The problem with blindly jumping on the Ehrenberg-Bass bandwagon
The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute has made mass awareness king, but there's one little problem: women control 85% of all consumer purchases. John Douglas explains.
Much has been made of the great work being done by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute.
Using empirical proofs, the institute has made us rethink marketing truisms, and everything we have assumed to be true about customers, loyalty and market share.
They have made us consider the notion that customer behaviour might actually be governed by laws. Laws like: customers don’t see a discernible difference between brands, segmentation sucks, and mass awareness is king.
They have been so successful, many marketers are choosing not to segment their markets at all.
A recent conversation with a prospective client highlighted this. When asked about market segmentation, and messaging to different customer types, the response was: “We don’t need to target women, we’re ‘Ehrenberg-Bass’.”
I think they’re talking horse nuggets, but I don’t blame Ehrenberg-Bass.
To be fair to the institute, they make their case very well. However, I feel mass awareness is being dumbed down to a simple piece of math.
If your share of voice is above the market mean, you’re more likely to grow your business. If your share of voice is below the market mean, you’ll struggle.
And, while this is great news for media companies, it dumbs down advertising. The endless morning meeting chants of “mass awareness” has given marketers all over Australia permission to target everyone in Australia with every communication.
It stops us thinking about how we should connect and essentially says, “Make the logo bigger” – only in a scientific way.
The science may not be wrong, but the implementation seems to be short-sighted.
Compare the findings of the institute with another long term study: Field & Binet – The Long and the Short of It. The study shows that relevant emotionally-based messages are twice as efficient as rational messaging and twice as profitable.
The impacts are hard to measure in the short term. But, over the long term, they develop incredible power in terms of salience and memorability. Emotional messaging is, it seems, the compound interest of marketing.
What Professor Byron Sharp and his team have shown is, as long as you can be remembered, you’re more likely to be chosen at point of purchase.
What Binet and Field tell us is, emotions are better in the long run.
It’s a balancing act between how the customer becomes aware and how they justify their decision.
There seems to be, for those of us in the cheap seats, battle lines being drawn between “mass awareness” and “mass targeting”.
On one side, Lord Byron Sharp. On the other, leading the charge for the Targeteers, the ever-lovable Lord Potty Mouth, Professor Mark Ritson.
I can’t help thinking the marketers hoping for a knock-out victory from one side or the other are watching the wrong game.
If science matters, why are so many marketers ignoring the really big numbers?
According to a Harvard Business Review article, there is a market segment which dwarfs all others. A segment bigger than the GDP of China and India combined, ($18 trillion versus $10.6 trillion + $2.8 trillion) and which requires targeted thinking, but which can be reached by mass awareness campaigns.
Given the very real and very immediate economic challenges being faced by so many businesses, I’m surprised I’m not seeing more marketers screaming for a piece of that action.
It’s a market which has proven to be receptive to relevant emotional messaging.
A market segment which not only will reward you in the short term, and will continue to reward your marketing efforts in the long-term
A market segment that is four times the size of any other in terms of purchasing power.
Imagine if your marketing efforts could be four times more effective, just by tweaking your message. Then ask yourself: “Why am I not going all-out Ehrenberg-Bass to women?”
Is it because “Ehrenberg Bass” has become shorthand for “advertise to everyone”?
Or has the institute successfully sunk the idea of brand loyalty and brand love? And is “love” a neat little pigeon-hole into which some marketers have slotted the entire sweep of marketing to women.
According to Bloomberg, women control 85% of all consumer purchases. They are the great juggernaut of the world economy. And this critical mass is being cast to one side by some marketers wanting to make everyone aware of their brand.
Perhaps some simple math might help.
The secret to strategy, according to Lawrence Freedman, is developing a dominant position.
If 80% of your market is men, it only makes sense to develop your marketing based around an insight gleaned from what men like and how your brand fits their life.
If 80% of your market is women, by the same thinking, develop your marketing based around an insight gleaned from an understanding of women.
