3000 Advertisements

Forbes article reinforces that we are exposed to 3,000 Ads per day

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:31:00 +0000

How many advertisements do we each see every day? We know it is a lot. Just look around at the brand names and corporate images within eyesight of you right now. The number that is quoted and written time and time again is 3,000 advertisements per day. However, it is a number not supported by research. It is a number that has become a statistic by repetition. For example:

In a recent (JUL 20, 2016) article, "How Brands Should Use Celebrities For Endorsements" Forbes Magazine contributor Steve Olenski, writes about how companies are turning to celebrity endorsement to breakthrough ad clutter:

"According to Ad Age, a brand that inks an endorsement contract with a celebrity or an athlete can see their stock rise up to .25 as soon as the news is made public. ... The same article claims that on average, audiences are exposed to some 3,000 advertisements today across all media, leading to an element of marketing overexposure. Studies have shown that advertisements that use a celebrity, about whom many people already have positive feelings and impulses, grab an audience’s attention more easily than a standard ad."

If you follow the link you will see that Dean Crutchfield of Ad Age writes (September 22, 2010):

"There is the issue of overexposure to consider. We receive more than 3,000 commercial images a day; our subconscious absorbs more than 150 images and roughly 30 reach our conscious mind. Therefore, practice has it that if you use a celebrity-endorsement strategy, you dramatically accelerate the potential for your brand to reach the conscious mind of the consumer, especially given research from Weber Shandwick that finds peer endorsement trumps advertising."

So why 3,000? Why not 76 or 1,518 or 1,724?

What do you call a hyperbole wrapped in a hyperbole

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:21:00 +0000

On the culture blog VHCLE, Michael Benson writes that he's upset with advertising and advertisers who use hyperbole to promote their wares:

It seems the people who play more fast and loose with language than any other spectrum of society are those people called ‘advertisers.’ We don’t tend to pay much attention to advertisements, but they surround us. Some studies say as many as 3,000 ads a day bombard our senses.

...whoa, Michael, what studies? I realize that the article is an opinion / editorial and you are not bound to publish your sources but it sounds to me that you just wrapped a hyperbole around a hyperbole. What would you call that?

Taco Bell would probably call that delicious!

Round-up on the use of the 3000 ad statistic

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:41:00 +0000

This post is a round-up of recent mentions of the fact that an average person is exposed to 3000 advertisements each day. At what point do ideas or memes become so engrained in our society that they become truth? As the old joke goes, 67.2% of all statistics are made up.

*****

Hannah writes that advertising creates negative self-image by portraying unrealistic images of women. She supports her argument with the 3000 ad statistic:

One statistic that really caught my attention was that the average person is exposed to over 3000 ads everyday!

The Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation quotes industry analyst, Jaime Enrique Y. Gonzalez who says advertisers need to consider putting thier ads in video games because:

People see 3000 ads a day on the average but they screen out everything. The traditional advertising market is crowded and expensive.

Corey uses the stat in an online sermon about how we need to stop worshiping at the church of consumerism and return to God and faith:

The average person is exposed to approximately 3000 ads everyday through a variety of media. Everyday we are bombarded with slick advertising telling us what we lack and what we need to fulfill our lives and make life more comfortable...

What if the world was all a logo and the people merely corporate mascots?

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:59:00 +0000

That’s the question posed in Logorama, a new, animated short film from H5 based on the theory that we see 3,000 advertisements each day. In this world, every person, object, or thing is a logo or a corporate representation. To quote from the press materials:

“Logorama is 17 minutes of Hollywood blockbuster action, rife with car chases, natural disasters, and hostage-taking, but created entirely out of real world logotypes and brand characters. In it, you'll see the Michelin Man, the Haribo kid, Bob's Big Boy, Mr. Pringle and Ronald McDonald, but in some very unfamiliar roles playing the classic movie archetypes of good guys, bad guys and foils.”

An interview with Logorama film-makers Francois Alaux, Herve Crecy and Ludovic Houpain at Cannes in May 2009 explain some of the background behind this provocative piece. For example, they created the story of the film without logos and then during the “casting process” added in the logos or icons that best represented the characters they wished to develop. In their words, they wanted the audience to plunge into a fictional story that’s anchored in reality by logos and trademarks.

Logorama won the Oscar for best animated short in 2010!

Calvin Coolidge curbs billboard advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:42:00 +0000

I was struck by a recent story about Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president of the United States who was said to have, among other things, curbed outdoor advertising.

Turns out this was part of his legacy while Governor of Massachusetts (1918-1920). While he was a Republican, “he supported a cost of living pay for public employees, limited the workweek for women and children to forty-eight hours, placed limits on outdoor advertising, and set up a state budgetary process -- all typical progressive measures.”

