[HN Gopher] TV Advertising Effectiveness and Profitability
___________________________________________________________________
TV Advertising Effectiveness and Profitability
Author : yodon
Score : 177 points
Date : 2021-07-27 18:05 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| Niglodonicus wrote:
| Imagine how low it would be if all internet users actually
| employed ad-blocking of some sort. Honestly remarkable how many
| people, faced with the prospect of sitting through extremely
| annoying video ads, or having their search results and webpages
| cluttered with useless ads, do nothing instead of spending one
| minute to install the appropriate blocker. Obviously not everyone
| is aware these exist, but you would think their curiosity would
| lead them to find out once they get fed up with having their time
| wasted by having their activities interrupted constantly and
| having manure shoved down their throat.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| In the USA, adblocking penetration has been rising for years,
| but looks to be plateauing; this estimate says that a bit over
| a quarter of all internet users block advertising on their
| connected devices:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach...
| paxys wrote:
| Advertising is at its core a prisoner's dilemma. If every
| competitor in a certain space puts in $100 in advertising, they
| can all expect $0 in returns. However if a single company put in
| nothing they would be in a worse place because their competitors'
| returns would automatically become higher.
| yardie wrote:
| I feel that there is different types of advertisement. Brand
| advertising isn't so much about acquiring new customers but
| about reassuring existing ones. Like I honestly feel car makers
| don't need to advertise on the web or TV, yet they do it
| anyway. I have the car I have and I'm not looking to buy
| another for 5-7 years, yet Toyota and Ford will advertise to me
| as if to say "I'm still here in case you change your mind." I
| can't imagine the ROI is particularly high, yet not doing would
| be worse since competitors would silence you out. At the same
| time M-B isn't advertising to sell you a car but to sell you
| the exciting lifestyle you're going to have in their car. You
| already bought or planned to buy their car they are only
| reassuring your decision.
| bluGill wrote:
| While you personally are not buying a car, every day there
| are hundreds of people in any small city who buy a car, so it
| is important to advertise to them. You personally might never
| buy a car, but they don't know how to target people who are
| not buying a car "soon".
| mdoms wrote:
| This only holds if advertising can't grow the market, which it
| absolutely can and does.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Well, if you broaden the scope, you're effectively fighting
| again other (completely unrelated) purchases and a person's
| wallet.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Ouch. Never thought of it this way. I know it's borderline
| anti-American -- but when you have such compelling incentive
| structures at what point should we demand government
| regulation? If 80% of advertising is not helping consumers
| discover products -- arguably the primary functional purpose of
| advertising -- then isn't this in a way an economic sickness
| wasting the resources and stifling innovation?
| paxys wrote:
| It's bizarre to me that the government hasn't stepped in to
| regulate/ban medical advertising in America. Nobody wants it
| - not consumers, not doctors, not even the drug manufacturers
| themselves.
| retzkek wrote:
| There's at least one group that likes drug ads: the
| advertising industry. High-dollar clients with long
| commercials (to fit in all their required disclaimers), and
| they're probably the ones with the connections to the
| appropriate regulators.
|
| Personally I absolutely despise drug commercials, there's
| not much that will make me change the channel, mute, or
| turn off the TV faster. Is there a more blatant display of
| the faults of capitalism?
| rhizome wrote:
| It's not even attributable to "capitalism," per se,
| because the US and New Zealand are the only places on
| Earth where they are legal. I may be blinkered as to
| global laws, so maybe I'll just say the Western Earth.
| retzkek wrote:
| Sure, that's fair, I suppose I was specifically thinking
| of US-flavored capitalism, which is undoubtedly its own
| beast.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >There's at least one group that likes drug ads: the
| advertising industry.
|
| There's another group that likes drug ads: media
| corporations! Part of the reason big pham spends
| $billions on ads is to buy the support of the media
| giants.
| [deleted]
| 1123581321 wrote:
| It's partially a prisoner's dilemma. Advertising reduces search
| costs for buyers to a certain point, after which it raises them
| again due to a glut of similar messaging. There is a moderate
| point at which buyers are hearing about enough potential
| options and are able to conduct a more effective search for
| products/vendors/sellers, and the cost is reasonable for the
| sellers (it reduces their sales costs, gets their economy of
| scale beyond the threshold needed to viable produce and serve
| customers.)
|
| Beyond that moderate point is where the dilemma sets in as each
| company wants to increase advertising until the additional
| return is no longer positive---but if every company pushes to
| the same point, the additional return at that stopping point
| becomes negative.
| human wrote:
| That might be true for products or services that people need
| and know. But what about new or less known ones? For example, I
| will buy a car and one car only. All the advertising is not
| going to make me buy two. However, for electronics, I might buy
| an additional TV or another tablet, or gaming console.
| yosito wrote:
| Your logic doesn't add up.
| vikramkr wrote:
| How exactly does their logic not add up? This is actually a
| specific example of a prisoners dilemma taught in some intro
| to game theory classes, with the classic example being the
| tobacco companies
| yosito wrote:
| > If every competitor in a certain space puts in $100 in
| advertising, they can all expect $0 in returns. However if
| a single company put in nothing they would be in a worse
| place because their competitors' returns would
| automatically become higher.
|
| Assume competitors A, B and C and all put $100 each into
| advertising. That's $300 spent on advertising. Each
| competitor only has to earn $101 in sales to get > $0
| returns. There is no theoretical limit on how much each
| competitor can earn in sales. Let's randomly say each
| company makes $500 in sales. That's a return of $400 per
| company. If a single company puts in nothing, they may
| likely earn less in sales, so let's say company A spends
| nothing on advertising but still earns $450 in sales,
| meanwhile B and C spend $150 on advertising and make $475
| in sales. Company A gets a return of $450, and companies B
| and C get a return of $325 each.
|
| Anyway, all this math is irrelevant. OP said each company
| should expect $0 in returns. Where does that $0 come from?
| There is no rule that says they will earn $0 in returns.
|
| > This is actually a specific example of a prisoners
| dilemma taught in some intro to game theory classes
|
| You are correct that prisoner's dilemma is taught in intro
| to game theory, but you are not correct that this is an
| example of it.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Well it assumes a zero-sum game from the perspective of the
| competitors. The combined advertising effort of all
| competitors could grow the entire pie that they each share.
