So much of the way we’ve built marketing measurement assumes something that simply isn’t supported by data - the idea that more marketing impressions means better outcomes. We’ve built complex models and scoring systems around this idea, and we visualize impression density as evidence of impact in buyer journeys. It’s the underlying rational of retargeting sequences. There are magic numbers about ideal frequencies. There are even vendor reports that explain how many impressions are required to win a customer. Yet, the data says something different. The chart below comes courtesy of The B2B Institute at LinkedIn, but the research is decades old. Not only does research show that a single ad exposure is enough to create a sale, it generates the greatest overall sales response, with each additional exposure to the same individual producing a smaller response. It’s worth noting, that each additional exposure still shows some positive impact, but the diminishing impact per exposure is meaningful. And, crucially, while there is decreasing incremental impact per impression, the cost of those additional impressions remains constant. In other words, frequency marginally increases likelihood to buy while dramaticlly lowering the profitability of the acquisition cost. It is worth noting, as is said in papers on this topic, that frequency does have a place, especially with brand new products or complex messages. But, in most situations, the most profitable way to advertise is to focus on reaching as many category buyers as possible over reaching a few as deeply as possible. There are two crucial elements to mention that are equally as impactful - the quality of the creative in an ad exposure, and the amount of impressions needed to get an exposure that gets remembered. Bad marketing is no better the second or tenth time you see it, and often isn’t seen at all, across all your served impressions. And, in many ways, our reliance on frequency as a path to acquisition has led us to ignore attention and recall, when they’re the heart and soul of effective marketing.
Depends what the ad was designed to do. And, in this case how many ‘decades ago’. Different types of ads have different jobs: Brand awareness, education, direct response for example. When we designed ads back in the day a campaign would have a variety of executions to deliver the outcome. Not everyone is in the market ‘today’, not everyone will see the ad ‘today’, and to provide variety - so repetition is a pre requisite. I fell like you designed this post as a stick to poke me! 😄
Feels like it's just another symptom of our 'do more' culture that sidelines 'think before you do'. We treat creative fatigue like it's a user created problem, when it's really a marketing failure.
I love this take. It's wild how much we've relied on frequency without fully understanding its diminishing returns.
This is music to my ears. I cringe every time I hear a report come out that says "It takes 28 contacts, 748 ad impressions, and 94 website visits in order to win a deal." As with so much of retargeting, we end up serving more impressions to the people that were already more likely to convert in their own time. The diminishing returns and increased CAC backs all of that up.
Consulting and V.o.C. research in b2b markets leading to insight and actionable strategies and tactics. Providing marketing research for b2b. This makes market research actionable and enables better business decisions
9hBut doesn’t the number of total impressions make a difference even though they are smaller ones? I can still sing commercials I saw when I was a kid