A critical evaluation of the future of marketing communications

A Critical Evaluation of Marketing Communications in the Digital World: Past, Present, and Future.

Megan Louise Adams 27016638

Marketing Advertising and Communications BA Hons Level 6

Strategic Communications in the Digital World

Word Count: 2,741

Introduction

In the current climate, consumers live and work in a digitally enabled world. In the US alone, 12.1 million people work in technology – a number that has increased by 370,000 in the past year, and tech is the 4th highest in terms of job creation since 2010 (CompTIA, 2020). As society moves further online, advertising, and marketing communication messages must follow. Worldwide, almost 4.57 billion people were active internet users as of July 2020, 59% of the global population (Clement, 2020) and 4.14 billion people are active social media users. It is these very people that generate content not unlike that of marketing teams – this is User Generated Content, and it provides potential for an ordinary consumer to communicate with and influence a mass audience.

Section 1:

How audience engagement has changed for marketing communications messages over the last 10 years

During the past several decades, the media landscape has evolved into a complex and dynamic conglomeration of both traditional and interactive media that seek to serve the needs of today’s fast-paced lifestyles (Daugherty et al., 2008) Words written in 2008, that still ring true today.

10 years ago, handheld smartphone devices such as the iPhone were in their infancy, but they meant that mobile internet was suddenly available in people’s pockets. Laptops and PCs were very common, and in the year 2008 when 70% of households owned a home computer (Alsop, 2020) digital advertising began its transformation from desktop to mobile, which lead to advertising in apps and then ultimately to the rise of the mobile app advertising industry (Dogtiev, 2019). When the iPhone App Store first launched in 2008 there were 500 apps. Now there are 1.9 million, and 2.9 (Clement, 2020) on Android’s Google Play store – many of these apps, especially games, offer free download, then the app itself is riddled with ads. This is a prime example of how advances in digital technology directly affect marketing techniques –and engagement is often high, as the ads on these apps are there between game plays. It isn’t just games – mobile shopping apps use push notifications to alert users of sales or discounts. Push notification click through rate (CTR) is a key metric used to measure the retention rate of users – as it is 25% (MobiLoud, 2020) more expensive to acquire a new user than to retain an existing one. A Clevertap study found that the benchmark click-through rate for all industries is 2.74%. Adding emojis to the message on the notification lifts the average CTR to 3.48%, giving an industry-wide average increase of 38%. Mobile apps in the business and finance industry that use emojis in their push notifications receive a 128% boost in CTR (Karnes, 2020). This is just one example of how easily consumer engagement can be lifted with the power of technology, just from one small change.

The 2010’s have arguably been the fastest paced in terms of technological changes to the Internet – from the rise and fall of MySpace, Google’s web monopoly, and the creation of enough apps to last a lifetime. In 2010, 62% of US households had broadband and by 2016 it had risen to 70%, with Google being the top website (Fischer-Baum, 2017). This is important – Google offers features such as Keywords and SEO as Adverts, stating that “the right keywords can get your ad in front of the right customers’ (Google, 2020). 9 in 10 American adults use the internet (Pew Research Centre, 2019). If they’re online, they’re seeing adverts, and they’re most likely narrowcast or ‘targeted’ ads. According to Forbes, most Americans are exposed to around 4,000-10,000 ads per day. At some point, consumers start a screening process for what they engage with and start ignoring brands and advertising messages that they’re not interested in (Simpson, 2017). This may cause a drop in things such as awareness and sales for brands as customers are no longer engaging with their communications.

For much of the 20th century, marketers relied upon the conventional weaponry of the mass media to deliver their commercial payload: newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and billboards. Within that environment, advertisers jockeyed for attention in predictable, delimited contexts such as persuasive campaigns that could be clearly and openly identified as such. “We knew what advertising was and we knew where to find it: during the programming break on TV, surrounding the editorial content in a newspaper, or across banners atop a webpage” (Serazio, 2013). This predictable broadcast advertising would have been easy to anticipate –and the choice whether to engage or not was in the consumers hands: if they didn’t want to watch an ad, they could change channel or radio station, simply not read it, or ignore the banners.

