Just read an interesting article in Advertising Age that had my attention. Thought I’d share it and see what you all think.
In medicine and science, measuring an experiment and the return on its investment is pretty easy. You conduct two identical experiments with only one variable that’s different and measure the results. Whichever provides more of what is desired leads the way for what you do next. The return on investment increases with each piece of knowledge. Its very logical and systematic.
Is measuring ROI in a marketing campaign similar or different? Can we fairly expect marketing campaigns to be successful without similar control comparisons? The big cahuna’s in advertising do it.
Well, I think we can and we also can’t. We can, because marketing is about human behavior, which is not as consistent as the responses of an omoeba to a chemical, and because experience in marketing one thing can provide knowledge and guidance in how to market other things.
But we also can’t expect marketing campaigns to be successful without control comparisons because measuring marketing ROI can only be fully successful when it is objective and based on the numbers. Am I suggesting that companies should start running simultaneous marketing campaigns to essentially have them compete with each other? Maybe. The data would be invaluable, but, admittedly, it would be out of most company’s financial range to do so. On the other hand, wouldn’t the information learned save a good deal of money for years down the road?
What do you think?
Here’s the full article: http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=137521
-Chris
Leave a Reply