Control advertising effect
What is the potential of your advertising efforts?
Objectively assess advertising success
Advertising success is when advertising goals are achieved. For a subject to be effective, the target group must perceive its message quickly and without error. Every two weeks, advertising impact researcher Patrik Zwahlen assesses the persuasive potential and visualization quality of five selected ad subjects exclusively for Werbewoche - and thus provides an objective assessment of your advertising success.
Analysis with method
This brief analysis assesses the communication performance of advertisements with the help of the two metrics "persuasive potential" and "visualization quality". To determine the persuasive potential, Zwahlen first formulates measurable goals such as "sell more," "become better known," or "reduce the frequency of accidents. In order to achieve such goals, the subject needs a credible reason for impact that corresponds to the message. After defining a plausible goal for each ad, the message is unencrypted and written down. A green arrow means that the subject is convincing; a red arrow means that it is not.
With the visualization quality, Zwahlen provides an assessment of whether the message is perceived quickly and without wasted coverage. A green arrow indicates that the ad communicates quickly and without errors. If the subject is marked with a red arrow, misunderstandings and misinterpretations are to be expected.
Communication performance of the subject of the "Integration Promotion City of Zurich".
Assumed advertising objective: Behavioral campaign, women are to be treated decently by migrants and Swiss alike (sub-area of integration promotion). Assumed impact reason: Because the appeal convinces both Swiss and foreigners, the advertising objective is achieved.
Advertising success is when advertising goals are achieved. For a subject to be effective, the target group must perceive its message quickly and without error. Every two weeks, advertising impact researcher Patrik Zwahlen assesses the persuasive potential and visualization quality of five selected ad subjects exclusively for Werbewoche - and thus provides an objective assessment of your advertising success.
Analysis with method
This brief analysis assesses the communication performance of advertisements with the help of the two metrics "persuasive potential" and "visualization quality". To determine the persuasive potential, Zwahlen first formulates measurable goals such as "sell more," "become better known," or "reduce the frequency of accidents. In order to achieve such goals, the subject needs a credible reason for impact that corresponds to the message. After defining a plausible goal for each ad, the message is unencrypted and written down. A green arrow means that the subject is convincing; a red arrow means that it is not.
With the visualization quality, Zwahlen provides an assessment of whether the message is perceived quickly and without wasted coverage. A green arrow indicates that the ad communicates quickly and without errors. If the subject is marked with a red arrow, misunderstandings and misinterpretations are to be expected.
Communication performance of the subject of the "Integration Promotion City of Zurich".
Assumed advertising objective: Behavioral campaign, women are to be treated decently by migrants and Swiss alike (sub-area of integration promotion). Assumed impact reason: Because the appeal convinces both Swiss and foreigners, the advertising objective is achieved.
Background knowledge: Performance and impact
Posters convey a message, that's why we talk about the performance of an advertising medium. With our short
analysis, we monitor the communication performance of subjects and thus perform quality assurance to ensure that the message is received as planned. Could our brief analysis have prevented the social and political misfortunes of this campaign? No. Because it focuses on the "transmission performance," and this is very good, as the negative reactions in the daily press clearly show. Obviously, the posters were seen, read, and thus were extraordinarily effective in advertising. Postal test results would show top marks. Despite all this, a lot of dishes were smashed. More proof that pretests and thus also our brief analysis are no good?
With our brief analysis, we assess whether a strategy (reason for impact) is plausible and whether an ad can work (visualization). We can clearly see where the catch is in this campaign in terms of advertising impact: If you want to influence human behavior, you need a good strategy and professional implementation. The knowledge would be there, it just needs to be used: Behavioral economics ("How expensive is free?"), social psychology ("Foot-into-the-Door-Technique") and last but not least communication research ("Why do we look at something?") etc.
What would have happened if only the Swiss had revealed their rules worthy of imitation (minimizing the risk of discrimination)? What would have happened if the rules had been practicable and realistic (increasing domestic and foreign acceptance)? How would the political competition have reacted if our always bizarre and certainly endearing idiosyncrasies had been taken for a ride with a wink? Self-irony is a good way to communicate tricky rules. Well, the result might just have been a great campaign - and a big budget for next year.
Posters convey a message, that's why we talk about the performance of an advertising medium. With our short
analysis, we monitor the communication performance of subjects and thus perform quality assurance to ensure that the message is received as planned. Could our brief analysis have prevented the social and political misfortunes of this campaign? No. Because it focuses on the "transmission performance," and this is very good, as the negative reactions in the daily press clearly show. Obviously, the posters were seen, read, and thus were extraordinarily effective in advertising. Postal test results would show top marks. Despite all this, a lot of dishes were smashed. More proof that pretests and thus also our brief analysis are no good?
With our brief analysis, we assess whether a strategy (reason for impact) is plausible and whether an ad can work (visualization). We can clearly see where the catch is in this campaign in terms of advertising impact: If you want to influence human behavior, you need a good strategy and professional implementation. The knowledge would be there, it just needs to be used: Behavioral economics ("How expensive is free?"), social psychology ("Foot-into-the-Door-Technique") and last but not least communication research ("Why do we look at something?") etc.
What would have happened if only the Swiss had revealed their rules worthy of imitation (minimizing the risk of discrimination)? What would have happened if the rules had been practicable and realistic (increasing domestic and foreign acceptance)? How would the political competition have reacted if our always bizarre and certainly endearing idiosyncrasies had been taken for a ride with a wink? Self-irony is a good way to communicate tricky rules. Well, the result might just have been a great campaign - and a big budget for next year.
