When I started in the advertising industry in New York, there was some obsession with commercial wear-out.  That is, at what point does the effectiveness of a commercial decline and render it less and less worth the media investment.

In theory this makes a lot of sense if you buy into learning theory which holds that you need to be told something a few times to understand it.  Then you have diminished returns on your attention to the message until you get turned off over time.

There was a consensus in New York at the time that the heavy viewing quintile was where wearout risk was the greatest.  A frequency of four was supposed to be killer.  This would occur with a commercial that was in a decent rotation with a solid daytime/nighttime schedule in a couple weeks.

Then I moved to Canada.

Here wearout occurs when the budget can afford to either import another spot from the US or a new spot can be developed.  The wearout frequency at the heavy viewing quintile is nearing infinity.

I thought that this was because the relative cost of an announcement in Canada is a small fraction of a similar announcement in the U.S.  The cost of production in the US is more or less similar to the cost of a prime time announcement.  Sure some productions cost more and some cost less, And some announcements are cheaper than others.  But the costs on average are within range.

The cost of production in Canada is less than it is in the US.  The market just won’t bear the inflated costs of some of the talent in the US, after all we are a smaller market.

The media cost is about one tenth the cost of the US.  Because we are buying an English market that is less than one tenth the market in the US and we are paying for audience, not announcements.

Nevertheless, it is a stretch to believe that Canadians can tolerate more than ten times the exposure to a commercial than the US consumer can.  So why do Canadian advertisers keep wasting their media dollars running commercials that are no longer effective and only alienating their target?

Why haven’t more advertisers gone to low cost productions that can be renewed more quickly and can be less irritating?  The cost of the production is not a determinant of success – think The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity.  These low budget flicks, among many others, raked in huge box office.

I am sure we all have commercials that we have seen so many times we are detest them.  Awake, agencies and advertisers!  Get to work on ideas that don’t cost so much to produce, yet still bring in the customers.

Some commercials do wear well.  Especially those with songs, warm feelings, and clear logical arguments.  The worst commercials for wear out are those with punch line jokes.  I mean who thinks “Why did the chicken cross the road?” is still funny?

With all the confusion about where to send your messages if you want to reach your communications target, we seem to be in the eye of a media transition.

Flipping from Facebook, to Linkedin, to Twitter the other day, it occurred to me that in olden times this was like getting to watch a television show.

In the 1950s, the last time we have a major transition in media usage, advertisers were trying to cope with the change from radio and print to television.

The big question: how to deal with TV?

The TV shows were usually run by sponsors which may surprise us today. Lux Video Theatre, Texaco Hour, and others — not to mention the soap operas that were owned by P&G and other soap companies.  Advertisers quickly discovered that documentaries about how your made your rubber boots was not interesting enough to attract and sustain attention.  But they tried.

On early TV, commercials were integrated right into the action. In a sitcom, the actors would gather to discuss something and you would find them continuing on into a Maxwell House commercial. And commercials would be up to two minutes long, which feels like a feature film when you watch one today. The actors poured over all the silly details of the products they were hawking.

Advertisers on TV used the same logic as they had used for radio. Use the content to attract attention and then provide your message. So what’s so different today? True, television migrated from sponsorship of shows to purchase of scattered announcements in many shows. But the use of media content as a lure to attract attention to their message remained.

All the techniques advertisers used are based on this. So what about the internet? Websites can give information in painful detail about a particular product or company.

Just like some of the early TV shows, early websites were documentaries. But who goes looking for information on product differentiation. Web 2.0 for advertisers saw a proliferation of action sites, sites with program content controlled by advertisers.

Initially these promotional sites were perishable relating to contests or issues.  Content was attractive because customers were given a chance to win something, or get something for free.  In other words there was a financial incentive.

So how do you drive traffic to your website? Make your site interesting, intriguing and entertaining.  That means the site has to continually change to be engaging.

So that brings us back to content asa one of the best ways of attracting attention to an existing site.

One thing that is overlooked as a way to increase site traffic is telling people about a site. That means use of traditional advertising techniques – putting your website in all your materials and trumpeting it.

And use of traffic directors like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, MySpace, Youtube and their kindred to tell prospects why they should pay attention to you. Which should lead to why they should buy. But sites still need content in order to sustain interest and attention.

Too many sites have inactive News sections, blog sections with one or two entries, and other topical sections without updates. That’s like running the same commercial for years at a time. And site wearout can be quick if its value is just for reference or downloading manuals.

Some advertisers, like Evian’s baby skaters most recently, have gotten better attention worldwide by posting on YouTube than they get on traditional TV.   The skating babies is the latest in a series that included baby synchronized swimmers, break-dancers, etc.  But does it connect to water for consumers?  Or is the water message left in the babies’ diapers?

It all depends on how willing the advertiser is on taking a risk and whether the entertainment value of their video translates to awareness, persuasion value and sales.

Part of this transition period from television as the dominant medium means there is a lot of risk with hope of questionable reward for advertisers. Like before, content is king. Getting the content right means trusting communications professionals like never before.

We could take a lesson from the way the Motion Picture Industry stages the Oscars as a promotional event for their product. The award show format is just editorial content is to get the target to pay attention to the advertising message. Their product as a hero.

Actually the Motion Picture folks have done such a good job, the news media actually think the Oscars are news. Mind you, this is the same media who dedicated more than a week full time to cover Michael Jackson. They know hard news when the see it.  But duping the news media is a tried and true technique for all of us trying to get attention for our clients.

We can also take a lesson from media outlets who are rapidly transforming their businesses from printing and broadcasting to web.

While the media transition continues, the winners will be those who understand its transition and can think ahead to the kind of media world that will be, rather than the one that is.