| Even though their percentage of the pie stays the same, the
| magnitude of the slice could be bigger, and that
| improvement in magnitude could outstrip the advertising
| cost, thus making it worthwhile.
| vikramkr wrote:
| In heavily saturated markets (notably cigarettes as the
| main well known case study), advertising can be more zero
| sum than not. No model is perfect, but the prisoners
| dilemma model for advertising is at least useful in a
| couple well known cases.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| The assumption being made here is that the market will
| remain saturated even if all advertising is pulled.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| If this is true, wouldn't it show up in the study as a positive
| ROI?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| This has no relation with the number on the headline.
| [deleted]
| handmodel wrote:
| I think this still only covers half of it.
|
| If neither Pepsi or Coca-Cola advertised I think its plausible
| their positions in the market relative to each other could be
| the same proportion they are now. However, it would make it
| easier for restaurants, grocery stores, etc. to go with non-
| brand sodas (that also don't advertise).
| mbesto wrote:
| You mean zero-sum. Advertising is a zero sum game.
|
| I can't find the tweet but someone referenced the fact that if
| you lump traditional and digital media together, the TAM of
| advertising has basically been stagnate for decades. We just
| think its grown because FB/Google/etc have gobbled it all up.
| morei wrote:
| It's not quite true that advertising is a zero-sum game.
| There are economic benefits from increased competition, and
| from improvements in presented choice.
|
| It is definitely true that the economic benefits don't accrue
| to the advertiser! And it's also true that the economic
| benefits decrease as advertising saturates. But it's still
| not zero.
| matsemann wrote:
| A guy doing marketing for a travel company once told me they
| had to spend an enormous amount of money on Google, _for their
| own brand_. People would search "brand cityA cityB", but a
| competitor would buy the top spot. How much were the competitor
| willing to spend? Basically their whole margin for that sale,
| as it was still better than nothing. So this company had to
| match that.
|
| So in the end Google makes more profit per ticket than the
| companies delivering the service itself.
| solumos wrote:
| You pay less than your competitors for your branded ads via
| quality score. But yeah, it gets competitive.
|
| You should see how much PI lawyers pay for AdWords - it's
| bonkers. Hundreds of dollars per click.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Isn't Credit Karma's accelerated growth attributed to TV Ads?
|
| I wonder why something like CK can benefit so drastically from TV
| Ads while others are not even close to breaking even on that
| investment.
|
| Is it the quality of the ads or the nature of the product?
| captaincaveman wrote:
| Certain demographics are cheaper, less demand high supply,
| daytime TV audiences ... so yeah maybe a sweet spot!
| human wrote:
| I am the marketing director at a professional service firm. We
| started advertising on radio and tv about 7 years ago. The first
| campaign we did generated clients at a cost of about $10,000
| each. That was very expensive and we were disappointed. We kept
| going and we've seen the cost per acquisition go lower every
| year. After 7 years we are around 750$. Brand advertising is like
| a flywheel: you keep fueling it and it takes a while before it's
| actually spinning. I really don't think you can measure ROI.
| Especially since it helps your business in other ways too. Since
| we have been advertising it's actually been easier for us to
| attract talent. Having a known brand is immensely powerful.
| dougSF70 wrote:
| I have not read the paper but I have done extensive ad
| effectiveness analysis and the one thing most papers ignore is
| that having your product listed in a store is a given. More often
| advertising is protecting your product's listing in a store. Ad
| spending isn't just about boosting your own sales, but those of
| the category and adjacent categories. If those 80% of brands
| stopped advertising to prevent $1mn of negative ROI but then were
| dropped by the store, causing $100mn of negative ROI.
| maweki wrote:
| Reminds me of the John Wanamaker quote: 'Half the money I spend
| on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which
| half.'
| hammock wrote:
| There is a fundamental misunderstanding (intentional or not) with
| these types of studies and claims.
|
| Limited-time promotions, e.g. a 10% off sale, work on short
| timescales that are easily measured. You can easily say what the
| ROI is of an advertised promotion, and it is often positive.
| (Side note, these promotions have a more-difficult-to-measure
| detrimental effect on your long-term profitability, closely
| related to the point I am about to make below)
|
| Brand advertising, in contrast, works on a spread-out scale of
| years or decades. When Coca-Cola runs a polar bear ad at
| Christmastime they don't do it to increase sales of Coke that
| week, nor should it be measured that way.
|
| The actual effect that a brand advertisement has, is to add
| PENNIES (not dollars) to their sales every day, for the next 100
| YEARS. It's a long-term investment. And for these reasons hard if
| not impossible to measure or control for confounders - but that
| doesn't mean it doesn't work!!
|
| And without that brand investment, their brand value is
| continuously eroding away, at a rate of pennies (or more) per
| day.
|
| Source: Been on the leading edge of marketing and advertising for
| over 12 years
| ohuf wrote:
| ... which is pretty convenient for you and guys, because if you
| look at it that long-term way, nobody can tell that your whole
| product is a useless scam
| ksec wrote:
| Very rare high quality comments on Ads.
|
| Do you ever find annoying that the current narrative on the
| internet ( and on HN ) that _All_ advertisement are bad?
| Approaching to the point of finding people working inside Ads
| industry as witch hunt?
| rangersanger wrote:
| Okay, I agree with everything you've said. In a "Data driven"
| organization, how do you prove that your brand marketing is
| working in order to protect it? A new leader comes in and says
| "this isn't adding value, you cant prove it's adding value, I'm
| cutting it unless you can prove it." What's your response?
| tehjoker wrote:
| A data driven organization is too short sighted to value
| things that aren't easily measured.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| And this is the best argument to bring back old school banner
| ads that were just an image without any third party js, or
| tracking. Advertisements don't have to work _NOW_ they have to
| work eventually.
|
| At least it's the best argument from the advertisers side.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > is to add PENNIES (not dollars) to their sales every day
|
| How much growth has Coca-Cola seen on their specific "Coke"
| line of products? How many people who don't already drink Coke,
| Coke Zero, or Diet Coke are going to be influenced by a
| (probably very expensive) TV advertisement reminding them that
| Coke as a brand of sugary drink exists?
