← The Marketing Architects
The Marketing Architects
When Does Ad Fatigue Actually Matter?
00:22:05
36% of US brands and agencies cite frequency management as a top concern this year. And 81% of consumers unsubscribe when brands send too many messages. So when should you worry about showing your ads too many times? Elena, Angela, and Rob explore...
Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:00]
Rob DeMars
I think everyone would probably agree, even without a data set, that it makes sense that the more times you see an ad, probably the more likely you are to remember Marketing Architects.
- [00:11]
Alaina Jasper
Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Alaina Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects, and I'm joined by my co hosts Angela Voss, the CEO of Marketing Architects, and Rob DeMars, the chief product architect of misfits and machines.
- [00:30]
Angela Voss
Hello y'all.
- [00:31]
Rob DeMars
Hey guys.
- [00:32]
Alaina Jasper
We're back with our thoughts on some recent marketing news. Always trying to root our opinions in data research and what drives business results. Today we're talking about ad fatigue, which it's generally defined as your audience becoming less responsive to an ad campaign due to repeated exposure. Today we're going to share some research on ad fatigue, talk about when it becomes a problem, what you can do about it, and more. And to tee us up, I chose some Recent research from eMarketer. This is from an article titled 5 Key Stats on Marketing Fatigue on CTV, Email and Beyond. And it's by Sarah Lebo. The first stat is 36% of US brands and agencies cite frequency management as a top concern this year. Second, programmatic CTV ad spend forecasts were reduced by 1.37 billion this year due to frequency capping and measurement challenges. Third, in direct channels like email and SMS, 81% of consumers unsubscribe if brands send too many messages. Fourth, 35% of US adults find email marketing annoying when brands bombard them or it feels redundant. And fifth, 54% of consumers open marketing emails when they find them relevant or personalized. So those are just a couple of recent stats on the challenges that ad fatigue brings. And I personally think the toughest thing about ad fatigue is a fine line that marketers sometimes have to walk between being known, being remembered, being top of mind versus annoying or fatiguing customers. And of course, there are some channels that are greater offenders than others, and the eMarketer research highlighted most of them. They include email marketing, CCTV social display, SMS, and just a general programmatic advertising category. So so far I'd be willing to guess that no one's that surprised by this research. So I wanted to try to find something a little bit surprising or shocking. And one thing I found was from an article in the Journal of Advertising. It's titled Stay Away From Me by Tai Hung Baek and Mariko Morimoto. And they found people tend to avoid ads they find irritating or that raise privacy concerned but personalized ads can help reduce this avoidance somewhat. Another study titled the Emotional Effectiveness of Advertisement by Javier Odamendi and Dolores Lucia Sutil Martin found people tend to get fatigued from positive ads faster than negative ones. And that's because our brain pays more attention to negative emotion, making those ads feel more engaging even with repeated exposure. And finally, a study titled An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mirror Exposure Effect by Zhang Feng Surrender Singh and Rohini Aliwalia found video ads tend to cause less ad fatigue than static ads because they create positive emotional reactions through dynamic, engaging content, keeping viewers interested even with repeated exposure. So hopefully some of that was interesting. There's actually a lot of research to go through here because ad fatigue, no surprise, is nothing new. But Rob, let me ask you this. Why do you think it's recently become such a hot topic?
- [03:24]
Angela Voss
I think one of the things is you can blame it on the cookies, right? I mean, just think about remarketing or retargeting, whatever you want to call it. It really amps up the, the creep factor. It makes it feels like brands are stalking you online. You visit a website about baking biscuits and all of a sudden the Pillsbury Doughboy is in your grill 24, 7. Second, I think the algorithms are serving your customers like messages. So while you're not even advertising that much, the weight of both you and the category being pushed to the eyeballs of your consumers makes you guilty by association. And lastly, I think as marketers, we're training consumers to be more savvy and they're becoming more critical of the tactics being used.
- [04:06]
Rob DeMars
I also wonder just with where we're at in terms of understanding data, having access to data. I mean, media companies and ad tech platform platforms have little incentive to debunk traditional frequency myths perhaps. And so as marketers have gotten more savvy with their own data and start seeing patterns, whether it be too low, too high, we start to debunk maybe some traditional thoughts about what effective frequency might look like.
- [04:36]
Alaina Jasper
That's a great point. I know that there has been a lot of debate even within like recent marketing effectiveness research around how much frequency do you really need? Because a lot of digital platforms will push super high frequency because that benefits them. I think one other thing that could contribute to it is the rise of CTV in the past few years because CTV is such a big offender for over frequency and it's been growing so fast. I'm guessing that it's top of mind for everybody. And I want to talk a little bit about CTV because we don't purchase, email, social or display for our clients. But we are experts in streaming and like I said, it's one of the biggest offenders of over frequency. And I think everybody listening again knows all too well what I'm talking about. So Ange, could you talk a little bit about why over frequency is such a problem in CTV in particular?
