Getting an advertisement out there is the easy part, the real challenge is what companies need to happen afterwards. Does it hold attention while still staying true to the brand, and does it make enough of an impact to influence decision-making down the line? Many campaigns post strong reach numbers, but see little to no ROI in return.
The distance between exposure and action is what needs addressing — which is exactly what Melissa Mc Nally digs into in Part Two of this Q&A. As Head of Research and Analytics at SoundInsights, Kagiso Connect's research media house, she explains how audience research and data analytics can work together to lead to better media effectiveness.
SoundInsights brings together Creative Intelligence, Audience Intelligence and Attribution Intelligence. How does combining these three forms of intelligence change the way brands can evaluate media effectiveness?
Combining these three forms of intelligence allows us to move beyond asking whether an advertisement was delivered and begin understanding whether it actually worked.
Audience Intelligence tells us who people are, but also where they are, what matters to them and the context in which they encounter media. Creative Intelligence helps us understand whether the message captured attention, created an emotional response, communicated the intended meaning and left something memorable behind. Attribution Intelligence then looks for evidence that media exposure contributed to an action or business outcome.
Individually, each provides only part of the picture. Attribution may show that something happened, but not explain why. Creative testing may show that an advertisement generated attention, but not whether that attention translated into behaviour. Audience data may identify who was reached without telling us whether the message resonated with them.
Bringing the three together creates a more complete effectiveness journey: from exposure, to attention, to emotional connection, to memory and ultimately behaviour.
It enables brands to understand not only whether media performed, but what drove that performance and how it can be improved.
For marketers attempting to connect media activity to tangible business outcomes, where do you see the biggest gaps between measuring exposure to advertising and understanding what actually drove a consumer to act?
The biggest gap is the assumption that exposure is equivalent to influence. An impression or reach figure tells us that an advertisement had the opportunity to be seen or heard. It does not tell us whether someone paid attention, understood the message, connected it to the correct brand or was motivated to act.
It also does not account for mental availability. Not every effective exposure leads to an immediate click or purchase. Advertising can build memory structures that make a brand easier to notice, recall and consider when a relevant need arises. This is particularly important for brands in categories where purchases are infrequent or decisions are made over time.
The question is therefore not only whether people remember the advertisement, but whether they remember the brand, and whether the advertising strengthens the association between that brand and relevant category needs or buying situations. Distinctive assets such as sound, colour, language, characters and consistent creative cues play an important role in creating this connection.
Consumer behaviour is rarely the result of a single exposure. People encounter brands across multiple channels and over time, while their decisions are also shaped by price, availability, previous experience, recommendations, mood and immediate need.
Attribution models can give too much credit to the final measurable touchpoint, even though earlier media exposure may have built the familiarity or trust that made the final action possible.
We therefore need to connect behavioural data with human understanding. The question is not simply, "Did sales or website traffic increase?" It is also, "What changed in the consumer's mind?" Did the advertising make the brand easier to recall? Did it create trust? Did it strengthen the connection between the brand and a future need? Did it give someone a reason to choose the brand when the moment of decision arrived?
Media effectiveness is strongest when we connect what was delivered, what people experienced, what remained in memory and what they subsequently did — while remaining honest about the many influences that shape human behaviour.
SoundInsights has explored neuromarketing and the role of audio in capturing attention and creating emotional responses. What are some of the most important things advertisers still misunderstand about how people experience audio advertising?
One of the biggest misunderstandings is that attention is binary — that people are either paying attention or they are not. In reality, attention exists on a continuum.
It moves, fluctuates and is shaped by the task someone is performing, the environment they are in and the relevance of what they encounter.
This is especially important in audio. People often listen while driving, working, exercising or preparing to shop. They may not give the advertising their full, conscious attention, but that does not mean nothing is being processed. Sound can still create familiarity, evoke emotion and build memory, particularly when the brand uses recognisable and consistent audio cues.
The same principle applies to visual communication. Eye-tracking may tell us where someone looked, but looking is not the same as understanding. An execution can attract the eye through movement, colour, faces or rapid editing without successfully communicating the message or connecting that attention to the brand.
More attention is also not automatically better. An unusual, dramatic or entertaining element may become the most memorable part of an advertisement while the brand itself disappears. Attention must be directed towards something meaningful: the product, the message, a distinctive brand asset or a relevant emotional association.
This is why we need to evaluate the quality and consequence of attention, not simply whether it occurred. Did the creative capture attention at the right moment? Was it sustained long enough for the message to be processed? Did it generate the intended emotional response? Was the brand clearly encoded? And what remained in memory afterwards?
Audio and visual elements should also work together rather than compete. Music, voice, imagery, editing, copy and on-screen branding all make demands on a person's limited cognitive resources. When too much happens at once, Creative can generate stimulation without comprehension. Strong Creative guides attention, creates an appropriate emotional rhythm and makes it easy to understand what the brand wants people to take away.
Evidence from attention, behavioural and memory research also gives advertisers more options than simply making an advertisement louder, faster or more visually intense. Brands can use contrast, pauses, narrative, distinctive audio and visual assets, emotional shifts, relevant voices and clear brand cues to attract and guide attention. The appropriate choice depends on the channel, context, audience and objective.
Ultimately, attention is essential, but it is not the destination. The goal is to turn attention into meaning, connect that meaning to the brand and leave behind a memory that makes the brand easier to recognise, recall and choose.
Did you find the Q&A insightful? Let us know in the comments section below.
*Image courtesy of contributor and Canva