|
| I feel like if they ever wanted to save millions and millions
| of dollars, they could just stop advertising.
|
| Something something Sriracha
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| They have to keep up the appearance that they are pretty much
| the only cola drink you ever want to buy. If they stop all
| their advertising, people would start seeing other brands
| (and I don't mean just Pepsi, all the other lesser known
| local brands as well) as viable options.
|
| At least I think that's their logic.
| cbsks wrote:
| You and I certainly do not need to see any more Coca-Cola
| advertisements to remember that the brand exists when we are
| choosing what drink to buy. But there are hundreds of
| thousands of people born every day. If Coca-Cola stops
| advertising it may not impact their sales for years, but
| eventually they could fade away.
| bluGill wrote:
| The ketchup industry stopped advertising, and over the next
| 50 years their market share went down. Nobody knows for sure
| how much was stopping advertising, but nobody wants to take a
| chance.
| wisemanwillhear wrote:
| > Brand advertising, in contrast, works on a spread-out scale
| of years or decades. When Coca-Cola runs a polar bear ad at
| Christmastime they don't do it to increase sales of Coke that
| week, nor should it be measured that way.
|
| Curious... A year ago, an older lady gave our daughter a little
| Coca-cola polar bear stuffed animal. It seems their advertising
| dollars are still having an "influence".
| jmann99999 wrote:
| I agree with you on large national/international brands;
| however most of the brands that I see on cable TV in the U.S.
| aren't similar to Coca Cola. They are a fitness device that I
| have never heard of. They are a dry good that I didn't know
| existed. I would love to provide an example, but I can't
| remember any of those brands.
|
| The study cited by the OP has an interesting appendix [0]. It
| shows the depths they went to in order to conduct the study.
| The level of ads are also dissected into national, regional,
| and local ads. If you look at the final table in the study
| which shows all the categories of brands examined, I would
| challenge anyone to remember a brand or product they saw on TV
| related to many of them. Dough products? Eggs?
|
| Maybe I have seen an add for a paper product (top category of
| advertising), but I can't remember who that would be. Bounty...
| maybe?
|
| [0]
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?do...
| btilly wrote:
| And how do you measure the value delivered?
|
| If you're not measuring value delivered, how do you know that
| you're actually delivering value? Remember, you're the person
| that you can most easily fool.
|
| Fields as diverse as active fund management and psychic
| readings have been filled with practitioners who were wrong
| about the value that they thought that they were delivering. I
| have no particular reason to believe that brand management
| isn't another.
| mihaaly wrote:
| If you cannot measure then you are just bluffing that it works!
| You cannot know yourself for god's sake!
|
| "Been on the leading edge of marketing and advertising for over
| 12 years "
|
| Aaaaaah, I see! It is your personal interest to be payed very
| well for unsubstantiated claims! Fishing in troubled waters. We
| will consider your !!opinion!! accordingly....
| floxy wrote:
| Thoughts on this take about luxury branding?
|
| https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_...
| avidiax wrote:
| Overly long, a bit smarmy. The main points, that the audience
| for that ad aspires to be old money while at best being
| nouveau riche, and ads that appear to be for women but are
| placed in a men's magazine are actually for men both seem
| accurate to me.
| yKnoTho wrote:
| I mean, you pretty much just validated it's all "manufactured
| consent".
|
| Spending money to chant a specific message to tune brain
| chemistry, awareness, and memory, lest they die out.
| fukmbas wrote:
| Both are an absolutely useless waste of resources for society
| slg wrote:
| >Brand advertising, in contrast, works on a spread-out scale of
| years or decades...The actual effect that a brand advertisement
| has, is to add PENNIES (not dollars) to their sales every day,
| for the next 100 YEARS. It's a long-term investment. And for
| these reasons hard if not impossible to measure or control for
| confounders - but that doesn't mean it doesn't work!!
|
| Car brands are the obvious example of brand advertising. They
| are among the most common TV advertisers but they don't expect
| people to immediately go out and spend $50k on a new Mercedes-
| Benz after watching a 30 second commercial. They just want to
| establish Mercedes-Benz as a brand of luxury, performance,
| technology, etc. That way the next time you are in the market
| to buy a car you already have an ingrained positive perception
| of Mercedes-Benz that might help sway your decision.
| petercooper wrote:
| I love Mercedes, yet what got me to buy two cars in
| particular were YouTube videos by _other owners_ showing just
| how fun they were.
| nirushiv wrote:
| It's possible the TV ads influenced your watching of those
| videos :)
| reader_mode wrote:
| And yet the most valuable car company in the world (for
| whatever that's worth) spends 0 on advertising and sells
| everything they can produce.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Based off the comments I guess this is tesla. Isn't this
| just based off of their inflated stock price. If someone
| was seriously considering buying the company they wouldn't
| make an offer based off the stock price?
| dexterdog wrote:
| The number of companies who could drop their advertising to
| $0 yesterday and still significantly outsell Tesla can not
| be counted with my hands.
| potatosaur wrote:
| When I was small, the same thing was said about Ferrari.
| Obviously we didn't understand that F1 is marketing as much
| as magazine ads are. In the same way though, Tesla might
| not do declarative advertising but things like Musk's
| appearance on Rick and Morty or favourable media coverage
| fulfil the exact same role.
| enlyth wrote:
| They've done something smarter, created a cult of people
| that do the job for free
| r00fus wrote:
| Market cap (ie, stock price) is not a good indicator of
| present value, but perceived future value.
|
| Edit: I also think TSLA isn't a car company. More like a
| battery company.
| Cincognito wrote:
| Same goes for app stores, what happens if google and
| apple ban you for whatever reason? Your company is
| screwed and you have no appeal or legal safeguards.
|
| <a href="https://businesscutter.com/">https://businesscut
| ter.com//</a...
| Cincognito wrote:
| Someone here was arguing that advertising can't be
| measured only through impact on present sales but "good
| will and long term value". Tesla seemingly has good will
| beyond any competitors.https://prickdaily.com/
| Cincognito wrote:
| We checked her rating and it's 4.5 or so. But it's funny,
| she looks like a deadbeat here because of more
| discerning/critical NYC Uber drivers who gave her 4 stars
| 50% of the time.https://trickynerds.com/
| reader_mode wrote:
| Someone here was arguing that advertising can't be
| measured only through impact on present sales but "good
| will and long term value". Tesla seemingly has good will
| beyond any competitors.