If your market is split 50/50, statistics would suggest you should still sway your messaging to be more relevant to women, because you’re rolling the dice on a 17:3 advantage.
By all means, choose mass awareness. But choose mass awareness to women.
If you can’t be all things to all people, at least try and be 100% relevant to 85% of the market.
Be emotional. Be relevant. Then get scientific.
To borrow from Euripides, how can Ehrenberg-Bass help you if you don’t first help yourself?
John Douglas is director of strategy agency Brand Clarity
- Byron Sharp will present the keynote at this year’s Mumbrella MSIX – Marketing Science Ideas Exhcange – conference in November. Earlybird tickets are now on sale via this link
Get the latest news on MSIX by signing up to the event newsletter
I am very happy if people are concluding from Ehrenber-Bass and How Brands Grow that they should be targeting everyone in Australia.
This is an incorrect conclusion to draw from their arguments which means that those who genuinely apply the principles will continue to benefit from them.
User ID not verified.
Well noted Jon.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…
User ID not verified.
Thanks for this piece John. I am surprised to hear that Ehrenberg-Bass is advocating that any brand should completely dispense with all segmentation and targeting and even more so that any marketer with half a brain would put that into practice. It’s quite clearly absurd.
Equally absurd is the opposite narrative that mass is dead and that all media investment should be apportioned to 2 or 3 core audience personas on digital channels because they are the most likely to buy and generate the most efficient use of media.
Targeting everybody is hugely wasteful and only a handful of brands have budgets that could even remotely achieve this consistently. Targeting too tightly is putting all your brand exposure and growth expectations into a small basket. Big brands need the bleed effect of mass media but you must start with a focus on your core or risk missing them entirely.
User ID not verified.
Correct.
Billy Bragg used to say ‘if everyone who claimed to have seen the Sex Pistols in 1976, really had seen them then they would have had to have played 3 months solid at Wembley Stadium, not a couple of dozen shows at suburban Art Schools and Soho strip clubs. Similarly, if everyone who claimed to be applying EB principles to marketing had actually bought the books and read the papers then Byron & Co would have given up their academic jobs a long time a go and be kicking back on some private island next door to Branson, Musk and assorted Bond villians..
User ID not verified.
I think, from my understanding (and I am not in Byron’s league by any stretch), that E-B are very much about mass awareness. And it’s the various interpretations from people who have bought the books and watched the video that are muddying the waters. My contention is, if you know who’s most likely to buy your product, even at a mass scale, why would you not try and at least craft your message to suit their ears?
User ID not verified.
If people are claiming we don’t target based on “How Brand Grow” they are not reading it properly.If you subrscribe to it you should be targeting category buyers – if your category has female skewed purchasers that should be accounted for in your creative and your media buy.
User ID not verified.
I agree Rob,
Hence my frustration.
Thank you for neatly summing up in four lines what it took me so long to explain.
User ID not verified.
I think the key message from EB is to target all buyers in the category. Rather than target everyone.
User ID not verified.
As one of the founders of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, and an advertising researcher I want to thank you for your article and your praise of the work we do. Always great to hear what people are thinking so we can link it to the evidence that we continue to amass. I’ll write a response to clarify some of our positions which we will share with Mumbrella readers tomorrow.
User ID not verified.
As one of the founders of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, and an advertising researcher I want to thank you John for your article and your praise of the work we do. Always great to hear what people are thinking so we can link it to the evidence that we continue to amass. I’ll write a response to clarify some of our positions which we will share with Mumbrella readers tomorrow.
User ID not verified.
But others might suggest that the fine folk at the institute are talking “all potential buyers” in a category – given the lack of loyalty noted in their research. It’s a very short step from there to “all buyers”. Hence the “all communications to all people” mindset.
User ID not verified.
Excellent news Rachel,
I look forward to the read.
User ID not verified.
