In this paper I propose to outline briefly some underlying factors leading to the growth of below-the-line activity, to describe the marketing functions performed by different types of promotional activity, and to suggest a rational approach to the problem of allocating expenditure.
The major purpose of this paper is to provide a particular illustration of the testing and evaluation of one type of sales promotion scheme - the on-pack offer. In itself, it points to some of the difficulties of evaluating sales promotion activities, and also to the comparative ease with which some aspects of promotion can be usefully researched. It is, therefore, worthwhile briefly placing this particular study in the context of what research can and should analyse in the sales promotion field.
This paper will deal with the problem of choice between two activities, advertising versus selective sampling as below-the- line activity. It will explore the possibility of achieving objective standards of decision according to procedures followed in media selection.
The subject of this paper is the measurement of the sales effect of promotions by the analysis of consumer behaviour in terms of penetration and repeat purchasing. The type of penetration/ repeat purchasing analysis required for this purpose, and described in this paper, requires a continuous purchasing panel to provide data with the necessary detail and accuracy. Interview surveys can measure product penetration and the extent of repeat purchasing (although the accuracy of claims made may be subject to exaggeration) but they cannot provide the time spread of these activities sufficiently accurately unless multiple interviews are conducted with sufficient frequency for the resulting technique to be virtually a Panel anyway.
At a time where Market Testing is criticized for its costs and mathematical modelling is developed, sometimes imprudently, one has not to forget about the potential of Physical Micro Modelling, as well as Physical Simulation. Reason why we have pushed a raid beyond the previous developments, in order to master promotional activities which were up to now quite empirical, even anarchical.
Comments about the contents of the Seminar "Below-the-line activities".
The purpose of the research was to collect data on the effect of in-store advertising through the Supersound system, and so to provide an answer to the question whether the large scale introduction of this system would be useful.
There was considerable comment from Group IV arising from discussion with the speakers. But most of it can be condensed under these three headings: 1. Trade; 2. The operational question; 3. Consumer models.
There were four main points which emerged: 1. Disagreement with the view that "a brand is never the same after a price-off promotion"; 2. The need to define clearly the objectives of a particular promotion; 3. A discussion of the merits of post-testing as opposed to pre-testing in below-the-line compared with above-the-line advertising; 4. A fairly strong view was put forward that different processes were at work in below-the-line as opposed to above-the-line advertising.
Our group felt that in the papers given at the Seminar too much emphasis has been put on the evaluation of below-the-line activities. Our second point concerned the subject of market segmentation. We would like to know how to go about tracing people, belonging to market segments that are based on psychological rather than social-economic criteria.
The group welcomed the distinctions drawn on the first day between the various types of promotional activity and regretted that these distinctions were not subsequently maintained when interpreting research into promotions - particularly panel data. They felt the need to differentiate between the various types of promotion, e.g. money-off or gifts, when interpreting data, since effects can be very different.