|
| Also Tesla is buying battery cells, sells cars and
| expects to have third parties supply batteries long term
| - how can they be a battery company ?
| r00fus wrote:
| Same way Apple is a computer company but Foxconn does
| most of the building of said computers?
| reader_mode wrote:
| But Apple sells computers ? Tesla is selling some battery
| installations from what I saw but their core business is
| cars. You could claim they are valued as a software
| company because of FSD, but I don't really see the
| battery angle, they would be not be anywhere close their
| valuation if they were valued on that angle.
| slg wrote:
| >sells everything they can produce.
|
| That is the important part. Their production capability is
| limited to a level that is below current demand. It
| therefore doesn't make any sense for them to invest in
| increasing future demand until their production capability
| consistently exceeds the level of current demand.
| reader_mode wrote:
| But their supply is constantly expanding and demand is
| following right up. They have 0 ads and yet everyone
| knows about Tesla.
| scsilver wrote:
| Elon is one giant ad, and he has equity. Just because its
| not defined as traditional advertising, doesnt mean they
| dont promote the brand. They have physical car showrooms
| with large tesla logos. They litterally spent millions to
| put a tesla in space...
| 5tyuft wrote:
| This was my first thought. Elon is constantly in the news
| or doing some memorable stunt. Tesla absolutely
| advertises it's just through Elon.
| username90 wrote:
| Has anyone calculated how much money he saved on ads
| doing that? Seems like a huge efficiency advantage
| compared to competitors.
| reader_mode wrote:
| But the study is about TV advertising effectiveness, and
| the OP mentioned it being very valuable in the auto
| industry. I just pointed out that the hottest brand in
| auto industry is spending 0 on TV or any ads for that
| matter.
| slg wrote:
| What is your point? No one is claiming that advertising
| is the only way to increase demand. It is simply one
| option to increase demand, an option that Tesla has no
| use for at the moment.
| reader_mode wrote:
| If the hottest company in auto is spending 0 on ads are
| ads really that valuable to auto industry ?
| slg wrote:
| If Elon Musk is one of the richest men in the world and
| draws roughly a minimum wage salary, is salary really
| that valuable to building personal wealth?
|
| That is the equivalent of what you are asking. Musk has
| other forms of income and wealth accumulation that other
| people don't have. Therefore his salary shouldn't be used
| to compare to people who don't have those other methods
| of income. Similarly Tesla has other advantages that help
| increase demand (or limit the upside of further
| increasing demand). Other companies that don't have those
| same advantages can still benefit from increasing demand
| through advertising.
|
| The only conclusion we can draw from Tesla's lack of
| advertising is that the company leadership feels that it
| is not the best use of company money. Any attempt to
| extrapolate that out to the auto industry or advertising
| in general is making a lot of assumptions.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| "Lack of advertisement" should be "Lack of conventional
| advertisement"
|
| Musk is strongly associated with Tesla in many people's
| minds and he's very capable of keeping himself in the
| public's focus. Then there's SpaceX which literally
| launched a Tesla into space. Umm, that launch _was_
| advertising. Even if it didn 't come out of an
| "Advertising" budget line. Every manned SpaceX launch
| uses a Tesla vehicle to get the astronauts to the craft
| and, in the US at least, SpaceX is _hot_ the past few
| years.
|
| If Toyota or Ford had a space launch company you could be
| confident they'd tie their trucks into it, drag the Ford
| Shuttle S150 out with a fleet of F150s. Who needs
| conventional advertisement when that's your public image?
|
| Then there's the fact that Tesla's vehicles are still
| unique in the market place with few direct competitors
| (though that's changing). There's no need to spend money
| advertising when you're the only company making status
| symbol electric vehicles that are (somewhat) affordable.
| A Honda Fit, not a status symbol even if it is more
| practical financially. Honda and Toyota's midsize sedans
| aren't differentiable, not really. They rely on branding
| and conventional advertising to make people prefer one to
| the other. All the other auto makers are in that same
| situation with most of their vehicles.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Toyota doesn't advertise?
| spullara wrote:
| I think you saw the "brand value" list rather then the
| valuation of the company list:
|
| https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-top-car-
| manufacturer...
| samat wrote:
| I would not call Elon Musks Twitter and other public
| performances 'no advertising whatsoever'. They don't pay
| for it cash to adv companies, but they got in hot waters
| with SEC because of it, for example.
| reader_mode wrote:
| I didn't say they do no advertising, I said they spend 0
| on ads.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > Car brands are the obvious example of brand advertising.
|
| Car commercials crack me up. Nissan is running commercials
| lately in the US on how dynamic, sporty, and fun to drive
| reckless/fast their cars are on TV.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| "Boring" utilitarian cars have gotten much, much better
| over time, and can easily match acceleration times of
| previous "pony" cars of the 90s and earlier -- cars that
| were once considered fast, sporty, and fun to drive.
|
| They can do it while being much larger and achieving much
| better MPG, as well as being a lot safer.
|
| Utilitarian electric vehicles are even better, but not
| quite commonplace yet.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > "Boring" utilitarian cars have gotten much, much better
| over time
|
| I would rather the commercial tell me how purposeful
| their car is, not how much fun it would be to drive. It's
| extremely fake/in bad taste/disconnected from reality to
| try to sell me a Nissan Versa based on how much fun I am
| going to have in it.
| echelon wrote:
| > Source: Been on the leading edge of marketing and advertising
| for over 12 years
|
| Would you say that might be a source of bias?
|
| Look at SpaceX and Tesla. They barely advertise and have huge
| brand recognition.
|
| I'd buy Sennheiser over Beats. Krispy Kreme over Dunkin.
| Costco.
|
| My partner loves Zara.
|
| I don't have a high opinion of brands that advertise.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| SpaceX and Tesla do viral marketing, and they are really good
| at it.
