 |
Medical Journal Advertising (JAD) 27. How can you explain the great difference in ROI between journal advertising and detailing? First, that difference narrows considerably for larger and more recently launched brands. Second, and more to the point, one has to remember that the current levels of expenditure are an order of magnitude different between the two activities. If one thinks of total effectiveness as ROI times total dollars spent, there is no guarantee that JAD would have the same total effectiveness if its total dollars spent were the same as that for detailing (because one cannot extrapolate that far out of the range of experience provided by the data). What the data suggest is that at the margin, JAD is a good investment for the overall average brand, as well as for the average brand within the 9 cells evaluated. So if the original plan for the coming year were to increase JAD by 10%, it would be a good idea to consider going up by 20%. Rigorous brand-specific testing of journal ads (eg, A-B splits where half of a physician panel is randomly exposed to a journal ad, and half is not) is also recommended. 28. Does your analysis assume that JAD monies are put toward the "most effective" journals for a given brand, or did you somehow only analyze JAD in the same journals across brands? In this evaluation, one gets an "average" view: For the average brand, this is the way that brand spent its money, and here is the ROI that is seen. It's an aggregation over many brands, covering an average quality of decision-making. What cannot be inferred is one's capacity to do better or worse for any specific brand. 29. Personal Selling (Detailing) is quantified as the number of sales calls made in the doctor's office or hospital setting multiplied by a constant dollar figure per call. Physician Meetings & Events are handled similarly (the number of events multiplied by a constant dollar figure). In essence, each "promotional contact" is multiplied by a dollar figure. Because the dollar figure is a constant, we are effectively counting each "promotional contact." For journal advertising, however, you are counting dollars without regard to "exposures." This raises a question of comparability. A one-page journal ad costing $1,000 might be more effective than an eight-page insert costing $8,000. It is true that not all JAD expenditures result in an exposure. But that's part of the nature of investing in JAD. It wouldn't make sense to count only the dollars that resulted in exposures because the money spent on JAD that didn't result in exposure is still part of the investment, and we are trying to estimate revenues generated per dollar invested. It is also true that a one-page ad for $1,000 might be better than an 8-page insert for $8,000. That, unfortunately, is a level of detail we cannot get at, given the data. The numbers need to be interpreted as averages: Here's how much the average dollar invested in JAD produced in terms of incremental revenue. That dollar is averaged across brands, across different advertising scheduling strategies, and across different qualities of copy. 30. a. With respect to medical journal advertising, what was the nature of the ad units in terms of size, color, position, or format? The ad units reported are actual advertisements that ran in each publication (ie, P4/CB, 4-page insert, etc). The rate card price for the unit (pages and color) is set at the 48 times rate for all journals. 30. b. Does it matter when comparing to other variables? No. The unit used is dollar expenditure. 31. Did JAD include advertising in both print and online versions of medical journals? The JAD data are generated from print journals only. No attempt has been made to capture online (web) advertising due to the variability of delivery (page hits, physician specialty, etc). 32. If JAD offers the highest ROI, wouldn't we always want to use incremental increases or reallocated dollars to increase JAD? When would we not? These results hold "on average." This should not supplant individual decision-making for specific brand category circumstances. What is seen is that "on average" journal advertising is the highest. This should be taken as general guidance. What could be said, however, is that when one is considering a reallocation of funds or allocating new funds, you would certainly give journal advertising significant consideration. 33. At what level of advertising do you see diminishing returns (saturation) from putting dollars into JAD? And what level of advertising is needed for a bump in scripts? Unfortunately, the analysis was not designed to estimate saturation (or threshold) effects. |
ARPP Analysis | RAPP Study | AMP/ABM Study | Medical Journal Advertising
Additionanl Reading | Other Sites | Contact | Site Map | Home
