Several studies, including one by a neutral third party (Stanford University) indicate that they can (but not always). However, the primary, immediate goal of many of those ads is to drive brand/product awareness, and aren’t necessarily intended to directly and immediately lead to an actual purchase.
I would think direct mail is also good for being aimed at a specific dispersed audience. (I.e. Medicare and AARP advertising). The target audience is “not everyone” and widely scattered among the general population.
As I mentioned, a lot of the junk in my mailbox is flyers - mass printed, unaddressed, and given to everyone in the neighbourhood. Everyone buys groceries, get cable TV, most buy a car sooner or later. However, not that many buy hearing aids, or need to upgrade Medicare Advantage (a weird concept to a Canadian). Printing flyers for every household is not money well spent. If you have some way to identify and reach just the people who could be your customers, so much the better. If one in 100 need hearing aids, then a mail campaign is possibly cheaper than the cost of printing and distributing 100 flyers for each one effective delivery. When your target audience is the entire city or state (or country) then flyers just aren’t that cheap.
The ads aren’t to upgrade Medicare, but rather to switch whose plan you’re on. Medicare has an open enrollment period when this can be done for (I think) three weeks late in the year (Nov and Dec, although I don’t know the exact dates) so the ads start with a few in late Sept and build up quickly in Oct.
Recently, someone has found out my phone number so, for the last few days, the bombardment is also now voiceSpam.
I’ve gotten numerous calls from the pleasant-sounding women at American Senior Benefits or some similar organization. Or maybe it’s just one woman. I don’t say anything and eventually she hangs up.
You are correct. Blanket coverage in any area is going to be limited to local businesses like grocery store flyers. Many of them are now based on mailing lists anyway as they are supplements to online advertising.
There are many mailing list brokers who can provide lists based on addresses and areas of interest that will be unduplicated and qualified for the desired audience.
When I first worked in direct mail in the 70s lists were beginning to get huge with many millions of names. By coincidence I ended up at a company a few years later in the unduplicating business. Up to 10% of large mailing lists could be duplicates based on name and address variations. Local computer resources were sometimes used up by these massive lists and the companies with resources for their own advertising often were paid to perform direct mail printing and distribution for other companies.
What life experience do you have that makes you think you know this so definitively? Companies know exactly how well this works. They send out the ads and then they look at how well sales do afterwards comparing it to before the ad and maybe the same time last year.
I have $1,000 advertising budget. I could either have 500-1,500 direct (junk) mail cards made and sent out to a specific group that may be interested in my product/service knowing that with some people the card will sit on their counter or desk for several days or more before they decide to pitch it and look at it at least 1 more time.
Or I could spend that money on a TV or radio ad (excluding production costs) and have it air 2-10 times to an audience, a few who may be my target group, who promptly forget my ad once the show or next song is on.
I think the direct mail approach would be a better use of my advertising dollars.
My impression is that direct mail is often better at targeting more affluent consumers, too.
I at least look at every piece of mail because sometimes important things come in the mail. Bills, payments, legal notices, etc. If something catches my eye I will indeed set it on my desk to look into later.
But I don’t see ads on TV because I just watch ad-free streaming services. And I don’t hear radio ads because I listen to podcasts (I do hear some podcast ads, but I’m inclined to pay for the ad-free subscription if it’s offered). I don’t see ads on the internet because I use an ad blocker.
I don’t think you even need an independent study. Try this: look at the brand name of your furnace, air conditioner, or water heater, Now, try to think of any other furnace, air conditioner or water heater brand. If you can remember even one, that name recognition has to come from somewhere.
No argument with that, but does the name recognition mean anything? That is the hard part to determine.
My furnace might be a Daikon (like the radish?), and I don’t know what my AC is. They’re both less than 3 years old. I know Carrier and Reem are HVAC brands, but that name recognition didn’t help them make a sale. I’m aware of many national beer brands that I never buy. I can list several laundry detergents, but the one I use is whatever unscented one was on sale at Costco.
I always wondered by Boeing advertises.
But it may have made you check them out so they got more of a chance than a brand you didn’t know. Or maybe not specifically you since you probably did a very thorough investigation but true for a lot of people.
There are few things more studied than marketing. They really do know what works. The fact that the occasional misstep becomes national news is proof of that.
My old ad agency had them as a client.
