Marketing research methods and applications

Marketing Research

Boston Fights Drugs

What do you think of the design of the advertising pretest?

I believe the design of the advertising pretest was very prudent and intelligent considering the resources at the team's disposal. First, the separate categories of prevention and curtailment were appropriate considering the predispositions of drug use. Prevention allows the campaign to address users who may be interesting or thinking about drug use. Likewise, the "curtailment" category allows the campaign to market to those already in heavy use. This is effective because it caters to specific markets instead of one broad category. The more specific the message, the more penetrating and effective it can be in regards to communication. By separating the campaign into two distinct parts, the pretest allowed the campaign to be more flexible in the ways it can effectively reach its audience.

One drawback that I have noticed with the advertising pretest was the sample size. A total sample of less than 50 individuals is not an effective sample to create meaningful results. I believe more detail as to the composition of this sample size should have been disclosed. One profound factor would be that of race. What was the ethnic makeup of the sample size? This is important because some ads are more effective and resonate better with a particular ethnic group. For example, the basketball scenario, as mentioned in the study, may indeed be the best medium to reach an individual. The question is what individual exactly is the medium reaching? Is the individual being targeted African-American, Asian, or another ethnic group?

Further, and a little more pressing is the actual intention of the message. For example, to effectively prevent drug use, should the campaign address parents, the teenagers themselves, or other persons of influence. The case makes no distinction between these individuals in regards to their influence within the drug use decision making process. This omission could have adverse consequences on the overall effectiveness of the campaign. For instance, the ad may indeed effectively articulate the consequences of drug use while advocating for teenagers to; "make the right choice." However, the ads may do little in actually stopping the spread of drug use as teenagers will sub-come to the stimuli of those who actually influence their decisions. This can come in many forms such as drug use by parents, drug use by popular peers in school and so forth. By not adequately addressing who actually influences the decision to use drugs, the campaign, in my opinion, is missing the point entirely.

2. What conclusions, if any, can we draw from the results?

There are numerous conclusions we can deduce from the campaign results. For one, teenagers are not influenced by celebrity endorsements as believed. This runs contrary to what the general public accepts as truth in regards to celebrity endorsement and its influence on teenage behavior. Both ads involving the celebrity did not fair as well as the ads with more real life implications. I believe an appropriate corollary then would be that teenagers are in fact immune to the ostentatious lifestyles of celebrities. Teenagers do not succumb to their banal attempts to impact their decisions in personal matters. In fact, it is this delusion of grandeur on the part of celebrities that causes the message to not seem genuine in the minds of teenagers. Equally as impressive, is the data concerning pragmatic and simple scenarios. Teenager resonate with adds the cause them to lament over certain situations. These situations are often personal and touching. They involve friends, family members, and other peers. The evidence is clear that in order to have an effective message, the message must be personal.

3. Exactly what do you recommend for the de-marketing communications campaign?