The other day I was reviewing a media plan for a client. It was the standard media fare:target identification,channel analysis,reach and frequency. What struck me was a slide stating the 70% of the target would be reached 8+ times.
Hm. Eight-plus times infers someone should remember. After all effective frequency has been historically set at 3+ times —or is it?
The concept of effective frequency is widely misunderstood. As well as the idea of “three-plus”times is the minimal exposure for any media campaign. Regardless of ads. Regardless of target.
You can trace effective frequency and three-plus exposurs to Harold Krugman’s work while an employee at General Electric. Herbert E. Krugman wrote,“The Impact of Television Advertising:Learning without Involvement” His theory has been adopted and widely use in the advertising arena. The following is what he wrote:
“Let me try to explain the special qualities of one,two and three exposures. I stop at three because as you shall see there is no such thing as a fourth exposure psychologically;rather fours,fives,etc.,are repeats of the third exposure effect.
“Exposure No. 1 is…a “What is it?”type of…response. Anything new or novel no matter how uninteresting on second exposure has to elicit some response the first time…if only to discard the object as of no further interest…The second exposure…response…is “What of it?”…whether or not [the message] has personal relevance…
“By the third exposure the viewer knows he’s been through his “What is it’s?”and “What of it’s?,”and the third,then,becomes the true reminder . . . The importance of this view . . . is that it positions advertising as powerful only when the viewer…is interested in the [product message]…Secondly,it positions the viewer as…reacting to the commercial—very quickly…when the proper time comes round.
“There is a myth in the advertising world that viewers will forget your message if you don’t repeat your advertising often enough. It is this myth that supports many large advertising expenditures…I would rather say the public comes closer to forgetting nothing they have seen on TV. They just “put it out of their minds”until and unless it has some use . . . and [then] the response to the commercial continues.”
Further analysis of Mr. Krugman’s effective frequency theory and today’s use of media models identify several other deficiencies:recognition and resonance.
Probably the biggest deficiency any model is target receptiveness. Models are based on exposure not recognition. In other words,although someone is exposed to a message,it does not mean they recognize (and respond) to the exposure. Even Mr. Krugman used terms like new and novel to describe a commercial. Keep in mind his work was completed in the mid-1960′s,when there was just three networks,and commercials could stand out due to the relatively little advertising clutter. Today,it is a different story. Except for the Super Bowl Commercials,commercials are everywhere,and the vast majority of ads are hardly novel —they are mostly un-memorable.
Taking this premise a step further,there is a lack of breakthrough commercials. Close your eyes and envision a car commercial,a restaurant commercial,a mobile commercial. Is the commercial generic and non-descript? Or is the commercial from a specific manufacturer? One that is unique —stands out from the competition.
If you put your commercial in concert with the competition —are you following an industry formula? From a target perspective is your commercial truly novel? Is it relevant —does it resonate?
Or do you need eight-plus exposures to get noticed?