|
| In a narrow sense, Tesla doesn't advertise: they don't buy ad
| spots on TV, but they certainly do it in other ways. I mean,
| SpaceX started because Elon Musk wanted to buy a Russian ICBM
| to put a small greenhouse on Mars as a publicity stunt,
| Russians said "WTF lol no", Elon Musk said "Ok, I will make
| my own rockets". I don't know if it is true but it certainly
| shows the lengths Elon Musk is ready to go when it comes to
| marketing.
|
| And you say you'd buy Sennheiser over Beats, but you
| certainly know about Beats. Everyone knows about Beats. To
| give an idea of the power of Beats relentless advertising,
| audiophiles (Beats supposed enemies) make articles like "list
| of bass heavy headphones that are better and cheaper than
| Beats" (that are not that much cheaper). It may seem like
| they are attacking Beats, but instead, they have just set
| them as a reference. Bass heavy headphones = Beats. They talk
| smugly about how Beats prioritize form over function
| (Headphones that look cool = Beats). Guess what someone who
| wants bass heavy headphones that look cool will buy, even
| though they Beats is far from the only one offering such
| products?
|
| You won't buy Beats, they don't care, you are not their
| target. If they want to capture your market, they will create
| or buy another brand, and use a different marketing strategy.
| mihaaly wrote:
| They actually make their products more expensive than
| necessary by making the client pay for something they have no
| use for: advertisement - making it less competitive by this
| extra price. I avoid heavily advertised product when I have a
| choice (and when not, then it has just no benefit for the
| company to pay for advertisement: I'd buy it without adverts
| for the same price.)
| zhdc1 wrote:
| Academics divide awareness into status (perceived quality)
| effects and reputation (actual quality) effects. Paid
| marketing influences both, but there are other ways of
| getting your name out there, and some companies are better at
| it than others.
|
| > I'd buy Sennheiser over Beats
|
| Sennheiser has a higher reputational quality than Beats, but
| most people know of Beats because of Beats' affiliations
| (status) and their large marketing budget.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > They barely advertise and have huge brand recognition.
|
| The show rooms they have at most higher end shopping malls
| are definitely an advertisement. I'm with you on Sennheiser
| though.
| handmodel wrote:
| I think its fair to say that the reasons a rocket company
| does not need to advertise dont apply to companies that
| people buy weekly/monthly on a grocery store shelf.
|
| Besides, the advertising budget of other government
| contractors/satellite companies is also close to zero.
|
| The better question is "If I ran Pepsi today - would I
| drastically lower the advertising budget". I'm not sure what
| my move would be but I don't think looking at short term ROI
| of TV ads would be informative.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Also Tesla does not 'need' to advertise, yet.
|
| It is effectively advertised by everyone for Elon for near
| 0 dollars. Launch a rocket (different company) the article
| will mention Tesla _for them_. Talk about saving the
| environment guess who gets mentioned. Talk about power
| needs, Tesla comes up as cars are becoming a large consumer
| of electricity, solar, coal, nuke, etc.
|
| His advertising is basically being done for free by
| companies who do not even really realize it.
| echelon wrote:
| > rocket company does not need to advertise dont apply to
| companies that people buy weekly/monthly on a grocery store
| shelf.
|
| Starlink? That's consumer-facing.
| handmodel wrote:
| I think if we get to the point where they are trying to
| get people to switch their cell phone or internet plans -
| they will do more traditional tv/online advertising.
|
| That being said - I don't think a successful one-time
| advertising push by a completely new field speaks to the
| long-term benefits of it once they (presumably) become
| established.
| btilly wrote:
| And yet https://cometcleaner.com/ is an enduring consumer
| brand that has been around for decades and does basically
| no advertising.
|
| A story that I remember from the 80s is that the brought in
| a consultant to improve sales. Rather than advertising,
| they opted to add one more hole to their cans. Sales went
| up 20%.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Those aren't great examples.
|
| SpaceX and Tesla absolutely have marketing in the forum of a
| crazy CEO that makes the news a lot. SpaceX fancy rockets
| gives him a platform to spew crazy shit all the time and the
| media loves it.
|
| Beats makes inferior products and yet has twice the revenue
| of Sennheiser. That's because of marketing.
| andreilys wrote:
| _And for these reasons hard if not impossible to measure or
| control for confounders - but that doesn 't mean it doesn't
| work!!_
|
| One of the ways that advertisers and marketing people stay
| employed is they say that the output of their effort and money
| spent is not quantifiable.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| When I walk into the store there are a very limited number of
| colas on offer: a can of pepsi, a can of coke, etc.
|
| What exactly is the advert _for_? My choice has largely been
| made.
| hammock wrote:
| A lot of marketing money is "paid" (simplifying here, but I
| can expand if desired) to get that shelf space from the
| store, as well, in ways that you probably didn't
| know/haven't thought about.
| bluGill wrote:
| depends on the Store. WalMart doesn't sell shelf space
| the way most others do. Though WalMart is doing their own
| something that I don't understand.
| handmodel wrote:
| I think I have the opposite reaction from the same data.
| The reason I can't get my own sugar water on a grocery
| store shelf is because the grocery store doesn't want to
| give space to something that only sells half as well. And,
| they are humans too, so I'm sure they are biased by the
| ads/perception of what they think other people want.
|
| I think a lot of the long-term bonus of ads is to simply
| build a moat that other competitors find difficult to
| surmount.
| nickff wrote:
| I think you're overlooking a couple of grocery-specific
| issues.
|
| Many major retailers will require that new brands invest
| a certain amount of money in advertising product to their
| region/market before stocking the product. It's also
| common to 'lease' shelf space to manufacturers.
| handmodel wrote:
| I think we largely agree. I know people who have launched
| food items (bug snacks) that were piloted in a dozen or
| so Whole Foods. They didn't sell enough in the trial
| period that they weren't given offer/lease to return.
|
| It was a super niche product they were making but were up
| against a couple products that I've at least seen ads for
| online. I think, theoretically, if those other companies
| didn't have a brand presence then perhaps my friends
| snacks would have had a slightly better shot at staying
| on the shelfs. However, from the other products data they
| may have seen no short-term gain from their ads.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| 1. You may already have a brand, but many don't - so they
| want people to switch.
|
| 2. People who don't drink soda need to get hooked somehow!
|
| 3. Increasing consumption. Think about the "Got Milk?"
