Customer Needs and Solutions

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 81–93 | Cite as

An Integrated Procedure to Pretest and Select Advertising Campaigns for TV

Research Article

Abstract

Current practice of TV advertising campaign generation usually starts with a small number of concepts and ends up with a final copy on TV, a funneling process that narrows down quickly without reliably testing the ad concepts’ effectiveness in market. Is this practice optimal? Should more ad copies be generated for testing? We propose a model and evaluation procedure to improve the ad copy generation and evaluation process. We conceptualize the process as first generating a number of alternative advertising campaigns from advertising creative and production sources, screening those campaigns with some advertising pretest methodologies which have specified validity and reliability, and then picking the best campaign based upon the screening. Our method involves variability and distribution of campaign profits, which makes it possible for ad executives to take the risk of investment into consideration. As an empirical illustration, based on estimates of the variability of profitability of alternative TV campaigns by a small sample of senior marketing executives for consumer products, we show a large sum of incremental profit could potentially be obtained if TV advertisers would screen alternative TV campaigns with pretests of modest reliability and validity. We also show how the pretesting community can estimate the validity and reliability of their tests.

Keywords

Advertising Decision making Copy test 

Supplementary material

40547_2016_65_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 43 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cox J, Crang D, Vollman A (2010) When advertising Goes Digital. comScoreGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gross I (1972) The creative aspects of advertising. Sloan Manage Rev 14:83–109Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu Y, Lodish LM, Abba K (2007) A meta-analysis of real world TV advertising tests: a 15-year update. J Advert Res 47(3):341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu Y, Lodish LM, Abba K, Babak H (2009) An update of real-world TV advertising tests. J Advert Res 49(2):29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distributions, vol 1. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lodish Leonard M, Abraham Magid M, Livelsberger J, Lubetkin B, Richardson B, Stevens ME (1995) A summary of fifty-five in-market experimental estimates of the long-term effect of TV advertising. Mark Sci 14(3_supplement):G133–G140. doi:10.1287/mksc.14.3.G133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lodish LM, Magid A, Kalmenson S, Livelsberger J, Lubetkin B, Richardson B, Stevens ME (1995) How T.V. advertising works: a meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable T.V. Advertising Experiments. J Mark Res 32(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and interpretation. Q J Econ 107(2):573–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lukovitz K (2015) Top 100 CPG Brands' Sales, Market Share Down, Even As Overall Categories Grow. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/259293/top-100-cpg-brands-sales-market-share-down-even.html. Accessed January 1 2016
  12. 12.
    McFadden D (1980) Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski CF, McFadden D (eds) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data. M.I.T. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearson Egon S, Hartley Herman O (1976) Biometrika tables for statisticians. Biometrika Trust, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tellis GJ (2004) Effectiveness advertising: understanding when, how, and why advertising works. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1(1):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Cost of Advertising Nationally Broken Down by Medium (2014) WebpageFX. http://www.webpagefx.com/blog/business-advice/the-cost-of-advertising-nationally-broken-down-by-medium/
  17. 17.
    Vranica S (2014) Average CMO Tenure: 45 months (but that’s an improvement). Wall Street JGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worden N (2010) Advertising decline weighs on New York Times. Wall Street JGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.C.T. Bauer College of BusinessUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations