This was a question posed by professor Byron Sharp in his book “How Brands Grow”

Byron Sharp is Professor of Marketing Science at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science. An independent, not for profit, marketing research Institute at the University of South Australia

Their research discovers how buyers behave, brands perform and how marketing really works.

I really like the way these guys think.
One of the founders of this thinking was Professor Andrew Ehrenberg.. look him up in Wikipedia

Professor Andrew Ehrenberg is most famous for discovering that the distribution of brand purchase rates follows a very predictable pattern. Like most discoveries, its scientific name is “the Negative Binomial Distribution” or  fondly known as “NBD”

I feel the need to repeat the Andrew Ehrenber’s discovery…Its like music to my ears “brand purchase rates follow a very predictable pattern”

The bottom line is:

Yes marketing is field that is dominated by people’s impulses to buy.

Yes it is a creative profession.

But there are patterns and regularity in the way people behave to marketing.

Most marketers, even senior marketers say there can be no laws concerned with marketing. They say people are far too individual and unpredictable.

I say “RUBBISH”

The people that tell you that there is no science to marketing are usually the ones trying to sell you something you don’t need.

I agree with Professor Sharp. Its time for the snake oil marketers to find another side show. Its time to look at predictable patterns of how buyers buy and how sales grow.

If you haven’t already got his book, I recommend you do.

This link will give you a list of stockists in your country http://marketinglawsofgrowth.com/index.html

I agree whole heartedly with him when he says that “Marketing Practice, for all its advances has never been strong on evaluation; there is plenty of ineffectiveness and room for improvement” There is always room for improvement no matter what field we are in and it would be arrogant to think there was not.

He makes a very good point on how inefficient some consumer response rates to advertising are. Response rates have been extremely low these days and no thanks to wasteful spending by many marketers.

In his book, Professor Sharp’s team recently examined responses to 143 ads that were screened on Australian television on consecutive weeknights. A group of respondents were phoned and asked if they had recognised the particular television commercial. Only 40% of potential viewers noticed the ad. Of those people that noticed the ad, only another 40% could link that ad to the correct brand.

For an ad to work it must first be noticed and second linked with the correct brand.  In this example, only 16% of this Television Commercials that went to air passed the test.  That means the marketer had 84% wastage.

After working in this industry for over 30 years, I know that when it comes to producing creative strategy, and production strategy that works, The best success comes from taking the time to evaluate the creative and make sure the message is clear. Long before you make the television commercial or place the media. But then once it’s gone to air, if the creative isn’t hitting the mark or if the placement of the ad isn’t getting to the target audience. Its best to change one or both until it hits the mark.

I’m part way through Professor Sharps book right now, but I have found it terrific because it challenges conventional marketing thinking and busts a lot of marketing myths.

Jeremy Hope

Managing Director
Outsource My Marketing