Advertising tracking is broken
The majority of brand measures are meaningless, says researcher Dr Chris Riquier. To rebuild credibility (and brands), marketers need to take heed of proven Ehrenberg-Bass principles and redirect spend from tracking.
Shooting myself in the foot isn’t an everyday habit.
But it takes a brave researcher to admit their industry is failing clients when it comes to brand tracking (and let’s not get started on polling).
Research agencies will argue hard that the 2019 facade they have built over redundant 1960s thinking will build strong brands. Yet clients continue to require an intravenous caffeine supply during endless presentations of straight-line charts covering perceptions, consideration, commitment and many other pointless metrics.
As researchers, we need to cut the crap, admit the majority of brand measures are meaningless, and rebuild our credibility.
Would love to see more people talk about propensity instead of attribution.
Agree, would help a lot in advancing programmatic which hasn’t moved greatly beyond projecting behaviours. Integration of propensity has been proven to significantly enhance ROI from programmatic media buy.
It has never ‘not’ been broken. Only people who didn’t think so were those peddling the tracking. Now it is difficulty in developing accurate attribution models.
This guy is the head of DBM rsearch which make most of their money from tracking. Prior to that he was a leader at TNS who made a tonne of cash from tracking. Now he is a born again researcher. Oh puhlease….
Step aside and let the new brigade right your wrongs.
I’d love to compare notes with the new brigade. Contact me at criquier@swin.edu.au if ur up for it. Couldn’t see your contact details.
Why have you not mentioned you run DBM research who continue to peddle tracking products?
I understand you are trying to future proof yourself with this article but don’t bite the hand that fed you for 30 years and continues to do so.
I found your article was published about 5 years too late and was a bit of a catchall for all the buzz terms thrown about by media types. Nobody worth their salt who has cracked this will share their IP with you.
Hi there. I work across a range of organisations including Illuminera, Ethnotek, DBM, Swinburne and the Data Science Research Institute. Haven’t mentioned this because the article is based on my PhD outcome which was completed in March and doesn’t incorporate data from any company I have worked for. All data was supplied by brand owners spanning a range of Australia’s market research firms, possibly including yours if you work in the industry. You should reveal your identity so we can discuss further.
Like I said, your article doesn’t tell us anything new. No mention of AI either which is where the game is at for many brands trying to make incremental gains. Your article would have been fine in 2014, not now. The game has moved on.
I maintain that tracking is a critical plug-in for marketers trying to understand their market. It should be used sparingly on trying to understand your own brand as (let’s face it) , brands have enough of their own data.
Your views contradict some of the companies you currently work for.
You’re being a troll.
He starts his piece by saying “Shooting myself in the foot isn’t an everyday habit”. He replies your comment with clear reasons.
Yet you remain aggressive and then spout some crap about use of Ai. Give me a break. You don’t use Ai for tracking & don’t even know what it is. Just stop now
Obviously you are flying the flag for the old market research brigade. How’s that AMSRO and AMSRS membership working out for you?
Their credibility is shot to pieces.
The Ehrenberg Bass Institute commission plenty of projects that use market research interviews.
While I can’t speak on their behalf I am sure they do, for a range of reasons. My view on the use of primary data is that it should only be used where we have a knowledge gap after all first and third party data sources have been exhausted when we are solving a problem.
This is an interesting article.
Chris, can you be more specific please? What pre-existing search, social, third-party and industry data points should advertisers use to measure the effectiveness brand building campaigns and executions?
When you say “capitalise on real-time data to proactively build your brand”, what real time data are you talking about to measure campaign effectiveness?
Also, how would you suggest an advertiser benchmark one campaign vs another?
Thanks.
China has some brilliant examples of this in practice given the privacy laws are a little looser. It can be done in western markets although needs a bit more sophistication in the analysis to get around data restrictions.
So Alibaba’s uni-marketing platform integrates via a single identifier: e-com, m-com, transaction (Alipay), banking, video / audio (YouTube/Spotify equivalents), logistics/delivery and a range of other data. With this the analysis opportunities are practically unlimited because everything can be examined at an individual level.
It’s a little more challenging here but we can move many steps forward from where we are now although I know there are some pretty good market research agencies out there that are tapping this space, let alone the consultancies.
How does this measure mental availability across the entire market?
This one-dimensional, Ehrenberg-Bass view of marketing is killing so many brands. There is nothing inherently wrong with most of the principles, it’s just that there are so many other factors that are cherry-picked out of the analysis due to blind adherence to the ideology.
Hi Stu, sounds like you would be up for a debate with some of my ex-colleagues there. I like many of their approaches because they are purely based on evidence. They are not opinions or don’t represent who has the loudest voice in the room. They simply represent what actually occurs in markets and the ways in which consumers behave. Not all brand owners believe in their application but those who Do have typically submitted their own data for replication and see that the evidence stacks up. The data I used for my own academic research covered fast food, FMCG, postal services, banks, media and education and this was all sourced directly from the relevant organisations.
I’ve tried this debate and it’s pointless. Ehrenberg-Bass adherents have a hammer and every problem looks like a nail. Funnily enough, a read through their client listing shows an alarming number of large clients in decline. How much is it really working?
The thing is, it’s not as simple as “continuous reach, ease of purchase, strong brand-linked memory structures, distinctive yet consistent communication assets, and avoiding giving customers a reason not to buy”. Yes of course these are all important, but no-one would argue an approach consisting of the opposite of any of these. They are basic marketing principals and I discuss them often with clients, however there is so much more that also impacts brands that marketers need to understand.
Even discussing “continuous reach” is nonsensical in the real world. With limited budgets and fragmented media consumption, it’s impossible even for those with large marketing budgets.
Good tracking research underpins a marketer’s understanding of their brand and their market: without it, they are operating blind.
Totally agree that there are many micro elements that influence brands and of course unique circumstances.