Of course, the 2010’s were parallel to the rise of social media and digital marketing. Linnell (2010) (1) lists the following as great ways to measure audience engagement: blog comments, Facebook interactions, Twitter retweets, Twitter mentions, and YouTube engagement, and these are still great ways to measure customer engagement and response. Mary Meeker (2010) is a renowned internet industry expert. Her 2010 report shows the average percentage of time spent viewing print was 12%, but advertising spending was 26%. 28% of time spent on the internet, and only 13% of spending invested in advertising here, 31% of time spent watching TV and 39% spent. This highlights the thinking of 2010 marketers; technology was moving too quickly to try and steer. The report from 2019 (2) shows how different things have become: less than 25% of advertising spending is on radio, print, and desktop, whereas mobile and TV are the leaders at 33/34% apiece. The consumer time to spending ratio has levelled out and it can be assumed that as consumers spend typically only 3% of their time viewing print media the relative engagement levels will be lower than TV, where they spend 34% of their time.

The presumption that a rise in digital marketing has led to a decline in traditional marketing is correct. But brand experts argue that there is still a role for billboards – which build brand awareness and scale, especially in an era where younger generations are watching less TV. Dallas Wiles co-chief executive at JCDecaux stated that many clients admit they have focused too heavily in recent years on digital activation rather than long-term brand-building (Fisher, 2020). Some interesting findings from a Temple University consumer neuroscience research

project (2015) also fight in physical marketing’s corner, showing that paper adverts engaged viewers for more time, and after a week subjects showed greater emotional response and memory for physical media adverts.

Section 2:

Critical analysis of how IMC Campaigns persuade and influence – and why.

The line between a successful campaign, and a failed campaign can oftentimes feel too narrow to navigate. Recent years’ shift of marketing budgets from traditional advertising to below-theline promotion and the complex and fragmented world of digital media, has made IMC’s promises of strategic synergy more relevant and valuable to clients than ever (Ots & Nyilasy, 2017). Gould (2004) regards IMC not a single strategic blueprint but a set of practices and discourses that are dependent on national, organisational, professional, and other cultural contextual contingencies, which means the marketeer should always fit IMC around the brand, not the other way around. When taking a risk, it can be an anxious experience to wait for the public’s reaction, as success is never guaranteed, and it can be so easy for communications messages to be taken out of context. Dual process theories of attitude change point to two different paths by which persuasion can occur, one a central route based on a relatively deep, systematic, conscious processing of the arguments in a persuasive message; the second a peripheral route based on more shallow, heuristic, and sometimes almost automatic processing of a persuasive message (Lau, 2019).

The second way was used by Pepsi in 2017. The company released an advert as part of a wider campaign with Kendall Jenner – top paid supermodel who earned $4m last year (Davis, 2020) – as the face of the brand. Jenner was a fantastic choice, in 2017 she appeared on runways for fashion designers Marc Jacobs, Bottega Veneta, and she was a Victoria’s Secret Angel (Elle.com, 2017) meaning she was recognisable and on her way to becoming a household name. It is also possible that Pepsi were trying to re-establish themselves alongside Coca-Cola, who’s celebrity endorsements and advertisements created positive impact on the sales, buying behaviour of young consumers, brand positioning and image (Hammad, 2014), therefore making sense to use Jenner. Using a supermodel to promote a product isn’t a new venture, in fact it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book: “drink Pepsi and you’ll get to look like me!” unattainable and very persuasive. Using models in ads creates an association between physical attractiveness and the product which sends a message to the consumer that buying and using the product will help them achieve that physique

This is not the first time Pepsi have used subliminally erotic tones – in 1990 the brand was the topic of a debate over messages “subtly printed on the can’s exterior” (Horovitz, 1990). The Pepsi TV advert aired, and immediately received backlash. The casting was brilliant. The storyline however, missed the mark by a long shot. Potential consumers of Pepsi saw the advert

and said it “trivialised the widespread protests against the killings of black people by the police” and activists said it was precisely the opposite of their real-world experience of police brutality (Victor, 2017). This is why the advert and campaign failed – it alienated its audience. Pepsi’s target audience is a large range of people, mostly soda drinkers in the age range 18-35. This advert was an attempt to attract a younger generation – however it did the opposite and turned them off of Pepsi.

