I’m looking for two things here.
First is the percentage of advertising devoted to “branding.” I’ve read 90% somewhere, but I need more than hearsay or partial recall. In fact, I’m in the market for any hard numbers on the subject of advertising. This is for a book I’m writing, and my sources need to be worthy of bibliographic citation.
Second is the truth behind a story I have heard more than once regarding James Buchanan Duke, a baron of the tobacco industry. According to the story, Duke was asked at a board meeting why he advertised his cigarette brands so annoyingly. In reply, Duke spit on the table and said, “You may not like that, but you’ll never forget it.” I suspect this is apocryphal, but I don’t know. So I’m hoping one of you can point me to an authoritative source on the matter.
-
Doc with respect, your question is a bit fuzzy because the term “branding” is fuzzy. I doubt you will be able to obtain an authoritative answer.
It may be more productive to ask “what percentage of advertising is spent on direct response marketing vs. other kinds of advertising?” Direct response is marketing that is intended to generate a sale (or other action) right NOW, rather than at some point in the future.
This would include all infomercials, “junk” mail, email offers, etc etc.
According to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), “2009 will mark the fifth year in which direct marketing has captured more than half of all advertising spend nationwide. This figure is up to 54.3 percent from last year’s 52.7 percent, and is forecasted to remain above 53 percent for the next five years.
In 2010, total direct marketing ad spending is expected to increase 2.7 percent, yielding $153.3 billion overall.”
SOURCE: http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=1335
If you want to be *really* precise about your answer I suggest you contact the DMA and the ANA (Association of National Advertisers) and get numbers from each. These numbers are unlikely to agree, but if you choose a midpoint between the numbers it should be plenty accurate.
With regard to the tobacco quote, I believe the source is the 1947 Clark Gable film “The Hucksters”. The character in the film was believed to be based on tobacco exec George Washington Hill.
Link with the story here: http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-synopsis/the-hucksters/
Hope this helps. If you need more, you have my email.
Cheers,
Tom -
Also, re: the question of annoying vs effective, you might find this interesting: http://tjcnyc.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/inattentional-blindness/
Comments are now closed.
6 comments