The marketing decision analysis will determine the effectiveness of the two campaigns by evaluating brand awareness, purchase intention, and stated purchase behavior for the focal brand before the campaign (baseline) and after the two movements. The methodology chosen is quantitative research, which takes into account the key concepts from a manager’s perspective. This entails the usage of statistical data, optimization models, entailing the modeling of the best solutions available. The data collected by this type of research method is used to collect opinions and attitudes toward a particular product or service. The sample size used in this survey was around 100 people across different age groups, gender, and income levels. These people were chosen randomly from other parts of Australia. The methodology chosen is relevant since it serves the purpose of finding the best available solutions from a different range of tools. The appropriateness of its usage is mostly reflected in its strengths. This methodology’s strengths are that it accurately represents what consumers think about their product or service and their competitors’ products or services. It also allows businesses to understand how well their marketing strategies have worked thus far so they can make improvements on them if needed. However, there are certain limitations and weaknesses; quantitative researchers often rely on statistical analysis to answer consumer behavior and preferences questions (Bloomfield & Fisher, 2019). Still, they cannot fully capture how people make decisions or what factors influence their choices.
The following is a comparison of respondents’ pre-campaign (baseline) and post-campaign (after both campaigns) levels of brand knowledge, intent to buy, and actual behavior about the featured brand. Brand Awareness: Top-of-mind recall was 32.5% before the first campaign, increased to 56.2% after the first campaign, and then increased to 65% after both campaigns. Total unprompted brand recall was 26.5% before the first campaign, increased to 36.7% after the first and 41.3% after both campaigns. Purchase Intention: The proportion of respondents who stated that they are most likely to purchase the focal brand if they buy a card today was 10% before the first campaign, which increased to 25% after both campaigns. Stated Purchase Behavior: The analysis of the purchase behavior is essential in the context of quantitative analysis. The proportion of respondents who have purchased the focal brand in the last six months was 35% before the first campaign and increased to 49% after both campaigns. The results show an increase in brand awareness for focal brands over time, as indicated by the rise in total unprompted brand recall from baseline to after both campaigns (from 42.6% to 65%). There is also an increase in purchase intent for the brand over time, as indicated by the rise in the proportion of respondents who stated that they are most likely to purchase a focal brand if they buy a card today, from 10% at baseline to 15% after both campaigns.
The baseline performance of the focal brand (in terms of brand awareness, purchase intention, and stated purchase behavior) is not satisfactory. The total brand awareness is only 41.3%, meaning that over 60% of the target market is unaware of the product. Purchase Intention is 15% after both campaigns, meaning that only a small percentage of consumers are interested in purchasing the product. Stated Purchase behavior is 27% after both campaigns—this means that about 1 in 4 people say they will buy the product once asked directly about their intentions. The performance objective of this advertisement campaign should be to increase awareness and purchase intention among its target market to encourage them to try out this new product line and hopefully become loyal customers in future iterations!
Reach may also be stated as a percentage, which shows the proportion of the population exposed to at least one spot (Callejo et al., 2020). This is another way to quantify Reach. In this case, 150 persons were exposed to this campaign at least once. Therefore reach= 150/200 × 100%= 75%. Frequency is the average number of times the advertisement will be shown to the Reached Population. The number of Impressions is divided by the Reach to determine the frequency. GRPs can also be divided by Reach Percentage.
The total number of times that people see an advertisement is referred to as its impressions. Multiple exposures can occur throughout one person’s lifetime. If the same individual were shown an advertisement five times, we would consider this as five impressions of that commercial. To determine the total number of impressions, multiply the total number of spots by the average number of persons. Therefore, since the campaign happened twice, frequency= 2/75′ 100= 2.6 Cost effectiveness: Cost per Thousand Impressions (CPM) is an additional cost-effectiveness metric that allows people to compare the cost of this campaign to that of other adverts. CPM is computed by dividing Media Cost by Impressions = 1,000/ $75/2= 0.03$ cost per thousand impressions in the second campaign.
The ad campaign’s impact on the target audience is a critical factor in determining the success of an advertising campaign. Reach, frequency, impression, and cost-effectiveness are metrics used to measure the impact of an advertising campaign. Reach is defined as the number of people that have viewed an ad. Frequency is defined as how many times someone sees an ad. Impressions are views of a firm’s ad. Cost per thousand impressions (CPM) is how much it costs to reach 1,000 people with an ad campaign (de Sousa et al., 2020). We have two campaigns: the first campaign has a reach of 75%, frequency of 2.6, impression of 2, and cost per thousand impressions of $0.03. The second campaign has a reach of 80%, frequency of 1.8, impression of 1, and cost per thousand impressions of $0.04. Both campaigns effectively reach their target audience, but the second campaign is more effective because it reaches more people at a lower cost. The first campaign’s cost per thousand impressions is $0.03, while the second campaign’s cost per thousand impressions is $0.04—a difference that may seem small but can add to significant savings for the company over time.
The two campaigns increased brand awareness, but the first was more successful in increasing purchase intention. The first campaign increased brand awareness by 15%, while the second only increased it by 10%. This is likely because the second campaign’s goals were more specific than just raising brand awareness—it also focused on increasing purchase intention and behavior. However, this increase in awareness may have been enough to cause a slight decrease in purchase intention. It could be explained that many people who heard about the brand but did not intend to buy it might not have intended to buy it before they heard about it. Or perhaps some people decided to buy something else instead of this brand after hearing about it. The second campaign also affected purchase behavior—it increased the percentage of respondents who purchased this brand in the last six months from 24% to 27%. This may be because those who had bought this product were more likely to respond favorably when asked about their intentions for future purchases than those who had not purchased anything from this company.
Brand awareness is vital because it means people are familiar with the brand, leading to increased purchase intention and behavior. It has been seen that the campaigns were positive in terms of recall. This shows that more people positively associate with the brand after seeing it. When considering these results, I recommend pursuing a marketing plan similar to the first campaign. Focus on digital advertising with an emphasis on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram rather than television or print media because it allows for greater interactivity between users, increasing engagement with our brand over time. The analysis showed that an increased presence in social media could be vital for future success in marketing. It also indicates the need to create a positive branding image on the Internet, which will lead to brand recognition and enhance sales and overall company development. The firm can also benefit from another campaign specifically targeted at purchase intention. It is essential to note that campaign effectiveness is significant because it gives a company insight into whether or not a campaign is working. If a driver is found to be ineffective, it is more likely that companies will invest their money elsewhere. Consequently, if they find that some campaigns are more effective, the company can focus more on the effective ones and less on the ineffective ones. This will help the company allocate its advertising money in the most efficient way possible.
Callejo, P., Cuevas, Á., Cuevas, R., Esteban-Bravo, M., & Vidal-Sanz, J. M. (2020). Tracking fraudulent and low-quality display impressions. Journal of Advertising, 49(3), 309-319.
de Sousa, D. D. A., de Sousa, J. I., & Vieira, L. F. (2020). SEGMETRIK: Protocol and metrics for advertisement performance tracking in VANETs. Vehicular Communications, 22, 100212.
Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(2), 27-30.