A brand that does know how to target its audience, however, is Pretty Little Thing. A leading UK online retail giant famous for their trend setting clothes and low prices, they target young girls and adults aged between 14 and 26, who may not have a lot of disposable income and / or be aware of the impact of fast fashion on the environment. Their IMC strategy is kept top secret of course – but it can be speculated about. Firstly, are the constant social media posts. 2 or 3 times a day, and when their edit with UK Influencer Molly-Mae Hague was announced they posted on their Instagram stories as well. They often post polls for people to answer, which is a good indication of their customer engagement, so they can decide what is working for them. The collection sold out in many sizes, and Molly-Mae soon after became a PLT ambassador due to their joint success. PLT aired TV adverts in prime slots notably at 9:30 during Love Island – setting them back £62,000 (ITV, 2020) per transmission – every day.

Molly-Mae has 3.9 million followers on Instagram, and she is influencing them whether consciously or subconsciously, and they are buying her products. They trust her to have high quality product launches, which seemingly so far, she has. It’s this cycle of trust which makes her campaigns so successful. Her recent giveaway competition reached 1.2 million likes and nearly 3 million comments – and on YouTube she reached a million subscribers. Why was this so successful? Bowman’s paradox (1980) that high returns can have high risk has been disputed however in the case of Instagram giveaways it is impenetrable. The entry is free, subscribing is free, commenting and sharing is free. But to the brand, that engagement is invaluable. They might provide £10,000 worth of prizes and gain brand awareness overnight that would have otherwise taken years to build.

Section 3:

Potential trends for marketing communications between now and 2025/2026.

There are three major forces that are changing marketing. These are technological trends, socioeconomic trends, and geopolitical trends (Rust, 2020). It can therefore be assumed that marketing communications strategies will be shaped by these predictions and give a glimpse into the future of the industry. To expand, one obvious prediction is that ads will become more specifically targeted for each consumer, to the chagrin of many consumers. Personalised adverts are not better for anyone (Mahdawi, 2019) they have turned the internet into a surveillance nightmare.

It would be unwise to ignore the bleak future for social media. With Fake News – ‘false stories that appear to be news … usually created to influence political views’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020) – running largely unchecked and 49% of adults in the UK using social media to keep up with the news (Ofcom, 2019) it would not be a surprise to see social media platforms facing huge restrictions and fines in the next few years, perhaps meaning that any promoted posts will have to follow strict guidelines and not be coercive or persuasive. This may cause desperation from some marketeers and could cause ethical issues by using tactics known as ‘Ad creep’, targeting people who’re at their most vulnerable be it at school, doctors’ offices, restaurant menus.

The use of broadcast mediums such as TV advertising is still popularly used by large publicfacing brands as a way to maintain brand awareness, and often used alongside other mediums such as social media, for example. Television is an excellent way to generate large numbers in terms of reach – and contrary to popular belief TV viewership isn’t dying, on the contrary in 2018 there were 1.67 billion households with TV’s, up from 1.64 billion in 2017 (Watson, 2019). Additionally, when people are typically watching television, they are at home watching during leisure time – meaning they can focus on the message and take it in (Shanet, 2019). Metrics such as ROI, engagement rate, and reach, will be used by marketers (as they are now) to justify decisions and spending – this will not change. Financiers are more willing to part with funding if they can see trends and a clear direction – meaning the future of marketing communications will consist of structured campaigns with little to no wiggle room. Building a prosperous, tech-enabled future also means investing back into our underlying infrastructure to make sure things don’t fall apart. (Eghbal, 2016), therefore it would be a good idea for brands to invest in technology in order to advance their own interests.