In an ironic twist, the outdoor advertising industry named a study after Coolidge. In 1965 C.E. HOOPER for Rollins Advertising Company conducted the Calvin Coolidge study in San Antonio to measure the effects of outdoor advertising. The study measured exposure to and effectiveness of billboards that stated "Calvin Coolidge Was The 30th President". A before an after telephone survey was conducted with 600 respondents who were asked two questions:

> Who was the 30th president? (test question)
> Who was the vice president under Eisenhower? (control question)

Correct answers to the test question were 28.3% after the advertising run up from 4.5% before. Correct answers to the control question remained at the same level, 67.8% before and 65.8% after. (The answer is Nixon btw.)

The Calvin Coolidge study has subsequently reproduced many with similar effect.

While Coolidge may have been cool on outdoor advertising, and cool in general, he was one of the first national politicians to make extensive use of radio and film media. He gave a record 529 press conferences; his inauguration was the first presidential inauguration broadcast on radio; he was the first President whose address to Congress was broadcast on radio; and was the first President to appear in a sound film.

I’d be curious if anyone knows why Coolidge tried to curb outdoor advertising and what effect this had on the industry. Drop a comment if you know.

Advertising is visual pollution

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:38:00 +0000

In a blow to the argument that consumers see more than 3,000 advertisements each day, Sao Paulo, Brazil, issued a ban on all outdoor advertising including billboards, outdoor video screens, blimps, shop-window signs, logos, and posters. As part of a wider initiative to curb garbage and pollution the advertising ban intends to eliminate what Sao Paulo's mayor, Gilberto Kassab, calls "visual pollution".

While many readers would agree that some ads are in bad taste, I have a hard time imagining standing in Times Square and looking around at buildings stripped of their flashing lights, neon and video screens. While the local advertising agencies have launched legal actions, it appears that many applaud the move.

This is the first time that a non-communist city has imposed such a rule… and enforced it with vigor. Apparently the law has been so successful that more than 15,000 billboards now stand empty.

If you want to see more, Tony de Marco has posted a video stream on Flickr. The story was broken on National Public Radio and covered by a number of online publications.

Temporal nature of advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:38:00 +0000

I recently purchased a game called Adverteasing at a local thrift store. The game was made in 1988 by now defunct Canada Games Company under license from Rischer Enterprises. The game, very similar in game play to Trivial Pursuit, is completely focused on advertising slogans. It has 3,000 questions and is an amazing cultural artifact.

While I’m able to guess at the companies behind a few of the slogans, it is amazing how many companies are no longer in business. For those that are still in business, almost none of the slogans are used today. Here are a couple of examples, see if you can guess the answers (see the hint at the bottom of this post):

“It’s worth the trip”

Miami Beach
Cunard Lines
Dunkin’ Donuts
Delta Airlines

“Our strengths are legendary*”

US Steel
Navistar
Samsonite
Atlas Van Lines

“Washes clothes without rubbing”

Fab
Vivid
Lively Polly Dry Soap
Drive

“Does she…or doesn’t she?”

Pond’s
Lavoris
Clairol
Lady Speed Stick

“The Ultimate Driving Machine*”

Jaguar
Mercedes-Benz
BMW
Lotus

“The greatest show on earth*”

Ice capades
Circus of the Stars
Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus
Circus Circus

“Correct your skin faults”

Pond’s
Clean & Clear
Dioxogen Cream (1937)
Clearasil

*Those marked with an asterisk are still used in promotional copy today.

Trivia solving hint: always choose answer "c or #3" in a multiple choice quiz.

Engagement key in TV Advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:47:00 +0000

Exposure to 3,000 advertisements each day does not guarantee that the average person saw the ad or was engaged with the advertising.

Copernicus Marketing writes in its monthly newsletter that in the space of television advertising:

“…the vehicle influences effectiveness at least as much as the commercial itself.”

When I started in technology advertising, the model was simple: buy the lowest cost per thousand (CPM) and watch the product fly off the shelves. Advertising space for consumer software was dominated by Ziff Davis’ PC Magazine, IDG’s PC World. If you owned a computer, or wanted to own a computer you read these magazines.

The overall spend on television advertising by companies in the USA is about $50-70 billion. With that much at stake, CPM is only one criterion for selection. Copernicus goes on to say:

“The best measure of involvement included a mix of…three types of indicators and confirmed that viewers highly involved in a program are far more likely to recall the advertising.”

The indicators they cite are:

Behavioral – size of room, distractions, number of people, previous view experience
Attitudinal – enjoyment, reflection of personal beliefs and values
Summary – rating of show, comparison to previous shows

The full article is available online:
http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/mzine/monthlyeds/jun07.html

The link between advertising and childhood obesity

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:00 +0000

Recent research suggests a link between what kids watch on TV and the actions that they take. Researchers from the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand published a study that shows a link between junk food advertising and childhood obesity -- which some say is reaching epic proportions.

