News just in … TV advertisers don’t know which ads actually lead to purchases of their products. You would think such an admission would lead to an outcry. But my guess is that everyone agreed not to speak about it. Kinda like that mad aunt in the family no one wants to acknowledge but who is hopefully going to leave a ton of money one day.

So what’s the big breakthrough? Publicis MediaVest and new research start-up TRA have developed a whizzo system to link actual TV viewing to actual purchases, according to Adage.

“Advertisers advertise to sell products, and for 50 years TV has been bought on sex and age demographics,” said Mr. Lieberman, CEO of TRA. “What we are saying is, ‘Why not buy based on purchases?’”

Direct marketers have been saying that for years. Right back to the days of Claude Hopkins’ Scientific Advertising.

The trouble with TRA’s model is that it isn’t scientific. Even if the desktop box in 300,000 Californian homes does tally up with a real purchase in-store, surely there are billboards, point of purchase offers, coupon books and billboards to be accounted for. It’s all still a bit messy.

Nevertheless, it points to increasing awareness that there’s lots of inefficiency in broadcast media.

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; trouble is I don’t know which half.” JOHN WANAMAKER, pioneer of US department stores (1838-1922)

A century after Wanamaker’s famous lament, how effective are we at measuring our advertising efforts?

Cents per click? Opportunities to see? Cost per thousand? The rule of thumb?

As far as I can see, Wanamaker himself didn’t do any direct marketing – so he probably underestimated the underperformance of his advertising considerably. (He did become Postmaster General, so I guess he had some connection with direct mail at least.)

Today, everyone measures their marketing media performance – that’s a given. But what about your creative messaging? Shouldn’t you measure that too?

CREATIVITY IS NO MYSTERY

Some people say that creativity is a mystery. How do you put a price on a piece of art, they say. Some people, who tend to be self-proclaimed creative people, would rather point to other causes of advertising failure, rather than the words or the pictures.

But, as a writer myself, I beg to differ.

Sure, you need to get the media and the timing right. But creativity has to bear its share of responsibility too. Direct marketing techniques demystify what really affects consumer behaviour, so that you can write and design even more successful advertising.

THE RULE OF THUMB IS DUMB

I think there are two basic types of creativity. Creativity that sells and creativity that doesn’t. The rule of thumb will tell you nothing about that.

Essentially, you need to put your creative messages to the test of public opinion. I think that’s what’s exciting about truly creative advertising – you design to get a specific response. Your target market is the judge, not the advertising awards panel.

SUSTAINABLE MARKETING IS DIRECT

But successful, sustainable direct marketing means planning right from the start that everything will be measured. Especially if you intend to measure your creative messaging, you need to be very careful to prepare laboratory conditions – to reduce contamination from other marketing efforts. That’s why direct mail to your existing customers is often the best place to start.

So how come there’s a mythology that only half of an advertising budget gets wasted? Without DM techniques, I’m guessing it could range as high as 90% inefficiency. We have the sacred status of John Wanamaker’s quotation to thank for helping us believe that conventional advertising is only half bad.

My nephew Ross back in auld Scotia is so immersed in the world of blogging that he is surely developing webby fingers. On a recent trawl through his deep sea of archives in Basic Craft, I found a pertinent post on how unreliable online measurement systems can be.

Ross quotes from The Economist, an occasionally dull but always worthy UK periodical whose name, for once, sums up its content. (Having said that, the publication is responsible for commissioning some of the best copy-only advertising in English – ever. You’ll see some on their site.)

The article describes trying to extract meaningful webstats as trying to sip water from a fire hose.

Ross has much that’s sensible to say about many things — including the fickle nature of Facebook fads. But nothing yet on the next new thing – nepotism on the net!

How do you compare broadcast apples and digital oranges?

AC Nielsen’s acquisition of IAG Research for $225m may suggest that a lot of people are asking the same question.

There are 14,000 ‘Nielsen families’ across the USA — the source of those pesky ratings that agencies, clients and broadcasters bicker over. What if the Nielsen’s can go digital? Could their viewing habits and web activities be linked at last?

The jury will be out for some time, until the first co-ordinated data bears fruit. If it is an or-pple, a combo of digital and broadcast ratings, the likes of Coke and Fed-Ex will have another stick to beat media owners.

For now, if you run a smaller business, take comfort form the fact that if you do your own marketing measurement based on actual responses, it appears there’s one area where you are ahead of the big boys.