Their advertising (and advertising for military contractors, like Raytheon and United Technologies) isn’t really targeting consumers, even though regular, ordinary consumers see their ads; consumers don’t buy a 737 or a weapons system, and really have no influence in any decisions being made around those products.
They’re targeting high-level business decision makers, and people involved in the government and the military.
It was explained to me once that advertising from companies like that is to drive sale of the stock. The company itself doesn’t make money from the sale of existing stock, but if the stock goes up that does benefit people who hold lots of the stock, for example executives who make decisions about marketing budgets.
I do not know if that explanation is correct, and if it is correct, if the scheme works.
This is true; I also wouldn’t discount the desire of senior management to see their company being advertised on TV. 
Just to make sure I’m following this: sometimes I’ll see an ad for an upcoming movie, and I’ll think, gosh, I’d sure like to buy a ticket to see that, and then I do buy a ticket to see it, and so do millions of other people, and the movie makes plenty of money…
…and, sometimes, I’ll see plenty of ads for a movie, and I’ll think well, look, I’m now aware of the title of the movie, and I can tell you who’s starring in it and what it’s about, just like I can quote you a line from the commercial; and so, in a sense, Mission Accomplished: The Message Has Been Received. But, in another sense, in a very real and meaningful sense, I’m not actually going. And other folks who likewise got the message from the marketing likewise stay away, and said movie fails to break even.
Are you counting that sort of thing as one of those occasional marketing missteps that’s fit for the national news, or is that something else entirely?
I grasp the concept. It just seems weird. I’m enrolled in the Canadian plan’s full coverage through a simple process - I live here.
Hmmm… I also just got some junk mail from my college. I graduated decades ago, but they still ask for money. There’s a prime example of “targeted” dispersed audience. OTOH, I get an unaddressed card in the mailbox advertising a private girl’s school downtown. I assume the number of households with school age girls is such that this is worth a blanket advertising in the more well-off suburbs that can afford a private school - based on average neighbourhood income data and household demographics from Statistics Canada, even though if I had a daughter she’d be pushing 40. Quite a few of the houses on my street have school age children, and these are not cheap houses.
This is a thread about junk mail. A hearing aid company gets x inquiries a day. They do a junk mail ad. Two days later they get 3x calls for the next several days. If they start with sending to only a few neighborhoods and they get a spike in only those neighborhoods they are even more sure that it worked.
This would similarly apply to a tv as campaign if they see a spike in sales or not in a region. I don’t know how it would specifically apply to a movie.
Advertising (particularly mass-media advertising, like TV ads) generally isn’t so surgically precise that it only reaches people who are likely to buy the product; any of us are going to be reached by a lot of ads for products and services which we have no interest in ever buying, and no ad will help. Advertisers understand this, and factor it into their evaluation of whether an ad campaign is successful.
In the case you describe here, it could, potentially, be an issue of “it’s actually a good movie, but the ad campaign was terrible, and didn’t do a good job of conveying to people what the movie is actually about.” But, I suspect that, in most cases, the reason that people stay away from movies is either (a) the particular subject matter (or the stars) isn’t appealing to them*, and/or (b) it is simply not a good movie, and no amount of advertising, no matter how good, is going to save it from being a bomb.
You saw the ads, you understood the ads, etc., but your takeaway from them was, “that looks terrible, and I’m not going to see it.” In most cases, that is very likely not a failure of the ads.
ISTR a few examples, from years ago, in which a lousy film had a good opening weekend, apparently in part because the ad campaign made the film look really good, but once reviews and word-of-mouth caught up to it, it then sunk like a stone. I think that’s probably a bit less likely to happen now, with the internet giving most people a lot more access to early reviews and viewer reactions to films.
*- For example, in my case, I simply don’t like horror films. Even if there’s a great horror film (like, say, the film Us, from a few years ago), I’m just not going to see it, and it doesn’t matter if it has great ads, great reviews, etc.
A giveaway that the movie is terrible is if the ad does not make it look appealing. More often, an annoyance is an ad that either gives away the whole plot, or worse, it shows pretty much the only good parts. The common complaint, especial with bad comedies, is that the only funny bits were in the ad, the rest was boring.
(Does anyone have a clue what St. Elmo’s Fire was about, decades later? All I got from the preview was pretty fall scenery and a hit instrumental song.)