It may be a great ad...but then the network, TV station or cable company RUINS it by playing it AD NAUSEUM...and I just think the advertisers must not watch TV that much and leave all the decision making to the ad agencies who make more when the ads they create come with big promotion budgets to absolutely SATURATE the market.
I'm getting fed up, though, with so many saturation campaigns. I think a lot of advertisers are just ruining television now. The proliferation of so many cable channels has brought a lot of change...some good, but also a lot of bad because there is so much competition now for leisure time with the advancement of internet as an entertainment alternative. So the response is to pound the viewing audience with so many repetitive messages wherever you can find them, and I for one, just don't like it. It's taking the whole medium of television down.
2007-12-16
06:29:40
·
3 answers
·
asked by
John S.
5
in
Business & Finance
➔ Advertising & Marketing
➔ Other - Advertising & Marketing
I realize the conventional wisdom of advertising is that it takes 20 or more exposures to a message before it sinks in and motives a change in buyer behavior. But I think that age-old "truism" needs re-thinking because it assumes viewers are total, thick-headed morons and you have to program for the lowest common denominator in society. So pound the hell out of 'em through repetition after repetition. And I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to that kind of buyer behavior modification ploy.
I believe if you come up with an effective, eye-catching ad that really sells the product and leaves the consumer with a smile on their face, you won't NEED to saturate with so many mindless repetitions. I think you can reinforce by utilizing different media to reach the same audience in a similar but modifed message (e.g. shorter copy on billboards but with familiar image from TV campaign). But just blasting same ad over same channel ad nauseum is going too far & hurts you, the advertiser.
2007-12-16
06:36:11 ·
update #1