With all due respect, I had written you back in September about a situation I was encountering (below) and received a response that I found extrememly puzzling. You said that my question had to do with copy opposed to media. Guru, copy is a part of media and a vital one at that. You also sent me to a link where you mentioned wear out. I went to the link and didn't find much to answer my question. Being sincere with my next question, why do you spend time to respond in depth to people with ridiculous questions (How do I buy spot cable, what's a CPM, etc) from people who could find the simple answer in a "Media 101" book, while mine is a rationale, functioning question and concern? Product life (packaging influenced) is also part of media. Why blow all of this off?
Dear Guru, 2 Qs: 1.) My client created a TV ad campaign and RIGHT before we launched, a competitor with lower quality/lower price/larger packaging had close to the SAME TV ad campaign! I feel product confusion has happened between my client's premium brand and that of the less expensive "knock-off" product. Do you concur? Any research to back this theory? 2.) Because of my theory, I have advised my client to change ads IMMEDIATELY. They have agreed and we will begin to advertise our OLD ADS starting October. I feel "ad quality restoration" has been achieved through our previous ad's 6 month hiatus. My client and I find that our campaigns last for about 6 months before we experience ad wearout, based on copy and frequency wearout. However, returning to an OLD AD where we are basing campaign results on ad quality restoration, how long will our old ads last, given new ads burnout in 6 months? should we plan on only 3 months since the audience will quickly remember the ads again? Your thoughts? Any research to back this up? Please help! -Media guru grasshopper.
The Media Guru Answers(Sunday, September 14, 2003 ):
Much of this question is about copy and product, not media. Regarding the wearout issue, there will probably be quicker wearout than with a new ad, but that is hard to quantify.
1.) Regarding copy vs. media, quite simply, you are wrong.
Advertising is two essential elements:
Copy (creative message or "the Ad," and
media, the vehicles (TV/Radio/Magazines/Outdoor/Online) which deliver the Ad to the audience.
The Guru deals with the planning, buying and analysis of media. This has nothing to do with copy, the advertising message itself except to decide whether the media is suitable to carry the message and communicate effectively with the target audience. Often, a media professional determines for which media copy should be created to best reach or influence the target, but this is far from deciding marketing or message strategy.
2.) The Guru's past responses about wearout include 50+ more or less detailed comments on the topic, which is a subjective concept at best. If you can define wear out, you can measure it.
3.) The Guru's stated purpose is to answer questions about media planning/buying/research. People who aske "media 101" questions didn't take the course, and the Guru would not accomplish much by telling half his users to look at a text book. Occasionally, that might be the only answer, but the Guru preferes to deal directly with media questions.
If you have signed up for a media position but have found yourself making copy decisions, that's a problem. But not a media problem. Luckily for you, AMIC offers a double-your-money-back on the fee for using the Guru, if you are not satisfied with the answers.