Advertisers no longer want people to remember technical specs of their products, they want them to feel specific emotions when you think or interact with their product. This brings you closer to the brand (Schindler, 2019) – this expands on the geopolitical trend mentioned in the first paragraph. Brands have already begun to use “woke” – defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2020) as being ‘aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues’ –storylines in their adverts, to a great reception from a public vulnerable after trauma and looking for validation. Story-centric advertising is the move for many brands between now and 2025 as an emotional connection to a brand is one of the strongest ways to establish brand loyalty – see John Lewis Christmas Ads. Craig Inglis, John Lewis’s marketing director stated that “Our ads aren’t about products, they’re about telling a story. But this year we are making a better effort to offer merchandise to support the ads,” (Vizard, 2013).

Conclusion

In conclusion it can be deduced that while the traditional platform out of home (OOH) advertising, i.e., billboards, posters and flyers may seem outdated, it still works. Digital

advertising can often cost thousands of pounds / dollars in return for a very low success rate, whereas with OOH the ROI is oftentimes high, not always perhaps leading to direct sales but almost always an increase in brand awareness. As always, the best marketing communications campaigns have a mix of vehicles, as all marketers know that different segments of the audience respond to different tactics, but always the same or a very similar message. Campaigns that don’t succeed always provide learning opportunities for brands – if the target audience didn’t respond well to this, why? What can be done differently next time? It is a great, alas expensive, feedback opportunity. Advances in technology may mean that in the near future researchers will be able to gain access to new and vital metrics showing insights into human behaviours never before used for the purpose of marketing or selling – this is already apparent by brands using the BLM movement as a way to gain respect and hijack the trending topic for their own gain.

References

1. Alsop, T. (2020). UK households: ownership of home computers 1985-2018, Statista [online]. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/289191/household-penetration-of-home-computers-inthe-uk/

2. Bowman, E. (1980). A Risk/Return for Strategic Management, Sloan Management Review, pp. 1-6.

3. Cambridge Dictionary (2020). ‘Fake News’, Cambridge Dictionary [online]. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fake-news

4. Clement, J. (2020). Global digital population as of July 2020, Statista [online]. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/

5. Clement, J. (2020). Number of apps available in leading app stores 2020, Statista [online]. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/

6. CompTIA (2020). US Tech Employment Surpasses 12 Million Workers, Accounts for 10% of Nation’s Economy, Cyber States [online]. Available at: https://www.cyberstates.org/

7. Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., and Bright, L. (2008). Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User-Generated Content, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8:2, 16-25

8. Davis, S. (2020). The 19 highest paid models in the world, Business Insider [online]. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/the-19-highest-paid-models-in-theworld/slidelist/49012512.cms

9. Dogtiev, A. (2019). Mobile App Advertising Rates (2018), Business of Apps [online]. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/ads/research/mobile-app-advertising-cpm-rates/

10. Dooley, R. (2015). Print vs. Digital: Another Emotional Win for Paper, neuromarketing [online]. Available at: https://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/print-vs-digital.htm#

11. Eghbal, N. (2016). Reflecting on the Internet: 10 Years Ago, 10 Years From Today, Medium [online]. Available at: https://medium.com/@nayafia/reflecting-on-the-internet-10-years-ago-10-years-fromtoday-b13cbd4973e4

12. Elle.com (2017). Kendall Jenner’s Complete Runway Evolution, Elle [online]. Available at: https://www.elle.com/fashion/celebrity-style/news/g19499/kendall-jenner-runway-evolution/?slide=7

13. Fischer-Baum, R. (2017). What ‘Tech World’ Did You Grow Up In?, The Washington Post [online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/entertainment/tech-generations/

14. Google (2020). Google Ads Planner [online]. Available at: https://ads.google.com/home/tools/keyword-planner/

15. Gould, S.J. (2004). IMC as theory and as a poststructural set of practices and discourses: a continuously evolving paradigm shift, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 44, No.1, pp. 66-70.