- [05:26]
Rob DeMars
Of course, yeah. I mean this is really rooted in the fragmentation of the platforms, lack of unified measurements, just the complexities of the programmatic buying environment. There's no cross platform tracking. Viewers often encounter the same ad across multiple apps and programmatic buying across DSPs just lacks that coordination around frequency caps. So then high ad demand, limited inventory and financial incentives to maximize those impressions compound the issue just leading to this repetitive ad exposure that we've all witnessed on occasion. Everyone I think I know has experienced that. Or you're sitting in your living room and you're like, oh my goodness, I've seen this seven times in the last two hours. I think to CTV's just lagging technology and inconsistent audience data prevents that effective frequency management. I think it happens within platform too. Regardless of lack of cross platform ability to control or ability to manage and understand how the audience lays out. You have brands that maybe just aren't aware of what they need to be doing from a frequency capping standpoint. And so you'll see a brand 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 times over the course of an hour.
- [06:47]
Alaina Jasper
I haven't seen any research in particular on the effect that has on a consumer, but that would be fun to do. What happens when people watch TV for a couple hours and one brand, you end up seeing it 10 times within 30 minutes. I'm guessing it changes your perception of the brand, but again, it would be fun to see.
- [07:05]
Rob DeMars
It is annoying. And I think the other thing that complicates this a little bit is memorability versus the ability of a brand to drive immediate response. And I think everyone would probably agree, even without a data set that it makes sense that the more times you see an ad, probably the more likely you are to remember attention is an issue in television. How many people are even seeing the ad that's on television on the screen if they're looking at their phone or doing something else in the living room. So there's that component of it too that I think just creates a little grayness around what is effectiveness? Is that the ability to drive brand recall? Is it the ability to drive immediate sales lift?
- [07:44]
Angela Voss
It is funny to think about how consumers might be perceiving the redundancy. It's sort of like when you watch a really great comedian and he's just hilarious or she's awesome, super funny. Then you see them again and in the middle of the set they tell the same joke and you're like, yeah, that was funny. And then the third time you're like, come on, you have more stuff. And then by the fourth time you're like, this just feels phony now. It felt so off the cuff before, you know. And same thing with ads. The first couple times it starts to worry it when they're stuck in those pods like that.
- [08:16]
Alaina Jasper
Well, we know that seeing a brand in the super bowl or on national broadcast makes you think more highly of them. So I would guess the opposite would be true. If you see a brand 10 times in a row, even though it's probably not the brand's responsibility, it's whoever is placing the media. But you're probably not going to think I would think is highly of it. Angel, that's a good point. That when we're talking about frequency, it's obviously not a good idea to only have people see your ad one time. But if you were just looking at performance, you might choose to do that. And that's why it's important to have lots of different metrics that you're looking at short and long. But one thing I want to talk about as a part of this discussion is the difference between creative wear out and ad fatigue, because they are related but not exactly the same. Ad fatigue is more about your overall volume of ads across channels. So how could that reduce your effectiveness when it gets too high, while creative wear out refers to when an individual ad becomes less effective. But Rob, we have a little bit of a contrarian view of creative wear out on tv, don't we?
- [09:14]
Rob DeMars
I think it's time for a contrarian corner. The lines are drawn.
- [09:20]
Alaina Jasper
Who's right?
- [09:21]
Angela Voss
So this idea is so contrarian it even contradicts what I just said. How's that? Which is the data. The data for us shows, and obviously we work in television, so we're speaking to the TV channel, but our data shows that creative burnout just isn't a big factor. In fact, it's more the category or particular campaign where we might see some tired metrics occur, but when it comes to the individual creative itself, we just don't see it. And Elena, if I'm not mistaken, you've even seen some research that is contrarian but supports that notion.
- [09:59]
Alaina Jasper
Yeah, I think, and you've probably seen this stuff too, that System one backs up our point of view where brands often move on from not even a specific creative, but a concept and sometimes concepts that they've been running for years or something that was really effective decades ago. They can bring it back to TV and it'll perform better even if it's been around for a long time.
- [10:19]
Rob DeMars
I think the headline is that brands often get more tired of their creative before consumers do. They wake up thinking about their brand. What's that next? Differentiation? How do I keep it fresh? When in reality, if you have an effective television ad, it's probably a better move to just let it run. To Rob's point, just run it back.
- [10:40]
Alaina Jasper
It's tempting to want to keep changing everything. When I was looking into this topic of ad fatigue, a few others sort of came along with it and one of them was creative solutions, which makes sense if you're googling ad fatigue. There's going to be a lot of companies offering some sort of solution. And one thought that popped into my head was the idea of maybe creating different versions of your ads using AI, which we've heard about a lot recently. And maybe this could help reduce ad fatigue across channel. But Rob, as our AI enthusiast, I guess we're all AI enthusiasts, what do you think? Do you think there are creative solutions to ad fatigue that we might take advantage of maybe now, but also looking towards the future?