Indeed John. Crafting messages to suit different segments within the category, each with differing triggers or brand perceptions is something every marketer ought to be doing if they have the budget, resource and smarts. For all its detractors and well-worn criticisms, digital does an incredible job of this and the correct use of search and programmatic amplified by DCO is incredibly powerful and as close to right time, right place, right message as we can currently get.
I wonder if Dr Byron Sharp and the late and very great Erwin Ephron were to create their own media start-up, it would be a multi-channel (yes, TV, print, OOH and digital) programmatic solution. And the word campaign would be banned.
Very much looking forward to Rachel’s response…
User ID not verified.
Has anyone see the empirical evidence behind the graph showing “Women Make Up 85% of All Consumer Purchases”?
For example, the last column shows that women make 93% of all Food/Groceries purchases.
Have a look next time you are in Coles or Woolies. Only every tenth person should be male.
And if you look at the 2011 Census data, 24% of homes are single-person homes, and 45% of those homes the occupant is male. There’s almost 11% of men who make the food/grocery purchases.
I suspect that the research asked men and women do they ever purchase the food/groceries and 93% of women said ‘yes’ and that it has been misinterpreted that 93% of women solely purchase the food and groceries.
But then again maybe 91% of all new home purchases are made by women. And maybe on Venus that is true.
User ID not verified.
Very funny, and insightful comment. Eaon.
User ID not verified.
We can only go on the numbers we’re given.
My point remains the same.
Are you saying we should assume all people engage with all advertising in the same way?
Or, if people do engage with advertising in different ways, we can ignore the numbers because you don’t agree with the data?
Sorry to be picky. I’m not seeing your point.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for a great and insightful read!
I would agree with everything you mentioned in your article, however I’m not sure any of this goes against the E-B principles.
For me, they say ‘target the market’, not ‘target everyone’ which is a nuance but an important one. So if your market is 85% women, then targeting the market would mean targeting 85% women.
Another thing they say though, additionally to ‘target the market’ is that what we marketeers commonly call ‘wastage’ may not be wasteful at all since, for example, men might buy tampons every once in a while, non-runners might buy a running watch as a present for someone else, etc. This means we should still target the market but not feel bad about reaching people outside the market because even that is not (totally) wasted.
Another, and last, point is about emotional messaging in advertising: what I take out from E-B and How Brands Grow is that the key objective is to drive mental availability, which is better achieved through distinctive and branded, but also memorable advertising, which focuses on an emotional, rather than a rational/functional message. So again, it seems to me that the findings from the ‘Field & Binet – The Long and the Short of It’ study which show that emotive messages are more effective at building memorability support the E-B and How Brands Grow laws.
Keen to hear your view on this.
User ID not verified.
Aren’t you mixing people versus how much they purchased?
Are women buying 93% of the groceries… in terms of basket size/cost.
If so, couldn’t single households be buying less groceries than other households… smaller baskets. Less mouths to feed than the average household.
If I buy the milk and bread on the way home, both my wife and I will have bought groceries and made decisions about grocery brands this week. But my wife will have spent a heck of a lot more doing that task.
User ID not verified.
I think this article misses the point of their work. The main idea is that you need to target category buyers, getting as much physical and mental availability as possible. This would certainly be better achieved with emotionally driven marketing collateral.
You don’t target all Australians for lipstick, most lipstick wearers are female. But the idea that lipstick category buyers form these distinct segments that require different marketing approaches doesn’t stack up. As an analyst who’s done the work, I can tell you this has been my experience.
As for the 80% of purchases being “controlled” by women, I think that is incorrect. I found links that describe a similar figure reporting “influence” of purchases, but that is pretty murky territory, and could work the same the other way around. Articles that quote such shocking numbers are usually cooking the books, often using a small sample and taking liberties as to what it meant. That’s why I think such data can be ignored as it may not have been well-vetted (if that is not the case, happy to change my position here, but the evidence does seem weak).
In any case, I enjoyed this article as this is a very important discussion to have any promote.
Thanks,
Jehan
User ID not verified.