The Study has followed a group of around 1000 children born in Dunedin in 1972-73. Every two years between the ages of 5 and 15, they were asked how much television they watched. The researchers found that those who watched the most television had the most health problems as young adults. Those with higher television watching habits had higher levels of obesity, blood cholesterol and smoking - as well as lower levels of physical fitness - when they reached adulthood than kids who watched less than two hours a day.

The fat factor: the impact of advertising on kids

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:04:00 +0000

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit special interest group, recently released a report that says tweens see about 20 food advertisements every day. The foundation conducted media research on the viewing habits of kids aged 2-17 and compared that to the content of the advertising on the most popular television networks. The results suggest that while children are not exposed to 3,000 ads each day, there may be a link between television advertising and childhood obesity.
The study tracked shows watched by children ages two to 17 on 13 broadcast
and cable television networks in 2005, analysing the advertisement quantity and
content. Children saw many thousands of food ads a year, most touting
unhealthy products, it found.

Children ages 8 to 12 viewed the most food ads – on average,
21 daily and more than 7600 a year totalling nearly 51 hours.
Those ages 13 to 17 viewed 17 food ads daily and more than 6000 a year totalling nearly 41 hours.
Children ages two to seven saw 12 food ads daily and 4400 a year totalling
almost 30 hours. These younger children watched less TV overall and were more
likely to watch channels with limited or no advertising like PBS and Disney.
Half of all ad time on children's shows was for food products – a higher
proportion than for any type of show. About 80 per cent of these were for candy,
snack foods like chips, sugary cereals, fast food, sodas and other soft drinks.

The findings were based on a sample of 1638 hours of TV programming that
included 8854 food ads. Some shows were specifically made for children and
others not. Of all the ads, none touted fruits or vegetables.

The average American is exposed to...

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:00:00 +0000

In his blog, Publicity Times, Mr. Lonny Kocina reports that his Google research confirms, "that 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot." He writes that the numbers on advertising impressions range from a low of 247 to a high of 4,000. He was curious as to where the 3,000 number comes from but decided (in jest) to settle on his own number of 1,724 as he thought it was more believable.

Another reference to 3,000 advertisements

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:47:00 +0000

Referred to as a "flood", the number 3,000 advertisements appears in a 2001 Accenture whitepaper: Customer Segment Management: Moving One Step Closer to Nirvana ( http://tinyurl.com/hdznx). The paper argues companies need to adopt a customer-centric business model for three reasons: a flood of competing messages; ever-rising customer expectations; and mounting financial pressures.

The authors, Clive Whitehouse, Ruth E. Spencer and Michael Payne, suggest that the number of commercial messages competing for a customer's attention has risen to 3,000 per day in the US in 2000 up from 650 in 1985. They do not indicate their source of this information. This the change represents a 350% growth over 15 years. As you can see by the chart, the change in traditional media messages represents a 293% growth over this period.

The average American adult is aware of 76 advertisements a day in the major media

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:18:00 +0000

Two respected academics, reported in their book, Advertising in America: The Consumer View (1968), the average adult is aware of 76 ads each day. The authors, Stephen A. Greyser and Raymond A. Bauer, based their findings on interviews and a counting study with more than 1,500 adult individuals. Study participants were asked to count each advertisement in major media (magazines, newspapers, radio and television) to which he or she paid at least some attention.

The best brands in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:00:00 +0000

The Globe and Mail this week published a series of stories on the biggest brands in Canada. The articles were based on the first Canadian study Interbrand has published. To qualify for the Best Canadian Brands, companies have to be publicly traded, have at least 65% of revenues from within Canada, and have a market-facing presence. The top ten brands are:

RBC
TD Bank
Petro-Canada
Bell Canada
Shoppers Drug Mart
Tim Hortons
Bank of Montreal
Canadian Tire
Scotiabank
Telus

The methodology used to evaluate the brands is fascinating to read as I continue to try and develop a way of measuring the number of impressions people see on a daily basis.

The year was 1957 and the number was 1,518

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:11:00 +0000

The year was 1957 and the orator was Edwin Ebel, VP General Foods. His speech gave rise to one of the widely and most used statistics of his day, the average family of four receives 1,518 advertising exposures each day. An except follows [Britt, Adams, Miller: Journal of Advertising Research, Dec. 1972]:

Did you ever calculate how much advertising an ordinary family is exposed to? A couple of bright young men in my office did some statistically inadequate research for me that is most interesting. It is inadequate only because it represents a picture of one family but the family is typical of many families in America--John, who commutes to work; his wife Mary; and their two children. We made a careful count of the advertising this family was exposed to in one ordinary working day.