| campaigns of the 90s - they weren't saying "drink XYZ brand
| milk", they were looking to increase milk consumption.
|
| I think #3 is probably the biggest factor, tbh. That's why
| you see ads for cotton, milk, beef, avocado, etc.
| bluGill wrote:
| #3 is because there are middlemen that don't count. The
| middlemen in dairy want you to buy their brand of milk.
| However the guy who owns the cows sells to whichever
| dairy gives the best deal (the big farms all have a
| contract with one dairy to supply only them, but there
| are enough small guys who sell to who ever they can). The
| guy who owns the cows wants you to buy milk and doesn't
| care what brand it is.
|
| The same applies to the others you named: sure there are
| brand, but there is something large below the brand that
| doesn't care what brand, only that you are eating.
| nickff wrote:
| I think you're missing the biggest reason for product
| advertising, which is to notify/remind potential
| users/consumers that the product exists.
|
| Many people are unaware that a given product exists at
| all, and others are unaware of all its potential uses;
| even occasional users can sometimes forget that they
| liked a product or found it useful.
| hogFeast wrote:
| Exactly. The cost and effectiveness of advertising is why
| there are a limited number of choices. Your choice has been
| made for you.
| ghaff wrote:
| A lot of marketing activity is measured these days. A lot of
| the measurement ends up being through proxies that may
| correlate poorly with what you really care about. But you
| might be surprised at the amount of data associated with
| marketing campaigns, content marketing, events, and so forth.
| It's a _lot_ more than used to be the case.
| hogFeast wrote:
| It clearly is quantifiable. The market is changing but if you
| capitalize advertising costs in financial results then you
| see that long-term investment in advertising does produce
| results, and companies in these industries view this
| investment as their moat (and btw, if you sell a FMCG into a
| grocer, they will want to know what you are investing into
| the brand...they know it works too).
|
| Now, to be clear, this isn't the same thing as saying that
| all TV advertising has a positive ROI. It doesn't, I would
| guess that most is negative. But it is also true that there
| are a small number of firms who have made it work (as in most
| things, 80/20), and most of this gain is not easily
| measurable over discrete periods...it is continuous
| investment over decades.
|
| But the market has clearly changed. People are spending their
| time doing different things. I think TV advertising time at
| certain periods is maybe cheap, but almost all the rest is
| overvalued junk. AdTech online isn't particularly well
| developed for this kind of campaign, online advertising isn't
| particularly effective either (the move to intention doesn't
| fit the long-term strategy that FMCG and similar big buyers
| of TV ads have) but it is probably more effective. Maybe if
| TV costs go down this will change, but...I don't know (radio
| and door-to-door is undervalued imo).
| nemothekid wrote:
| But it's hard to refute the case that it's not true. I
| haven't watched TV in years nor have I seen Coca Cola bear in
| a time longer than that but I'm still acutely aware of Coca
| Cola's brand.
|
| Another example where this is more clearly felt is consumer
| goods. I always buy Tide - I couldn't tell you why until
| someone pointed it out to me. When I went to college and had
| to buy detergent there was easily 10 brands of detergent and
| Tide felt the safest. I've been watching Tide ads for the
| better part of 18 years and I feel that had to have some
| decision into why I paid a 10% premium for the brand.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| ==One of the ways that advertisers and marketing people stay
| employed is they say that the output of their effort and
| money spent is not quantifiable.==
|
| It gets quantified as "Goodwill" any time a company is valued
| (acquisition, IPO, investment, etc.) or releases financial
| statement (it's on the balance sheet).
|
| Coca-Cola is coming up a lot in this discussion. They have
| Goodwill of $17.7 billion, along with additional intangible
| assets of $11.2 billion. That $29 billion of Goodwill makes
| up about 32% of Coke's total assets of $90 billion.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/KO/balance-sheet?p=KO
| hengri wrote:
| I was under the impression that marketing costs fall under
| a cost of revenue column and goodwill is just a BS account
| item to account for differences in money spent and 'market
| value' during m&a.
|
| See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp
| ghaff wrote:
| Not market value as the term is usually used. Value of
| assets less liabilities.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| The third sentence of your link:
|
| "The value of a company's brand name, solid customer
| base, good customer relations, good employee relations,
| and proprietary technology represent some reasons why
| goodwill exists."
|
| The first three are directly tied to advertising and
| brand-building. You call it "BS" for some reason (you
| seem not to believe in it), but it is a real thing and we
| have financial methods to account for it.
| dudeman13 wrote:
| >we have financial methods to account for it.
|
| Could you go over some of them or point to some resource?
| I'd love to learn more!
| bokstavkjeks wrote:
| > You call it "BS" for some reason (you seem not to
| believe in it)
|
| The balance sheet is typically abbreviated as BS, so a BS
| account is a balance sheet account.
|
| It's been a while since I've had anything to do with
| goodwill, but if I remember correctly it's most commonly
| the difference in the assets net market value and the
| purchase price of a company. So if company A buys company
| B, which has assets of $50 for $100, then they'll add $50
| in goodwill to account for the difference.
|
| This is, of course, a simplification as I'm sure goodwill
| is regulated under GAAP/IFRS. But it does mean that you
| can't use goodwill to accurately estimate the effects of
| brand advertising as there could reasons other than brand
| marketing for a company being traded above its assets'
| fair market value at the time of the sale.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| ==So if company A buys company B, which has assets of $50
| for $100, then they'll add $50 in goodwill to account for
| the difference.==
|
| Goodwill is an asset and we frequently see it monetized.
| It isn't just a made-up number to make things balance, it
| is a stand-in for particularly "hard-to-value" assets
| like perception. Ford famously licensed their logo and
| built a $1 billion business [0]. Prior to the licensing
| deal, that value would have only been captured as
| Goodwill on Ford's balance sheet. It is the value of the
| blue shield that they have built over decades of company
| performance and advertising.
|
| ==But it does mean that you can't use goodwill to
| accurately estimate the effects of brand advertising as
| there could reasons other than brand marketing for a
| company being traded above its assets' fair market value
| at the time of the sale.==
|
| Goodwill is a combination of many things, one of the
| largest pieces being brand value. Publicly traded
| companies generate a Goodwill number each time they
| release a financial statement.
|
| [0]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/05/24/ford-
| has-bu...)
