5 ms·
I suspect that there was little data to analyze how much attention the ads were commanding back then. I often think about how so many things now have been opti
by warner25 2y ago
I suspect that there was little data to analyze how much attention the ads were commanding back then.
I often think about how so many things now have been optimized (mostly for profit) to the extreme by data-driven processes, with big corporate marketing certainly being one of them.
Up until two or three decades ago, I suspect that it was all based on tradition and the "gut feel" of out-of-touch and arrogant executives talking to each other over drinks (thinking of scenes from Mad Men here).
- sethammons 2y agoI took my marketing classes for my business degree in the early 2000s. Digital marketing was not addressed. The advice at the time was to get to six "impressions," six encounters with your brand before most people would start to recognize the brand. And it was very much admitted that you don't get to measure this and you must correlate sales trends with marketing trends. Very much "gut feel" in comparison of digital tracking. I'm still not convinced the tracking makes that big of a difference but obviously the market disagrees with me.
- bluGill 2y agoDigital tracking can be helpful as a proxy, but what matters - and what big brands still measure - is how marketing correlates to sales. Statistics can figure out a lot of this, though the data is noisy.