It is intriguing to me that a number, based on what sounds to be back of the napkin work, exists almost 50 years later for the answer to the intriguing question of this blog. Just for fun, using an inflation calculator, I punched in the number of 1,518 exposures in 1957 and the total came back as 10,316 at the end of 2005. Perhaps advertising is not keeping pace with inflation? Please let me know what you think.

One of the worst taglines

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:40:00 +0000

During a recent trip to a summer festival I was reminded of one of the worst taglines I've ever heard:

"plant your tulips around pork"

I guess the pork marketing board was a sponsor (that was nice of them) and they were looking to make an association with the festival. I'm not even sure I know what that one means.

CONSUMERS HATE INTERNET ADVERTISING

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:09:00 +0000

Ari Rosenberg writes:

...when prompted, most can name their favorite ad, while many can articulate its purpose relative to the exchange for content. However, place the word "Internet" in front of "advertising" and watch the contempt "pop up."

That's because televisions do not get viruses, magazines do not crash, and ads do not appear out of nowhere to cover the article consumers are reading in their daily newspaper. These Internet-advertising-inflicted mishaps fuel consumer backlash. Factor in a healthy suspicion of cookies, the annoyance of pop-unders, sound without consent, spam from here to eternity, ads that expand beyond their boundaries and spyware practices that occur under the radar, and you have to be living under a pile of revenue not to see how poorly we as an industry treat the consumer attention we profit from.

Rosenberg suggests that online publishers need to start to build trust with their audience by doing what's right (i.e. no more pop up ads) and forming a network of publishers willing to "certify" their sites.

It sounds good, but the rational part of my brain keeps asking, what if it works? What if agressive creative techiques that get attention deliver results to advertisers? Sure we need guidelines and ethics on which to opperate, but don't we also owe our shareholders / stakeholders results for the money we marketers spend to try and sell and position their products?

Polarizing advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:06:00 +0000

I was surprised to hear radio jock talk about the Canadian Tire advertising and how much they hated the bearded guy (think Bob Villa) who is a spokesman for the retailer’s gadgets and products. Maybe it’s my middling ways, but how could people get so excited and passionate about advertising that featured a wholesome family peddling pressure washers and inflatable air mattresses? A quick water cooler poll suggested that it was not just radio personalities, but also coworkers who had a hate on for the ads.

The company says it’s “positioning Dad in a respectful role” and continuing the company’s tradition of featuring fathers in weekend moments with their kids. In the mid 1990’s the company moved away from its slogan, “more than just tires” and adopted “I’ll start with you” (originally a song released as a solo in 1992 by Paulette Carlson, the lead singer of country group Highway 101).

As part of this extension, the company now hopes to appeal to mothers who now seem to be courted by all the traditional “guy” stores, like The Home Depot. This advertising approach is backed up by the opening of new decorating-style stores; wedding/gift registry; and on-the-go stores based around a gas station.

But coming back to the point of this post, I’m sure Canadian Tire (yes they tried CTC for a while to drop the “Tire” but this was around the time of KFC and never caught on) didn’t set out to create a mockable character. But perhaps the casual hatred is a sign that the advertising has penetrated the consciousness of views and resonated—positively or negatively—with them. Does not a parody of serious advertising mean that you’ve truly reached the top shelf?

Overleaping ambition

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:56:00 +0000

OK, I’ve decided—during the dog days of summer—that I’d rather be outside playing than pounding on the keyboard, so I’m resetting expectations….

3000ads will deliver three thousand during the lifetime of this blog not during the next year. It’s impossible!

Which leads me to think, “how is it possible that anyone could be exposed to 3000 advertisements in a year?”

Company Names

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:48:00 +0000

Corporate Confusion
The ad on the side of the truck read:

ACME Inc. We contain all your solutions. 555-1212

I was dumbstruck right in the middle of the crosswalk. Only the honking of the oncoming cars brought me back to my senses and encouraged me to consider the use of riddles in company taglines and to get out of the middle of the road. After some head scratching I realized that this company probably made containers into which one could put liquids of various kinds. While I readily admit I am part of the population that makes MENSA possible, a mysterious corporate description probably isn’t the best approach if you want prospects to call you. Heck, I was so caught up in the idiom I didn’t even remember the phone number or else I would’ve called and suggested:

ACME Inc. We make containers for (hazardous) liquids. 555-1212

You got a solution for ACME, click on the comments button to add your $0.02.

Trends in logos

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:42:00 +0000

The visual component of corporate identity, a logo, is a fascinating evolutionary being. Graphic Design USA covers the new and emerging trends each year in a round up of what is new. For fun, try and count the number of logos you saw today.

How many advertisments do we see each day?

noreply@blogger.com (Candu) — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:22:00 +0000

The often-cited and much hyped number is... can you guess... 3,000.
Google pulled some research together on how many advertisements do we see each day. The subject is of great interest to me and I hope to build a site that looks at some of these ads. My goal is to post 3,000 ads on the site over the next year.