· Brand awareness
· Recollection of elements in the ad
· Recollection and comprehension of the brand’s message
· Feelings about the ad: liked, amused, believed, etc
· Brand images, perceptions
· Emotional “involvement”
· Persuasiveness

So with these in mind let’s take a look at some of the ads and see how they measure up..

Principal Financial (page 7)
“Think Big” - two words that resonate with me so I look. There’s a little cartoon pictorial with Principal shining it’s light on a short, balding simpleton with his big, big shadow projected in the background.

Hmm. I don’t get it. What’s a little man with a big shadow got to do with investment and finances? This can’t be what they mean by “Think Big” - or is it? The picture should reflect the brand's message but this one requires too much thinking; to understand the message - you have to read the fine print. Ack. Maybe if the little guy was at least staring at the enormity of his own shadow the image might be more meaningful from a personal front. Some version of this would have, at minimum, evoked the sense that to invest in Principal means to invest in your future; to visualize your growth potential. But the ad fell short and the marketing message was lost.

*THUD*
Someone dropped the ball.

Invest in Macedonia (page 9)
Beyond the obvious - I don’t know what this page says and I don’t care. Too much text, too many maps and graphs and way, way too many bullet points. Information overload.

Next!

Huawei (page 10)
What is that a picture of - a million tiny people crammed into a stadium?...town square?...grassy knoll? Are the people attending a concert?...a festival? Please for the love god - what is going on in this picture!! Beyond Frustrating. I stare a little harder and study the images but quickly find myself getting annoyed and decide to move on.

How relevant is the ad for me as a consumer? Actually, I have no idea because I couldn’t figure out the message or, more importantly, the product that was being represented but considering the ad inflicted so much mental anguish I have no doubt that I will remember the name. Score one for Huawei? Maybe.

Movado (page 13)
The ad is simple, sleek, sexy; And yes - just looking at the hot, hot Mikhail Baryshnikov makes me want to go out and buy one. He's looking ultra sexy, cool and sophisticated; And the way he’s looking back at me I feel sexy, cool and sophisticated too. Oh yea, me and Mikhail and our matching Movado’s. MMMmmm...wait- head shake. Reality check! Damn.

This ad definitely resonated; Because of the product pitch or celebrity endorsement - more likely the latter. Does this mean I'll go out and buy a Movado? Well actually, I already own one. Does this mean I'll think of upgrading the next time I'm out shopping for shoes? No.

Well, maybe. *me and Mikhail...me and Mikhail*
Yea ok I'll buy that.

Nadurra (page 17)
Very dark (perhaps intended to invoke feelings related to those exclusive, uptown boy cigar-clubs). Almost immediately my eyes are drawn to the tiny paragraph next to the bottle; the story behind the product. Yikes. The print is too tiny to read, the page is too dark for the text and there's too much print to read through anyway. My eyes feel strained just looking at it. I'm not a scotch drinker but I might, on occasion, have a need to buy someone a bottle. Will I remember this brand? Not likely.

Ebel (page 19)
“The Architects of Time”. Major eye candy. Very nice. I don’t need an adventure watch but the "zoom-in" on all the details of the clocks, gizmos, dials and numbers have me salivating. *maybe I do need an adventure watch* Of course, if I see a hot guy wearing this bad baby – hot diggity! This ad was by far the most effective for me. Very "in-your-face" cool.

Less is More
OK, so what does all this mean. "Ad Saturation". Considering that I've never noticed these ads in previous weekly issues (and I've been a subscriber for almost two years now), perhaps it's evidence that the increasing number of print ads in magazines has devalued their effectiveness. From a print perspective, I don't have the time or the inclination to look at every ad. If you want my attention, your marketing message needs to be creative but bold enough to capture my curiosity within one glimpse-over beit through images or words. The ads that got my attention and had the most impact for me were those that kept the message short, "in-your-face" simple.

Marketing messages that are too long or leave readers scratching their heads might leave on impression but a) it's likely not the one you want to leave and b) frustration rarely moves readers into the buyer category.

That said, from a consumer standpoint and being that I'm an avid mag reader, here’s what I say – ditch the ad proliferation. If there was less brand marketing crammed into just a few pages - I might very well be inclined to stop, look and read.

