Re: New Pricing Model

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Tue 18 Dec 2001 14:37:43 -0500

Alexis Brown wrote:

>On a separate note, I'm curious as to what members of
>this list think of the following in terms of reach and
>branding: the NYT sessions are interesting in that a
>unique person is going to be inundated by the messaging
>of a particular company. Do you believe the branding
>impact of that type of session campaign garners more
>conversions? Or do you think (as Matt Dooley suggested)
>that audience size is more imperative? My thought is
>that it will completely vary depending on the goal of
>the campaign, but I would be interested in hearing from
>members of the group....

Campaigns that rely on a minimum of ten impressions
before the ad recipient is moved to act need to be
rethought. That said, consider the following:

In his book, REALITY IN ADVERTISING,
advertising giant Rosser Reeves specifically
states that for his money, once the minimum
number of necessary impressions has been
reached with a target audience, advertisers
should spend remaining funds buying
"dispersion," i.e., new impressions on new
prospects.

Because of the Law of Diminishing Marginal
Returns, more money spent on more impressions
to the same audience produces a lower return
per each additional dollar invested beyond some
initial threshold than the same money spent on
impressions to a "fresh" audience (assuming
the fresh audience is as rich in prospects as
the original target audience).

In my experience, this philosophy holds up,
especially when an advertiser's actions are
tempered by research into likely purchase
cycles and the size, breadth and location
of the audience most likely to buy.

My $ 0.02

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com







Received on Tue Dec 18 2001 - 13:37:43 CST