We are working to analyze data and conduct surveys to determine our advertising effectiveness. Often however, the data is inconclusive. Without high-priced data analytic tools we can only glean certain information from it. Here is what we do, we look at Google analytics to determine if our website or specific links (in which the URLs are linked to campaigns in google analytics) spike click throughs after ads are placed. Of course, if we are placing digital (including display, social, native, and google ads and emails), broadcast, outdoor, and print ads at the same time, we can't tell how much of an effect the print, outdoor, or broadcast ads had. In addition, we look at the click through rates and open rates from our digital vendors. They often are dismal though. .10% ugh - it just doesn't feel right, but we are told that it is effective - so my conclusion is the digital ads function like print ads - the number of impressions do matter as well. We also use retargeting and geofencing when placing digital ads and - when possible- we ask our digital companies if they can track if a person who was served an ad/ads walked through the door within one month from the time the ad was served.
Our VISITOR intercept surveys tell us that our visitors do see our advertising in print. And, the visitor surveys are basically all over the board when asking where the advertising is seen.
I read an article in Bloomberg that said that you cannot track the true effectiveness of one ad unless you are only placing one ad. The fact is that a consumer will see or hear about your product/service/exhibition in several places before they act. So, a print ad may make them conscious of your message, a billboard will remind them of it and perhaps make it more attractive to them, and then, they hear a news anchor or their friend talking about it and, finally, they decide to act. In other words, it is all about the effectiveness of the overall campaign. A healthy media mix, weighted more heavily on digital, broadcast, and outdoor, and one that includes media relations and promotions, is my takeaway.
The other dilemma is that audience behavior is diverse. You can't lump every millennials' behavior into one basket. Same goes with baby boomers - some are stuck to their phones, some love television, some love television yet use a DVR, some use paid Spotify, etc. AND, often we are trying to reach Baby Boomers, Millennials, AND GenX's. And, we don't have the budget to personalize to each group (other than in social, which we create "look alikes" and target aggressively).
I agree that Colleen Dilenschneider's Know Your Own Bone is very helpful in informing us on how to analyze and use data - it has been very helpful to us. Her recent highlight of the 10 best articles in 2018 is great! Often, you have to use several of her articles in tandum to consider when making strategic decisions.
------------------------------
Constance George
Senior Director of Marketing and Community Relations
Carnegie Science Center
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-21-2018 09:19 PM
From: David Beard
Subject: Re[2]: Museum Junction Open Forum : Return On Investment for Marketing Dollars
Some great input and only two snarky replies from same source. My problem is not just the often odd expectations, but the constant pushing to interpret the results of marketing/advertising in monetary terms. The quote from Macy is classic. The reality is that most of the print media we buy is money poorly spent. Also, we are a history museum, rather than a flashy attraction. And we compete with an established arts and science museum (next door, literally) and a new childrens museum (read playhouse). Back to the ROI, a lawyer or a retail merchant only needs one good case or one big sale to pay for a certain block of marketing. Rare for a museum, unless we are talking TITANIC or Tut!
Sincerely,
David Beard
Executive Director
USS KIDD Veterans Museum
Baton Rouge, LA
225-342-1942, x. 12