Financial Services, Innovation and Web 2.0

"It's not a channel; It's technology"

As a member of the ISF (Internet Strategy Forum), we’ve had some discussions of late around web governance, obstacles surrounding internet strategy development and relevance/adoption of Web2.0 technologies. I was recently engaged in a Web2.0 study by another ISF member (and CTO for IBM.com) and it got me thinking...about how it relates to my business area, the financial services industry and the key issues we face in adopting Web2.0 technologies. You can find I’m sure a thousand and one definitions for Web2.0 but here’s my high-level take coupled with thoughts pulled from the web:

Web 2.0 is the result of an internet technology movement involving multi-dimensional collaboration (social networking, open standards, b2b/b2c/c2c relationships). It's the result of a technological movement where the web replaces the PC as the platform not just from a business operating standpoint but from the consumer standpoint as well.

Due to recent progresses like pervasive Web connectivity, faster bandwidth, growing numbers of online users, increased trust of online software and general cost-to-buy difference…eventually I believe that web software will replace PC software in measurable numbers.

That said, internet strategies in this area and within the financial services sector are far from where they should be and our adoption of new web technologies trails that of most other business areas and by a long shot. In order to move forward with the times and drive efficiencies in customer-centricity we need to make some sweeping changes in how we drive the business. First stop: we need to ixnay leveraging the internet as a communication “channel” and start viewing the internet from a technology perspective so that we can maximize our offerings, visualize the opportunities that lie in those technologies, and focus on "harnessing" and "developing".

What does all this mean - simple: We need to revamp our business models to incorporate internet as technology. Period.

Obstacles we face today
Policy
- Ensuring the applications and offerings don’t expose the business to regulatory or legal action. An obvious caution that needs to be carefully addressed.
- Application access control levels: Most large financial corporations are mired in hierarchical, complex authorization schemes across data repositories and web functions (understandably to keep folks from accessing things they shouldn’t) but folks across business verticals need to be able to leverage [all] the data that's available internally and externally.
- Risk (reputational and/or business risk). The kiss of death. Have someone from legal or operations say the words “there’s risk involved” and people won’t move for boo. It’s stifling. While risk is necessary to review and measure – it shouldn’t be the roadblock that halts innovation.

Technology Strategy
- Like I said, right now the internet is viewed as “just another channel” to reach our customer base but really it should be considered from a technology perspective in that it presents a fundamental shift in how we offer financial services to our customers. It means separating Internal/industry/and functional technologies from Internet Technologies.

Performance-based Goals
- Measuring ROI, prioritizing monetary returns: The requirement to address quarterly performance targets gets in the way of strategic investment period. The Web2.0 environment centers on multi-dimensional collaboration and thus carries with it a soft ROI. When dealing with innovation and new technologies such as Web2.0…we should focus on measuring information relevancy and value prop to our customers. Measurable ROI will come in time.

Sponsorship
- The internet champion. I put this one last because I feel it’s the most important and I wanted to discuss it a bit further since it impacts corporate governance and organizational structure. The industry needs to have people at the top of the corporate ladder sponsoring internet activities so that we can realize the opportunities behind the technology.

Organizational Structure
Most large corporations have some rendition of the following governance structure: They have a CMO (Chief Marketing Officer); an IT executive (or CTO focusing primarily on internal or industry-specific technologies, network infra-structures, etc.); a Legal executive; and a Customer Service executive to manage all customer level communications and interactions (think call-centers, etc.). This list might be a missing one or two but it’s pretty much the bulk.

What the structure is missing (and what it needs) is a CIO (Chief Internet Officer) whose primary focus is to drive internet technology innovation and internet technology adoption across the business while addressing the smaller needs of other business areas as they relate to the internet. All things internet should fall under the CIO; All business areas should liaisons with functional areas within the internet department to achieve their respective business goals.

An independent block that stands on it’s own and not as a sidearm to (or blended-in with) other marketing teams creates "business focus”. Blend the internet function with all other marketing areas and you end up with what we have today – function and focus gets blurred, ideas serving different needs get thrown into the same prioritization bucket, soft ROI loses and innovation gets lost.

"Innovation and the consumer" - that's what's key here. Web2.0 means a shift of power from the business to the consumer; it means a change in the way we communicate with our customers and how we service our customers. We need to harness what’s out there and we can do that if we change the way we view the internet.

It's not a channel; It's technology. Say it again...it's not a channel; It's technology.

Now... let’s start by getting ourselves a senior sponsor. CIO’s sign here please!