| scott00 wrote:
| Goodwill only ever shows up as the result of an
| acquisition. If a company with a book value of $1B gets
| acquired for $10B, the balance sheet of the acquirer will
| see its goodwill increase by $9B after the acquisition
| closes. Nobody's doing a bottom up estimate of brand value
| to come up with that $9B, it's just the fudge factor double
| entry accounting needs in order to make the Equity =
| Assests - Liabilities equation continue to hold.
| zeusk wrote:
| Why not just pare down the assets by $9B to reflect the
| expenditure of acquisition?
| rmah wrote:
| I don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure it's tax
| related. I'll bet companies would _love_ to be able to do
| that. Because then that company could deduct that capital
| loss from their income to lower or eliminate their tax
| burden.
| tlogan wrote:
| This is exactly the problem: it is impossible to measure how
| much advertising helps. And maybe there are some measurements
| but they are not known.
|
| You might be right or you might be wrong. For example, I do not
| see Tesla commercials on TV so I wonder if they will sell more
| cars in next decade if they advertise as other car companies?
| Is Tesla making a mistake?
| captaincaveman wrote:
| If a competitive alternative cool electric car appears, and
| they use advertising to steer the opinion of the public of
| being the best electric cars on the market ... I think Tesla
| will start advertising!
| bluGill wrote:
| > it is impossible to measure how much advertising helps
|
| That is false. It is impossible to measure exactly, but
| statistics can put a range on it, confidence intervals, and
| other such things (which I've mostly forgotten since school).
| We can measure all this to close enough.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > And for these reasons hard if not impossible to measure or
| control for confounders
|
| Are you saying that you don't know if long term brand
| advertisement works?
| altdataseller wrote:
| Absolutely not. It's hard for me to tell how much of an
| effect exercising will have on my lifespan. Will it add 4.5
| years? 10 years?
|
| But I know that exercising daily will most likely have a
| positive effect.
| [deleted]
| Alexss wrote:
| It's marginal ROI which is negative for 80%. Overall ROI for
| advertising is negative ROI for 2/3rds of brands (still v. high,
| obviously).
| modzu wrote:
| another effective means of increasing sales is to threaten people
| with violence if they dont purchase your products. of course
| these days thats not really tolerated. im not sure when, but i
| hope some day we stop tolerating the pollution of modern
| advertising
| giantg2 wrote:
| How do the tax write-offs factor in? It seems almost impossible
| that advertising doesn't provide benefit when you consider the
| money would have otherwise gone to taxes.
| weego wrote:
| That's not how taxes work. It's also kind of damming of the
| entire industry if that's the fallback excuse for existing.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm wondering if that was a factor in the marginal net
| negative calculations. That could be enough to switch them
| positive.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It is not an issue because taxes are on profit, not revenue.
| Needlessly wasting revenue shrinks profit faster than it
| shrinks tax liability.
|
| e.g. You don't burn a dollar to save 20 cents on income tax
| because you are still loosing 80 cents.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If they can't get 80% back, that's pretty bad. I was
| wondering how these marginal net negative numbers worked. If
| they're saying it's 95% back, then that's still higher than
| 80%.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Think of this way: You have $2 profit. You can take it
| paying 0.4 in taxes, leaving 1.6 after taxes.
|
| OR
|
| You have $2, reinvest an extra $1 on marketing with 80%
| return. You now have 1.8 total profit. You pay 0.36 in
| taxes, leaving 1.46
|
| You will always loose money if the marketing ROI is less
| than 100%
| malshe wrote:
| Can you elaborate your calculation more? Are you using $1
| from the $2 profit to reinvest in advertising? Also are
| you getting an 80% return on that $1 meaning getting back
| $1.8? ($1 investment in advertising + $0.8 profit)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| In short, %80 return means that if you spend 1.0, you
| only get back 0.8. You forever lose the $1 spent, but get
| more sales and worth $0.8 after costs.
|
| Here are more details (repeated for clarity)
|
| Assumptions: 20% corporate tax rate (assessed on total
| profit) 80% Marginal rate of return for advertising (next
| dollar you can spend)
|
| 1) You have $2 profit (before taxes). You can take it and
| pay $0.4 in taxes, leaving $1.6 after taxes.
|
| OR
|
| You have $2 profit (before taxes), You spend an extra $1
| on marketing with 80% return. The $1 spent on advertising
| returns you $0.8. You now have 1.8 total profit. You pay
| 20% ($0.36) in taxes, leaving 1.46
|
| You will always loose money if the marketing ROI is less
| than 100%
| malshe wrote:
| Ok, thanks for the explanation. I got confused because of
| your definition of ROI. Normally, ROI of 80% would mean
| you invest $1 and get back $1.8 in return. see https://ww
| w.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp. What
| you described will mean -20% return and not 80% return.
| But I get the point you are making and I agree with it.
| malshe wrote:
| This is a great point, and the authors don't take it into
| account. Expensing advertising certainly provides tax shield
| and it will make a significant difference at the margin.
|
| Edit: The taxation become relevant while considering expensing
| vs capitalizing advertising. I am not an accountant but from
| what I understand, at least in the US, advertising is commonly
| expensed.
| lupire wrote:
| Title is critically incorrect.
|
| It should be:
|
| > The ROI analysis shows negative ROIs _at the margin_ for more
| than 80% of brands, implying _over-investment_ in advertising by
| most firms.
| evancox100 wrote:
| You are correct, but if you look at total instead of marginal
| the picture's not much better. While 80% of brands have
| negative marginal ROI, 67% (2/3) have negative net ROI, and so
| would presumably be better off with zero advertising.
| singhrac wrote:
| Not necessarily. The thing to measure is the marginal ROI at
| zero advertising spend. Derivatives are not bounded by their
| average value across a range.
| rhizome wrote:
| I'm not an MBA nor even a math person really, what is the
| "I" in this equation when the ad spend is zero?
| zeusk wrote:
| You just take the interval (0, inf). So you analyze it as
| limit spend -> 0+ in that region.
|
| My personal opinion however is that ad industry is a big
| scam.
| mlyle wrote:
| The claim was: "67% (2/3) have negative net ROI, and so
| would presumably be better off with zero advertising."
