What evidence base did you have in mind? Because there’s a pretty robust evidence base that the effects of advertising are tiny and greatly overestimated by less rigorous methods.
As far as I can tell the studies you mention are all brand advertising, which I agree is not super well supported. I’m referring here to direct response marketing (spam mail, online direct sales ads, etc) , in which the effects of e.g. A/B testing are immediately clear and apparent. The history of that testing is what I’m referring to.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘brand advertising’. In for example Johnson et al 2017, they are measuring a conversion funnel from 2.2 billion Google ads to final ‘conversion’ (often but not always a purchase, “Conversions may include purchases, sign-ups, or store location lookup”). That sounds like ‘online direct sales ads’ to me. You have an online ad, which is directly selling. It’s definitely not some vague brand-building ad in a magazine. And the effects are small, and far from ‘immediately clear and apparent’.
Its significant that you had to point to the one positive result you posted about. The rest (Johnsohn and Johnson, P & G, Political Campaigns) that have negative results would all fall much more under brand advertising (of course, brand advertising to direct response marketing is a spectrum, but if you’re wanting more clarity on the distinction this article is decent: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/importance-promotional-marketing-strategies-13197.html)
Its significant that you had to point to the one positive result you posted about.
Yes. Specifically, the significance is that I picked it to steelman your position, because it had both the biggest sample size & was the most positive result I knew of (in a body of negative results), and still didn’t support your claims.
So, where’s this literature on how effective and scalable advertising is at manipulating people?
ion, because it had both the biggest sample size & was the most positive result
And it was the only study (unless the other ones that you didn’t explicate had it) that focused on the type of marketing (direct response marketing) that I was referring to. You certainly could have strawmanned my position by picking a study that was referring to brand advertising, but I would hardly call it a steelman to select the one study that was relevant.
So, where’s this literature on how effective and scalable advertising is at manipulating people?
As I said, it’s in the robust history of effective A/B testing/campaigns with measurable effects on revenue in this space.
Direct response marketing has a quite robust evidence base that certain types of arguments can scalably persuade people to buy things.
What evidence base did you have in mind? Because there’s a pretty robust evidence base that the effects of advertising are tiny and greatly overestimated by less rigorous methods.
As far as I can tell the studies you mention are all brand advertising, which I agree is not super well supported. I’m referring here to direct response marketing (spam mail, online direct sales ads, etc) , in which the effects of e.g. A/B testing are immediately clear and apparent. The history of that testing is what I’m referring to.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘brand advertising’. In for example Johnson et al 2017, they are measuring a conversion funnel from 2.2 billion Google ads to final ‘conversion’ (often but not always a purchase, “Conversions may include purchases, sign-ups, or store location lookup”). That sounds like ‘online direct sales ads’ to me. You have an online ad, which is directly selling. It’s definitely not some vague brand-building ad in a magazine. And the effects are small, and far from ‘immediately clear and apparent’.
Its significant that you had to point to the one positive result you posted about. The rest (Johnsohn and Johnson, P & G, Political Campaigns) that have negative results would all fall much more under brand advertising (of course, brand advertising to direct response marketing is a spectrum, but if you’re wanting more clarity on the distinction this article is decent: https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/importance-promotional-marketing-strategies-13197.html)
Yes. Specifically, the significance is that I picked it to steelman your position, because it had both the biggest sample size & was the most positive result I knew of (in a body of negative results), and still didn’t support your claims.
So, where’s this literature on how effective and scalable advertising is at manipulating people?
And it was the only study (unless the other ones that you didn’t explicate had it) that focused on the type of marketing (direct response marketing) that I was referring to. You certainly could have strawmanned my position by picking a study that was referring to brand advertising, but I would hardly call it a steelman to select the one study that was relevant.
As I said, it’s in the robust history of effective A/B testing/campaigns with measurable effects on revenue in this space.
Which history is...? (I now ask for the third time.)
I don’t understand what you’re asking apparently. Do you want se books you can read that take you through the history of direct response marketing?