Question

Topic: Research/Metrics

Why Or Why Not Testing

Posted by hans on 10/20/2010 at 5:05 AM ET 250 Points
Hi,

I'am looking for opinions/facts on why or why not testing.

If I am an advertiser that never have been in television before and if I'am insecure of how it would turn out in different ways how should I reason.

Either I'am afraid of the costs for buying space and then would like to test in a smaller regional market and at the same time be more secure if the communication works. I know there are many implications as I can test the commercial on focus groups to be more convinced and so forth.

I need opinions on advantages/disadvantages by testing commercial on TV for a regional market before going national.

It's within consumer goods and it's a brand within retail with stores nationally.

Regards
Hans
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted on 10/20/2010 at 8:23 AM Moderator
    Before you commit to a large expenditure on a national basis, it would be nice to know if the commercial you're about to run is likely to accomplish your objective. After all, once the money has been spent, you'd be terribly disappointed if sales didn't respond at all, and you are worse off than before you spent the money.

    So start by defining the objective. Is the commercial supposed to increase awareness of the brand? Is is supposed to link the brand name to a specific benefit? Or is it more immediate than that -- getting people to make a purchase in a short, specific time-frame?

    Then you might want to have some folks in your target audience view the commercial (or even a storyboard) and react. Does the commercial communicate the intended message? Would they be likely to feel more positive about your brand after seeing the commercial? Etc.

    And, if you have the time, you can buy a small schedule on a local cable network and test the commercial on-air as a final check. After it has run for a few weeks, survey the target audience in that market area and see if awareness is higher than it was in a pre-test. Just make sure you've advertised at a level that is likely to be similar to what you're planning on a national basis, or you'll be misled by the result of a heavier weight and not the commercial's effectiveness.

    Hope this helps. Let us know how it goes.
  • Posted by Jay Hamilton-Roth on 10/20/2010 at 9:21 AM Member
    Is TV the best way to raise awareness of your product for your target audience? Have you tried social media/video to see if you can capture attention online?
  • Posted by hans on 10/20/2010 at 9:26 AM Author
    Hi Jay,

    Thanks for your input.

    Yes for this brand and with the objectives defined TV is best for this target audience.
    The question becomes more of the kind - does TV bring what we expect - shouldn't I try to test on a regional market before going national and have to spend more money. If tested regionally it will last one year before they go national if everything seems Ok !

    Regards
    Hans
  • Posted by hans on 10/20/2010 at 9:30 AM Author
    Hi mgoodman,

    Thanks for your response.

    The focus group study and test when it comes to communication and concept will be realised before anything is produced.

    The problem is that even if you test on a local tv-market and the test says Yes go ahead it will last one year until it will go national.

    Regards
    Hans
  • Posted by Peter (henna gaijin) on 10/20/2010 at 1:06 PM Accepted
    It all comes down to your level of risk tolerance as plugged into the costs/benefits of testing.

    How much information do you have from the TV station on who the time slot you are considering advertising in reaches? How do you feel about your ad in relation to how well it will meet your goals?

    Testing would be a way to help ensure that the ad reaches goals with targeted contacts. But tests cost money and take time. So your level of risk tolerance comes to play in helping to determine whether you would do the tests (or how many tests).
  • Posted on 10/20/2010 at 4:57 PM Accepted
    You always have the option of doing a "vitality test," in which you run the commercial at an artificially heavy weight in a test to see if there's any impact. If there isn't (despite the ultra-heavy exposure), then it's not likely the commercial would do any better at normal levels.

    If, on the other hand, the business (or research results) indicate that the commercial IS making a positive difference, you can make some assumptions about what it might do at normal weight levels.

    That way your test market might only run for 6 months instead of a year.
  • Posted by BizConsult on 10/22/2010 at 9:55 PM Accepted
    Hello Hans - I analyze marketing ROI and business performance for an ad agency: Media / message / promotional test marketing is a critical piece of helping our clients succeed.

    Make sure your test markets and media channels are highly-representative of where you'd roll the marketing support out to or your test will be directional at best, misleading at worst (a.k.a. meaningless as you won't know if it's over or understating results!). Also ensure you have a balanced control cell against which to measure.

    Finally, don't use just a change versus a prior period or year ago as both can be misleading and are not the best ways to measure advertising effectiveness and ROI. (i.e., I use a proprietary methodology for measuring results which has been vetted with media mix modelling.)

    We perform in-depth analyses to ensure we have predictive and matched test and control markets and to evaluate and project marketing results. I'd advise you to ensure you have a valid test lab and the proper analytics support before you embark on this worthwhile endeavor!

    -Steve
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(Research/Metrics)