- [11:19]
Angela Voss
I was thinking about this question and Ang actually just stole my answer.
- [11:24]
Rob DeMars
Sorry, Rob.
- [11:24]
Angela Voss
Because she's super smart. I do think that, and this is taking maybe your question in a slightly different answer. But I do think the provocative question to start off of is really having a heart to heart with the C suite and going, is the fatigue that you're responding to truly in market fatigue or is this. We've lived with the brand, we've lived with this behind our own walls and are we feeling the fatigue? The data isn't really showing it, but then if the data is showing it, don't take a one size fits all approach to where you're going to make some changes. Look at each channel individually. Each one's going to behave differently, each one's going to cause your feeling of burnout. We just talked about television and how we don't see it in the data, but that doesn't mean your other campaigns aren't feeling that fatigue. So don't take a one size fits all approach but really go in and dig into the data.
- [12:18]
Rob DeMars
It also ties to the performance plateau that we hear about in marketing effectiveness, that through performance marketing you absolutely can grow. But you reach this point where you've sort of saturated the in market consumers that might respond today. And you have to take that more long term view of building that mental availability and future demand in order to continue to fuel growth. And so that campaign level fatigue is most likely just you're reaching that point. And that's why just putting a new creative into market doesn't take you back to where you were a year ago, two years ago, whatever might be in terms of a performance indicator.
- [13:00]
Alaina Jasper
Speaking of performance indicators, I want to talk more about frequency. And I know that we mentioned this a little bit earlier, but this topic is surprisingly controversial in marketing. And I should preface that the ideal amount of time someone receives a marketing message from you will probably vary by channel. For example, you probably want to be a little more careful with the number of marketing emails you send every week versus the number of display ads somebody sees or frankly mostly doesn't see. But Ang, what have we found as an agency regarding an ideal frequency target or number for our clients on tv?
- [13:35]
Rob DeMars
Yeah, I'm sure many of us have heard the standard rule of three, right? That eventually became, I think I heard frequency of 7 at some point just starts to run rampant. And as I mentioned earlier, there's a valid argument that those ideal frequency levels like The Rule of 3 Rule of 7 were at least partly constructed to justify increased spending and therefore revenue for media companies. Setting that aside, I think these rules originated from either limited studies or anecdotal insights and they just became widely generalized. They suggest viewers need these repeated exposure to ads in order to reach effectiveness. But they're often used without robust evidence specific to different media contacts, different channels, et cetera. So for Television Linear and CTV as an agency, our findings suggest that that first exposure to an ad delivers the strongest impact. Subsequent exposures have diminishing returns. It doesn't mean that it never makes sense, but do have diminishing returns in terms of that immediate sales uplift, making it most effective to prioritize reaching new individuals rather than repeating impressions to the same audience. So we have strict frequency rules in place for both linear and streaming. For our prospecting campaigns, we really focus on reach first. That allows us to go deeper and take full advantage of the marketplace, giving our campaigns the longest legs without that burnout out.
- [15:03]
Alaina Jasper
Yeah, so the next time you see 50 ads in a row on CTV, they are not marketing architects, by the way, something's broken. Yeah, yeah, but no edge that finding or that that learning about the first frequency drives most response. I think if you really think about that, it doesn't sound right at first you're like, how is that possible at the first one? But when we see like the chart showing this, it's crazy. It's like the first bar frequency one is so high and then you could just see it drop off significantly over time. Because I think when people first hear that, like it might not fully register, but yeah, it's the first one drives the most response and it's kind of freaky. So we covered a lot today, so I want to wrap this up with something simple. What's one piece of advice we give to marketers who are worried about ad fatigue? And Ang, let's have you start.
- [15:47]
Rob DeMars
I guess I'll take us back to a point that you made earlier, Elena, when we were talking about some of the data on this topic, you had said 36% of US brands and agencies cited frequency management as a top concern this year. So on one side I would say that number that 36% should probably be higher. This is a problem and a topic that needs to be managed. When you have data to support what is most effective and which exposure drives the best response, it doesn't mean that you can only target one frequency per consumer. Of course, reach and frequency are tied together, so that's not even possible. But the other thing I would say is brands, media planners, etc. Often treat frequency as a metric that's divorced from creative quality. Assuming that every exposure adds value and everything is equal there. But in reality, I think weak creative can harm a brand faster when seen multiple times as well. And standout creative might need less repetition to make an impact. So how do you think about that lever too in combination with ensuring that you have effective frequency caps in market?