When I worked in New York, we spent a lot time analyzing commercial exposure with the heaviest viewing quintile, that is the one fifth of the viewers that see the most television.

These people saw a particular commercial 20 or 30 times. We had great fear that commercials with that kind of exposure would be worn out – providing diminished returns to the advertiser.

When I got to  Canada I found that even the lightest viewers see commercials well in excess of that kind of frequency. Media costs are lower than the US and production costs are about the same, so money is spent on more media to maximize exposure.

Why do we worry about wear-out? Well, theory says that there is a learning curve associated with commercials. The first time you see it, you don’t totally get it. It takes a couple or three viewings to understand the idea behind the commercial and get what is going on. That means that the first two times you don’t get the full impact of the commercial. The sweet spot, using this theory, is anywhere after about four times.

The same logic means that after a certain number of times viewing commercial “dis-learning” occurs. That is, the commercial irritates viewers and they get turned off on the product and eventually dislike it and the advertiser.

Who hasn’t heard, “I am tired of that damn commercial!” Think of the negative feelings you get from some irritating commercials.

Sure, there can be a positive side to irritation – it can make the commercial memorable. But there is also abundant research that if consumers like commercials it adds to their persuasive power.

So if there is a negative to too much, when does too much start and wear-out begin?

One thing I know for sure, after many years working in advertising: Advertising ideas wear-out with advertisers and agencies first. Long before advertising ideas wear-out with consumers, the advertisers and their agencies are seeking replacements. Rarely do advertising ideas really wear-out with the public.

Another source of wear-out is when there is a change of personnel at the advertiser. If someone’s predecessor was associated with an idea, that idea wears out really quickly with the new advertising manager as the new manager seeks to make their mark. An ego based development cost that ends up being paid by the advertiser.

And creative strategies? Strategies only wear-out when there has been a real sea change – when a new competitor enters the market or improves their product to make your claim invalid; when there is a change in product technology; or when a new category emerges to make your claims obsolete. Remember that Tide’s strategy of “cleans better” strategy has worked for decades.

Commercials themselves? Here are some guidelines I have experienced:
1. Humour wears out fastest if it relies on a joke. Once you know the punch line, the spot is useless. We were forced to air some Subway commercials developed by another agency based on the premise “stupid behavior is okay if you did something good for yourself” – like eating at Subway. They showed bizarre scenes of a guy washing his car in a cheerleader’s short skirt and a doctor telling a waiting family their loved one had died – as a joke. This lame humour wore out in one viewing. The campaign died quickly too – with a cringe. Which leads to the next point.
2. Poor taste wears out really fast and alienates customers. Be careful.
3. Commercials that bring a smile last very long. I was involved with the Jell-O Pudding Bill Cosby commercials. We would play them for people in Focus Groups over and over and over. They loved the warmth and good humour and wanted more of it. That same campaign lasted 25 years.
4. Songs last the longest if they are positive and can be learned and sung by viewers. That means they should have some underlying meaning other than “buy the product.”
5. Commercials that demonstrate product performance don’t wear-out that fast. They may be boring and left brained, but the information is not that objectionable on repetition.

I could go on with more examples, but I am convinced that the best commercials are those that address a clear and meaningful customer desire. Clever counts for award shows, but not necessarily for sales. Warmth and relevance always work.

Remember this thinking. It won’t wear-out any time soon.

PART II: 5 Advertising Mistakes Retailers Make

Recently I had a meeting with an accountant who does turnarounds. He attempts to save companies that are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy by nursing them back to health.

I asked him whether some company owners put their ego ahead of the survival of their company. He said that was usually his biggest problem. Funny, I said, that is also a huge problem we encounter when we are doing advertising for retailers.

Even though some can barely speak clearly, retailers take to the airwaves to hock their wares. Do they do it because they think they can deliver the message better than any other form of advertising?

We have a saying in advertising,

If you haven’t got anything to say, sing it. If you can’t sing it, get the client to say it.

We do this to cater to the client’s ego. Why, because sometimes the client’s ego is more important than business results.

Of course there are exceptions to this, it isn’t a rule, more like a guideline. I remember when Wendy’s had an advertising problem. We had just hit a home run with the “Where’s the beef” old lady. Nothing the agency, DFS, in New York could do could test anything near it. The Agency was fired. The Marketing guy at Wendy’s was gone. As a short term fall back, Dave Thomas was recruited to do some promotional commercials. Twenty years later he was still doing them.

How was he successful? He had personality. He reminded everyone of a favourite uncle, not someone hawking his own wares. He was committed in a non-authorative way. His credibility came from his commitment and ownership. As time went on we learned more about him and got to like him as his public personality developed.

That’s a far cry from retailers screaming out about some deal that they are offering.

The best way to build a retail business is to understand your competitive set; understand your business’s advantage and develop intrusive, provocative and clear advertising that communicates that strategy. What agency is going to tell the owner, their client,  to get off the air? That’s the hard part.

Retailers may know too much about their businesses to understand what is really compelling to their customers.  Glimpses can be deceiving.  We like to speak with customers for a fairer assessment of strengths and weaknesses.  That takes some work.

And we also believe that a customer saying how great a retailer is provides a much stronger message than the retailer saying it themselves.  Think of it.  If I tell you how great I am, you are skeptical (although I have no idea why).  Whereas if a disinterested third party says I am great, maybe even my wife will believe it.

But for most retailers, getting out there and telling the prospects yourself is not only the lazy, cheap way to do it. It is also one of the weakest. The retailer should ask themselves – what’s more important, you being recognized or your sales and revenue going up?

Unless the retailer has a particular talent or uniqueness. Stay away! This can only lead to problems. And it is the second common mistake retailers make.