I’m not sure your logic is quite right. Just because long term benefits exist doesn’t mean that you have to sit around waiting for it to work.

For instance, you don’t expect to get all your money out of a computer the first day. You expect to use it every day for years. The long term doesn’t steal from the short tern, it augments it.

Moreover, if speed was the only consideration, advertisers would buy only TV and no direct advertising. It’s the fastest way to build coverage and see immediate results.

However, in the final analysis it’s how everything works together that’s important. The media multiplier is well documented and extremely powerful.

- Greg

Essentially, it takes long-term financial stability before a company can afford to wait for a future return on 2/3 of their spending. What I find with new & growing businesses is that agencies don’t have the business planning savvy to separate two categories:

- The company for whom investing in a long term return is the best use of advertising money.
- The company who must see more immediate return from their advertising dollar.

In the first case, traditional brand advertising may be their best option. In the second case, traditional brand advertising may well put the company out of business.

Does anyone know of research showing when/in what situations it is a higher return to wait for the long-term 2/3′s and in which situations planning for the future 2/3′s is less financially effective in the long term even if you can afford it? (Wow, that’s a convoluted question. Probably someone knows how to articulate it better than I.)

Guess what I mean is that logically, merely because you CAN afford the investment in the long term doesn’t necessarily mean that the long term return on the money is the BEST place for that money. This seems to depend on your specific circumstances.

…Doug

Thanks. I’m glad you liked it.

- Greg

Keep up the good info Greg

Absolutely! Thanks for commenting.

- Greg

Thank you!

btw. I also agree with your assessment of math skills in the industry. Even major global networks that have econometric divisions don’t integrate the skills very well. It’s a big problem.. I wrote another post about it if you’re interested.

- Greg

In large part, the training to become an ad professional is, um, not ideal for learning to do analysis with numbers. Hence, I don’t find that it’s often done. (Says the unusual ad guy with a master’s in math.)

To your point, the companies who realistically project future value find they use their ad money with MUCH higher impact.

Thanks for the great ideas…

Thanks. I agree that many people use the idea of future payoff as an excuse, but that too can be evaluated.

- Greg

Not in agreement on “2/3 of brand impact is in the future”. That idea (even if true for some cases) is too often the excuse offered by people who’ve created ineffective advertising.

So, I’d suggest that, as you suggest about how to calculate ROI, the potential future value of brand activity depends on your company, your needs, and your products.