In advertising evaluation, as in much of market research, norms are a critical tool that provides valuable context. ‘Your ad scored 27%’ on a particular measure isn’t very helpful, let alone actionable, without a frame of reference – and that’s where norms come in! However, there are a few important caveats around norms that today’s time-pressured business decision makers often fail to take into consideration.
First, the usual definition of ‘norm’ is average. Out of all of the ads within a particular set – whether this be 100 ads, 1,000 ads or 10,000 ads – the average score on this particular metric is the norm. When an ad scores below norm, it’s a clear red flag. Why did we do poorly? What should be fixed/changed to improve our performance?
But what if the ad is ‘at norm’? Should this really be a cause for celebration – and complacency? Okay, if last year’s ads were below norm, and this year’s ads are normative, by all means celebrate the improvement. However, we’d argue that you might want to strive for better – in today’s competitive environment, is average really okay? Is average really the best you can be? You wouldn’t expect a big raise and bonus if you scored average on your annual performance review. Should you hold your advertising to any less of a standard than you hold yourself?
As you think about norms, two other questions are worth pondering. First, are you using category norms? If so, and your category is largely comprised of ineffective ads, perhaps you should hold your ads to a higher standard – perhaps a cross-category norm. Okay, so maybe it’s hard in your particular category to get people’s attention, to get them to remember the brand or to get the ad to resonate. And maybe there’s something about the category that makes this true. But we’ve seen many categories over the years that had low norms, and largely ineffective ads, in which one brand ultimately blew up the conventional wisdom.
The result: dramatically improved advertising effectiveness and gains in brand strength well beyond what the brand’s share of voice would suggest. Don’t you want to be that brand? If so, and if your category suffers from low norms, you might want to start evaluating your ads in relation to cross category norms.
Additionally, the actual numeric value of the norm can be worth thinking about. For example, if the average ad in your category has 15% correct brand ID, is a 15 really worth settling for? Is a 20 even worth celebrating? Your ad might be among those that does better than average, but wouldn’t you hope for more than one in five of those who actually paid attention to your ad to associate that powerful piece of creative with your brand? It’ll undoubtedly be hard to get a 25 or a 30, but if achieving a 30 will double the in-market effectiveness of the ad, might that be worth aiming for?
Of course, it’s also important to have confidence in the number itself – what’s the methodology that was used to derive the ‘27’? And what was the sample size and composition? Insights professionals who bring forward the data must be responsible for ensuring that the 27 is real and a legitimate reflect of the ad’s performance on a particular dimension. But to provide the best actionability from the numbers, a thoughtful use of norms is critical – otherwise, the result may be a continuation and encouragement of mediocrity. Advertisers spend too much money on advertising, and the outcome is too important, for just okay to be okay.
