Almost everybody in industry agrees that advertising effectiveness is one of the most difficult things to measure. Thomas (2008) suggests that the advertising industry has the poorest quality assurance system and produces the most inconsistent product of any industry in the world. This is a bold statement, but not without some truths in it. One of the main reasons why advertising effectiveness is so difficult to measure is because traditionally, it has been one-way communication. The advertising industry received little objective feedback to help them improve on their next campaigns (Thomas, 2008). Unfortunately, sales data is unreliable due to the amount of ‘noise’ such as economic trends, competitive activity, weather etc. Only recently through the use of social media and two-way communication strategies, has this been improved. Nonetheless, this has not stopped both practitioners and academics trying to create a model to help gage the effectiveness of advertising and prescribing their own recommendations.
Back in 1956, Mindak prescribed a very simple 3 step evaluation process for the effectiveness of advertising. These three steps are (Mindak, 1956, p. 377):
1. Must get the attention and interest of prospective customers. But not for attention sake alone! To those people pay attention an advertisement…
2. Must register or communicate an idea, feeling tone or message. The idea…
3. Must bring about a more favourable attitude or disposition to buy. But this favourable disposition must set up enough prospect customers to warrant the expenditure. Therefore, it must get as much attention and interest as possible, which brings us back to level 1 again.
Using this model, the Woolworths Fresh Food People TVC will be compared to the Flea Market Montgomery TVC.
The opening trumpet in the music of the Woolworths TVC immediately captures attention. It is at such a high pitch, that it is almost physically impossible to ignore. The jingle is catchy so it does maintain the interest of the prospect customer. Attention and interest may not be maintained after a few repeats, but the ad and the slogan is definitely catchy.
There is not doubt that the Flea Market Montgomery was attention grabbing. It was such poor quality that it also maintained interest. I would argue that it grabs your attention more so than the Woolworths TVC.
So thus far, both TVCs succeed in cutting-through the clutter and gaining attention, with Flea Market Montgomery gaining more interest and attention.
The intended message for Woolworths was loud and clear. They are “freshest” in the business. The tone also created a sense of friendliness and fun.
Remarkably, Flea Market Montgomery’s message was even louder than Woolworths. The TVC told us over and over again that it’s just like a mini mall and that there are living rooms, bedrooms, dinettes, oh yeah! You can’t get much clearer than that!
So far, Flea Market Montgomery is out scoring Woolworths in both steps of the process. What a surprise! How much did they spend compared to Woolworths?? However, which message or idea brings a more favourable attitude to buy?
In the context of the competitive environment at the time of the Woolworths TVC, Woolworths were the first to market the fresh idea. All the other competitors believed that price was overwhelming motivating factor, but they eventually also jumped on the fresh bandwagon as well. Therefore Woolworths really had to own the fresh concept and positioned themselves to be the freshest. Given the context, I believe the target audience will have a favourable intent to purchase due to this idea of the freshest in the business. Because Woolworths were the first to market the fresh idea, they already had a foot in the door and a first mover’s advantage. This campaign is only consolidating that position further and therefore consumers will perceive it favourably.
Flea Market Montgomery’s idea of “it’s just like a mini mall” on the other hand does not bring a more favourable attitude to buy. If it is just like a mini mall, why should consumers go to the Flea Market? Why wouldn’t they just go to a mini mall instead where they are familiar and in their comfort zone?! This is where it all falls down for Flea Market Montgomery. The idea does not bring a favourable attitude to buy and therefore it does not complete the cycle. Not to mention the annoyance factor of the ad.
Therefore, Woolworths wins it out. It is a great example of a retail ad and how finding a new competitive advantage and sticking to it can really pay off. As for Flea Market Montgomery, please make him stop! It's just like, It's just like, It's just like.....
