I recently received a response to a note I sent to a colleague of mine who works for a Fortune 50 company now. He heads up their research. I worked with him at Harris Interactive (http://www.harrisinteractive.com) where he designed a Media Measurement tool, which was able to determine Return on Investment based upon media spending down to the T. 

The funny thing about it is that companies and clients are touting ROI as some sort of panacea and accountability tool that they demand... or else!

Or they use it as an excuse to blow off new ideas that most likely would “work” but could get them fired… which seems to be the number one metric used today to select media. Second is you pick it.  

Well guess what? No one really "gets it." (if you do, please feel free to share.)

I asked him why I keep reading articles about ROI and different measures and the confusion that surrounds it.  It seems as if everyone wants something that gives a solid return on their advertising and marketing but I have yet to speak to anyone, big company or small, that can really tell me what they are getting. They do not know. They are still guessing.

I am taking a leap here but am assuming that you are too.   

Stories abound about General Managers at Dealerships seeing the end of the month coming and begging for more support as they always have done. I need more radio. I need more TV. SCREAM LOUDER! I need more this or that. Just get them on the lot. Bait and switch. It's illegal, but so what! Everyone else is doing it so we have to as well.  

A top notch Agency recently lost an account because they were actually establishing a strong brand identity for a Client while at the same time keeping a common thread to the campaign in call to action messaging. Wow. What a concept! (The Client has gone back to screaming and yelling and that isn’t working because consumers don’t believe it and blow it off.) 

At least Cal Worthington and his dog Spot was memorable and stood for something. 

What they really need is a customer base that understands what they stand for so that when it is time to buy a car, they go and buy it from them. The problem is, very little or no differentiation. 

I actually asked the following questions to the MARKETING DIRECTOR at a MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE GROUP.  

“What does your group stand for? What do people think of when they hear your name? What does your slogan mean to people?” 

She sat there… tongue tied and actually got pissed that I had asked the so called “hard questions” to which she had no answer.  

I didn’t think they were hard questions to answer other than the fact that their advertising didn’t mean anything to me and I had no idea what they stood for.

The problem is that they either don’t understand that no one knows what they are or don’t care… so they keep relying on the “bait and switch” and who can scream loudest “bs-fest.”  

Fix it? Forget that! That would be work and take imagination. So the quality of advertising and marketing is reduced to its lowest form that people don’t believe anymore… and it is killing the industry. 

Back to the research exchange. I asked him why I kept reading articles about ROI confusion and whatever happened to the research product he developed that would stand today as THE WAY.   

"Seamus,   

"Name Omitted" killed the product at Harris.  

As you know the industry is slow to embrace change, mostly because adding uncertainty is perceived to endanger existing revenue. 

Look at the Advertising Research Foundation. Their big initiative in 2008 is now place based - point of purchase.  

The media companies and research suppliers that make up the board of directors of the ARF passed up several opportunities to direct the ARF's focus and lead the industry to better and more predictive ad accountability measurement.  

If an industry association with a charter to further the state of the art on advertising measurement does not make this a priority - - what group will?  

Only the advertisers and some agencies are the ones that care about these issues. However there has yet to be a forum/association that exists in which they are willing to share proprietary data with one another.

New measurement systems like TRA and IAG lack the ability to disaggregate the creative from the media effects and factor in all the other touch points that contribute to brand perceptions ad effectiveness. 

Look to one major Advertiser that cracks the accountability code first. It will then be a stampede by research suppliers to mimic or try to improve on this." 

End.  

So. When I hear "we are using media that is more "trackable" I have to ask, "how do you measure your roi?" The response is typically, “If our sales go up, then it works.” This is a great one too. Someone actually said this to me. "We only use Outdoor when we have something important to say like a new grand opening or if sales are down at a particular location." 

Huh? Isn't everything you say important? If sales are x then why wouldn't you move to y? It doesn't cost any more to do it. It only costs more if your mix stays the same based upon ancient beliefs that certain media must maintain a certain level. 

Those media you are thinking of will end up costing you much more to maintain because they are not as robust, hold attention or reach as many people as they used to.

You have to keep buying more. It's as bad as a drug addiction. To get the same "high" you have to increase your spending on your habit because the old 6 beers or you know what just doesn't do it for me anymore. 

A CEO from IPG told me that while the internet allows for tracking and they pay for click throughs only with the caveat that certain information is downloaded… He added that no one is going to click on something that doesn't have support behind it in terms of brand recognition. Offline support makes the internet what it is. Not the other way around. 

The internet is another channel for sales and communication. If it were the ultimate panacea, then everyone would take ALL of their dollars and shift them to the web. Not happening.   

In these times where the dollars are tighter, doesn't the medium that is the most efficient and least avoidable make the most sense?

The largest advertisers in the world use Outdoor, not because they "can," but because they know that their brands are their livelihood.  

The addition of digital to Outdoor makes it a twin killing. You can not only reach people where they are, but you can talk to them with several messages that include brand and call to action. 

The old model that most are still using today (even though they say they are not) does not work as it used to. 

Do we throw more money into what we have been doing because it doesn't work as well as it used to? Or do we open our eyes to what moves the needle for our clients with incredible strategic and creative messaging?  

Reach more people, more often with an on target, relevant and outstanding concept and you will sell more product. 

That my friend... is ROI. 

Any rants, debate, questions or comments are welcome. 

Seamus Fitzpatrick 

President  

Vision Media Consulting