16. Hammad, A. (2014). The Impact of Celebrity Advertisements and Endorsement on the Buying Behaviour of Consumers, Brand Image and Brand Positioning of Coca Cola in London, United Kingdom, SSRN [online]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2676708

17. Horovitz, B. (1990). Parodies of Subliminal Advertising Play on the Public’s Imaginations, Los Angeles Times archive [online]. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-07-24fi-803-story.html

18. ITV (2020). Example ITV Advertising Costs from Nov 2020, ITV Media [online]. Available at: https://www.itvmedia.co.uk/advertising-on-itv/airtime

19. Karnes, K.C. (2020). What Are Push Notifications? What We Learned from Sending 40 Billion Messages, CleverTap [online]. Available at: https://clevertap.com/blog/what-are-push-notifications/

20. Lau, R. R. (2019). Classic Models of Persuasion, The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.001.0001

21. Linnell, N. (2010). Measuring Audience Engagement in Social Media, Search Engine Watch [online]. Available at: https://www.searchenginewatch.com/2010/06/28/measuring-audience-engagement-insocial-media/

22. Mahdawi, A. (2019). Targeted ads are one of the world’s most destructive trends. Here’s why, The Guardian [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/targeted-ads-fakenews-clickbait-surveillance-capitalism-data-mining-democracy

23. Meeker, M. (2010). The Internet Trends Report, Media Time vs. Advertising Spending, Bond Cap [online] archine. Available at: https://www.bondcap.com/report/it10/#view/15

24. Meeker, M. (2019). The Internet Trends Report, Media Time vs. Advertising Spending = Mobile @ Equilibrium, Bond Cap [online]. Available at: https://www.bondcap.com/report/itr19/#view/22

25. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2020). Merriam-Webster [online]. Available at: https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/woke

26. MobiLoud (2020). 4 Ways to Increase Your Push Notification Click-Through Rate, MobiLoud [online]. Available at: https://www.mobiloud.com/blog/push-notifications-click-through-rate

27. Ofcom (2019). Half of people now get their news from social media, Ofcom [online]. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/features-and-news/half-of-people-get-news-from-socialmedia

28. Ots, M. and Nyilasy, G. (2017). Just doing it: Theorising Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) practices. European Journal of Marketing. 51. 490-510. 10.1108/EJM-08-2015-0595.

29. Pew Research Center (2019). Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center Internet & Technology [online]. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internetbroadband/

30. Reichert, T. (2011). Sex in Advertising: Perspectives on the erotic appeal. Routledge, pp. 11-151.

31. Rust, R. T. (2020). The future of marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol 37:1, pp. 15-26.

32. Schindler, M. (2019). The Future of Advertising: The Next 10 Years, Voluum [online]. Available at: https://voluum.com/blog/future-of-advertising/

33. Serazio, M. (2013). Your Ad Here: The Cool Sell of Guerrilla Marketing, New York University Press, ISBN 978-0-8147-2459-0, pp. 1-4.

34. Shanet, L. (2019). Why Do Big Companies Still Advertise On TV Instead Of Social Media?, Forbes [online]. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/03/01/why-do-big-companies-stilladvertise-on-tv-instead-of-social-media/?sh=dbd86a2dd41a

35. Simpson, J. (2017). Finding Brand Success In The Digital World, Forbes [online]. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/08/25/finding-brand-success-in-the-digitalworld/?sh=2ede414626e2

36. Victor, D. (2017). Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivialising Black Lives Matter, The New York Times [online]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad.html

37. Vizard, S. (2013). John Lewis Christmas ad trounces rivals for online buzz, MarketingWeek [online]. Available at: https://www.marketingweek.com/john-lewis-christmas-ad-trounces-rivals-for-onlinebuzz/

38. Watson, A. (2019). Number of TV households worldwide 2019-2018, Statista [online]. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268695/number-of-tv-households-worldwide/