<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Radio Ads Enhance Internet Ads</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:37:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Industry sponsored research? Leave it on the shelf! &#171; Joe Duck</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-22608</link>
		<dc:creator>Industry sponsored research? Leave it on the shelf! &#171; Joe Duck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html#comment-22608</guid>
		<description>[...] Industry sponsored research? Leave it on the&#160;shelf! Over at Marketing Pilgrim, an excellent resource from Andy Beal and friends, I&#8217;ve been giving Jordan a hard time about citing a radio industry study that (surprise!) shows that radio is awesomely effective. I see a ton of this in the travel sector and these bogus studies that &#8220;prove&#8221; economic or advertising effectiveness are really starting to piss me off, because this is an abuse of the correct notion that research is a great way to measure the effectiveness of things. Ironically you don&#8217;t even need any &#8220;cheating&#8221; on these industry sponsored studies to get bad results for the reasons I discuss with Jordan below: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Industry sponsored research? Leave it on the&nbsp;shelf! Over at Marketing Pilgrim, an excellent resource from Andy Beal and friends, I&#8217;ve been giving Jordan a hard time about citing a radio industry study that (surprise!) shows that radio is awesomely effective. I see a ton of this in the travel sector and these bogus studies that &#8220;prove&#8221; economic or advertising effectiveness are really starting to piss me off, because this is an abuse of the correct notion that research is a great way to measure the effectiveness of things. Ironically you don&#8217;t even need any &#8220;cheating&#8221; on these industry sponsored studies to get bad results for the reasons I discuss with Jordan below: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Duck</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-22607</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Duck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html#comment-22607</guid>
		<description>Jordan it&#039;s a very slippery slope to use industry studies due to the selectivity, though it is really common.   Interestingly studies like this don&#039;t have to screw with anything at all to create problems for people who want unvarnished truth.  Assume for example that they did 3 excellent, methodologically sound studies on this topic and 2 of them indicated &quot;zero increase in unaided recall&quot;.   The logical research conclusion is to be skeptical of the recall claim, but if we only see the positive study we&#039;ll draw wrong conclusions.   It&#039;s rarely this cut and dried and you rarely see industry studies with good sets of assumptions, so all I&#039;m also suggesting that studies like this are better left on the shelf if you are building a quality marketing strategy.  One should stick to research done by people or groups who will still be around regardless of the outcome of the research.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jordan it&#8217;s a very slippery slope to use industry studies due to the selectivity, though it is really common.   Interestingly studies like this don&#8217;t have to screw with anything at all to create problems for people who want unvarnished truth.  Assume for example that they did 3 excellent, methodologically sound studies on this topic and 2 of them indicated &#8220;zero increase in unaided recall&#8221;.   The logical research conclusion is to be skeptical of the recall claim, but if we only see the positive study we&#8217;ll draw wrong conclusions.   It&#8217;s rarely this cut and dried and you rarely see industry studies with good sets of assumptions, so all I&#8217;m also suggesting that studies like this are better left on the shelf if you are building a quality marketing strategy.  One should stick to research done by people or groups who will still be around regardless of the outcome of the research.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan McCollum</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-22591</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan McCollum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html#comment-22591</guid>
		<description>Well, yes and no.  They might not publish their studies that don&#039;t have favorable results, but (I hope) they&#039;re not screwing with their methodologies to produce results skewed in their favor in the experiments that they do publish.

And while increasing unaided recall 450% is a pretty nice stat, it&#039;s the only concrete, conclusive, across-the-board improvement found in the study.  The other positives were significant for some brands studied and not others, with aggregate totals of almost no change.  That&#039;s why I said that it &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; influence them, but &quot;well-established brands&quot; might not be as effective.

Thank you for the comment, though.  You&#039;re right--you gotta follow the money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, yes and no.  They might not publish their studies that don&#8217;t have favorable results, but (I hope) they&#8217;re not screwing with their methodologies to produce results skewed in their favor in the experiments that they do publish.</p>
<p>And while increasing unaided recall 450% is a pretty nice stat, it&#8217;s the only concrete, conclusive, across-the-board improvement found in the study.  The other positives were significant for some brands studied and not others, with aggregate totals of almost no change.  That&#8217;s why I said that it <em>can</em> influence them, but &#8220;well-established brands&#8221; might not be as effective.</p>
<p>Thank you for the comment, though.  You&#8217;re right&#8211;you gotta follow the money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Duck</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html/comment-page-1#comment-22522</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Duck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/02/radio-ads-enhance-internet-ads.html#comment-22522</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Supported with funding provided from Radio industry companies&lt;/i&gt;

Studies by agencies like this generally *will not* publish anything but favorable things about radio.  All such industry sponsored research is therefore suspect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Supported with funding provided from Radio industry companies</i></p>
<p>Studies by agencies like this generally *will not* publish anything but favorable things about radio.  All such industry sponsored research is therefore suspect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