- [16:52]
Angela Voss
Yeah, I guess my piece of advice would be take on some real risk and experimentation when it comes to the creative ad unit itself and see if that can impact the fatigue. So things like sequential storytelling, user controlled ad experiences, interactive and gamified ads, and you mentioned before kind of that AI driven content generation or customization. But have some fun, play around with what we're seeing out there in the evolving landscape of how you can even do an ad and see how that might impact your fatigue.
- [17:27]
Alaina Jasper
That's great. I would say one piece of advice is invest in multiple channels. I mean that's gonna help overall. If you're only investing in digital, I'm guessing your ad fatigue is gonna get higher faster. When in doubt, add tv. But other things are great too, like out of home or print or the more channels you can add, the better. Final question if you could eliminate one ad jingle from ever being played again, which one would it be? And then the opposite. What's one jingle you never get sick of? So along the theme of hearing things a million times, which this actually ties in really well to Ange's advice about your quality of creative is going to change how often people might tolerate or enjoy seeing your ad. So, Rob, why don't you kick us off here?
- [18:10]
Angela Voss
All right, well, I'm a complicated person, so I have a complicated answer. The same jingle is the worst and my favorite. Okay. And that is save big money at Menards. I hate this jingle. There's nothing acoustically pleasing about it at all. It was actually written originally in 1972, and it sounds like that. Okay. So that's why I hate it. I have to love this jingle. It. It has been around for so long. I can't authentically be a marketing person and say, I hate this jingle, since I bring it up all the time. Every time I drive by a Menards, I sing the jingle in my head. So I have to love it because it is doing its job. It is an earworm. It is sticking in there. So I both love it and I hate it.
- [19:04]
Rob DeMars
You have to wonder, right, what the conversations inside of Menards have sounded like on the topic of, like, someone at this point has had to go, guys, really?
- [19:12]
Alaina Jasper
CMO came in. Yeah. They're like, come on, let's.
- [19:15]
Angela Voss
And that. That's a great point, Angela, because I would actually be angry as a consumer if they all of a sudden threw in some other jingle. I'd be like, where did your other. You're dumb. You have a new hire. They changed it. Shame on you.
- [19:28]
Alaina Jasper
No, they are definitely following marketing effectiveness principles by keeping that. Do not change it. Menards, everybody. Keep your annoying jingles. I know. Don't replace them.
- [19:39]
Rob DeMars
My annoying jingle is Meow Mix, and my favorite. This was hard for me. Like, I had to really, like, narrow it down. But I think I'm gonna have to go with the Toys R Us. I don't want to grow up.
- [19:51]
Angela Voss
Ah, that is a great.
- [19:52]
Rob DeMars
Such a good one.
- [19:53]
Angela Voss
This warms my heart as a company that went bankrupt.
- [19:56]
Rob DeMars
Yeah, I know. They're making a comeback. They're trying. They're trying. I didn't do any research on it. I don't know what year it was created or anything, but I do like it.
- [20:05]
Angela Voss
It's a great one.
- [20:06]
Alaina Jasper
All right. The one that I hate is one that I think most of the population would agree with me. It's the Liberty Mutual. Liberty that one I think is pretty annoying, but again, should never be changed because it works really well, but I find it annoying. And then one that I love is Burger King, and I think this is a new rendition. So I think they did actually change their jingle a bit, but it's the new bk. Have it your way. You rule. I sing that whenever it comes on. I just. I. There's something about that. I love it. I love that jingle. So that one never annoys me. I could hear that a million times. Also, I should say, I know that you probably already thought of this, but you couldn't have said the Marketing Architects jingle. I know that would have been number.
- [20:48]
Rob DeMars
One for both of you, of course. Yes, absolutely.
- [20:51]
Alaina Jasper
But I will say a jingle is such an effective, distinctive asset, and the process for creating ours was so fun, not overly expensive. And now we can use it with all of our podcasts, at the end of all of our video ads. And I think now, Rob, I'm guessing with AI tools, it's easier than ever to create absolutely some sort of jingle. So if your brand doesn't have a jingle, you should have some fun and make one.
- [21:14]
Angela Voss
You can even play with some of the generators out there. I don't know if legally you can use them or not. That's for your attorney to decide. But like appsuno, you can put in your brand and have it come up with jingles. It's pretty cool.
- [21:26]
Rob DeMars
Cue the Marketing Architects Mnemonic.
- [21:28]
Alaina Jasper
Marketing Architects. That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor De Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn. And if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing.
- [21:45]
Rob DeMars
You might need less. Jesus.
- [21:50]
Alaina Jasper
I get where you're trying to go. Good God. We can just swap them around if we need to.
- [21:55]
Angela Voss
All right, so.
- [21:56]
Alaina Jasper
But Ange needs to finish first.
- [21:57]
Angela Voss
Sorry, Ange.
- [21:58]
Alaina Jasper
You need to try show Marketing Architects.