|
| If they truly have negative net ROI, they would be better
| off with zero spending than their actual spending. The
| claim holds.
|
| > The thing to measure is the marginal ROI at zero
| advertising spend. Derivatives are not bounded by their
| average value across a range.
|
| OK, so if we're going to get super pedantic... the
| derivative could be negative at the current value, and at
| zero, and there could be a positive ROI for _some_ value of
| spending (between 0 and the amount spent, or even for some
| value _more_ than what was spent). But it 's not really
| likely, nor relevant to the point the person above made.
| evancox100 wrote:
| Furthering the pedantry, even assuming monotonically
| decreasing ROI as ad spending increases, as long as ROI
| of the first dollar was positive, there would be some
| optimum between zero and current levels. But my original
| statement still holds, zero would be preferable to
| current levels of spending for those brands.
| mbesto wrote:
| I can't see the whole article, but if they don't mention
| advertising for brand recognition then they are missing half
| the puzzle (i.e. indirect effectiveness, which is almost
| impossible to measure).
|
| Coca Cola doesn't shower 16-25 year males with ads because they
| think they'll walk out the door and go buy a can of Coke. They
| do it because when they have discretionary income (age 22+),
| they recognize the brand. This is impossible to measure
| precisely.
| dang wrote:
| Submitted title was "Advertisement has a negative return on
| investment for more than 80% of brands", which broke the site
| guidelines, which ask: " _Please use the original title, unless
| it is misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._". We've
| fixed it now.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Animats wrote:
| TV ads.
|
| Where you can't measure response rate directly.
| jondwillis wrote:
| The editorialized title here should probably be changed...
| ohazi wrote:
| Also where "modern" "smart" platforms decide it's acceptable to
| chop up a video into a dozen slices and insert the same. exact.
| ad. in between each segment, causing half the viewers to swear
| off that brand for life?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Similarly, the only game I play on my phone is a card game,
| and ever since I visited my company's website to check on
| something, our Google ad is shown between hands almost 90% of
| the time. I never click on it, so you'd think they'd stop
| showing it after the 500th time (it's been weeks since I
| visited the website). Is that just a ploy by Google to
| overcharge us for advertising?
| wyldfire wrote:
| I don't know if it's for a lack of bidders, or if the ads are
| that way by design. Some of what you're paying for is brand
| identification and repetitive commercials are one way to get
| that. Despite however annoying it might seem. The pool being
| advertised to will consider the advertised brand when
| 'Good/Service Need X' arises, whereas they likely would not
| without the ads.
| 015a wrote:
| Hulu is one of the worst at this, and it's astounding to me
| how seemingly willfully dumb advertisers can be.
|
| It makes me think that no one in this industry actually
| cares. You've got marketing and advertising executives
| commanding eight figure budgets, inventing whatever metrics
| they need to showcase success and protect their jobs. They
| pay YouTube, Hulu, Samsung, etc millions, who provide back
| whatever engineered metrics they need to keep getting those
| paychecks.
|
| You'd think there'd at least be some evidence in mapping
| advertising spend back to revenue, but I suspect that the
| platforms who can actually do this (e.g. Etsy) don't last
| very long or see worse advertising revenue, because it
| becomes startlingly obvious how poorly advertising works
| (especially when automated at scale).
|
| It's a house of cards, with so many people deeply invested,
| spending their entire careers justifying their position, that
| it probably wont ever change.
| sfblah wrote:
| This is exactly the dynamic we see in my company working on
| search ads.
| lupire wrote:
| 50% is tiny. I'd estimate most YouTube product ads only sell
| to <1% of the population.
| sfblah wrote:
| I work for a company involved in search engine advertising.
|
| While it's technically possible to track conversions, very very
| few customers actually do it. Some don't have a great way to
| track it (health-care products where there's a privacy issue,
| brand advertising, informational advertising, services where
| there's no obvious immediate call to action, etc.)
|
| Even among those who do track "conversions," I'd say under 10%
| of them actually define a conversion as something where money
| is exchanged immediately, which makes it hard to defraud. More
| than half of the conversion tracking we see just requires the
| user to spend a certain amount of time on the website, visit a
| certain number of pages or to provide an email address.
|
| Not surprisingly, we see a massive dropoff in conversion
| percentage when money needs to change hands. It's more than
| 90%. Also, not surprisingly, when some action is required for
| conversion, we see more than half of the visitors taking that
| exact action and nothing more.
|
| Our analysis of the above is that more than half of clickers on
| search ads, and probably more like 80%+ are just bots (or human
| "bots" in clickfarms) clicking the ads and then pretending to
| convert. Their incentive is that they are clicking ads on
| search pages where they get a share of the revenue.
|
| Interestingly, when we alert customers to this dynamic and try
| to get them to shift their ad spend or conversion tracking to
| prevent this kind of behavior, they actively do not care and
| prevent us from doing it. Our analysis there is that marketing
| managers in general know that what they're doing is largely
| ineffective, but they don't want to admit that to their bosses
| because then it puts their jobs at risk.
|
| So, what we do is help them maximize where we can, without
| pushing them too hard on the above: "Humankind cannot bear very
| much reality."
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Have you considered that the marketing managers are the ones
| hiring the bots to meet their goals for a bonus?
| mateo411 wrote:
| It's harder to measure than digital ads, but plenty of
| companies measure the effectiveness of TV ads.
| bluGill wrote:
| > Where you can't measure response rate directly.
|
| You can never measure response rate directly. There will always
| be people who see your ad and then respond later (possibly by
| some other ad on a different platform that they wouldn't have
| responded to in the first place otherwise). This might or might
| not matter to you.
|
| The large companies who buy ads have statistical departments
| tracking their ad response. They know how well the ads work to
| close enough for their purposes. Those departments don't need
| the direct response rate because there are better measures.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| The problem with advertising is that I waste 80% of the budget.
| The real problem is that you can't determine which 80%.
| cbsks wrote:
| Here's a link where you can actually view the paper:
| https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273...
|
| There is also an interactive website where you can play around
| with some of the data: https://advertising-
| effects.chicagobooth.edu/
|
| Both are linked from the lead author's website:
| https://voices.uchicago.edu/bradleyshapiro/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-27 23:01 UTC)