Insights EN

The Glorious Inefficiency of Advertising: Why Waste Might Just Be Your Secret Weapon

Picture this: A while ago, I walked into a client’s office, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to sprinkle some marketing magic. What did I find? A room full of suits praising their CMO for slashing budgets like Edward Scissorhands on a hedge-trimming binge. Their eyes gleamed with the fervor of accountants who’d just discovered a new way to depreciate assets.
I told them they were insane.
Yes, you read that right. I, your humble marketing guru, looked these budget-slashing zealots in the eye and recommended the unthinkable: increase spending. Not just a little, mind you. I’m talking about pumping up the media budget and throwing cash at posh video production like a rapper in a luxury car commercial.
Their response? They thought I’d lost my marbles faster than a toddler in a glass factory.
But here’s the kicker: It paid off. Over the next months, we saw a gradual but steady sales increase that would make a Silicon Valley startup blush. We’re talking constant growth that’s had the accountants trading in their calculators for champagne flutes.
So, who’s the insane one now?
This little anecdote brings us neatly to the topic at hand. Buckle up, marketing mavens, because we’re about to dive into the kind of academic wankery that makes most practitioners roll their eyes and reach for the nearest bottle of overpriced craft gin. But stick with me, because this particular piece of ivory tower pontification might just save your arse in your next budget meeting.
Tim Ambler and his merry band of researchers at the London Business School have graced us with a paper titled “The Waste in Advertising Is the Part That Works.” Now, before you dismiss this as another load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks, let me tell you why it’s worth your precious time – and why my seemingly crazy recommendation to my client wasn’t so crazy after all.

The Good: Waste Isn’t Just Good, It’s Bloody Essential

First off, let’s give credit where it’s due. Ambler and co. have managed to quantify something that most of us in the trenches have suspected for years: that so-called “waste” in advertising might actually be doing some heavy lifting.
The study suggests that the very elements of advertising that bean-counters and efficiency-obsessed managers often label as “waste” – repetition, broad targeting, and even those ads that don’t immediately lead to sales – are actually crucial for long-term brand building. It’s like discovering that all those pints you downed in university weren’t just destroying your liver, but were secretly building your career network. Who knew?

The Bad: Sample Size Smaller Than My Patience for Marketing Buzzwords

Now, before we get too excited and start justifying every half-baked campaign that’s ever graced a billboard, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room. The study’s sample size is about as robust as a wet paper bag. We’re talking about a grand total of 48 brands across five product categories. That’s fewer participants than you’d find at a social media influencer’s meet-and-greet.
It’s a bit like claiming you’ve solved world hunger because everyone at your family dinner table had seconds. Sure, it’s a start, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?

The Good: Long-Term Effects That Aren’t Just Marketing Mythology

Back to the positives, because I’m feeling uncharacteristically generous today. The research actually provides some empirical evidence for the long-term effects of advertising – you know, that mythical beast that every CMO talks about but can never seem to capture on a PowerPoint slide.
Ambler’s work suggests that advertising works in mysterious ways, building brand equity and future sales potential even when it doesn’t immediately translate to ka-ching at the cash register. It’s like planting seeds for a forest instead of just grabbing the lowest-hanging fruit. Novel concept, I know.

The Surprising: When Fancy Ads Aren’t Just Ego Trips

Now, here’s where things get really interesting, and where I expect half of you to start foaming at the mouth. Ambler’s research doesn’t just stop at media spend; it dares to suggest that splashing out on high-quality creative and production might actually be worth more than the paper your awards are printed on.
That’s right, all you Don Drapers out there can rejoice. The study indicates that investing in better quality advertisements – you know, the ones with actual production values instead of looking like they were shot on your nephew’s iPhone – can lead to improved long-term brand performance. It’s as if making ads that don’t make viewers want to gouge their eyes out might actually be good for business. Revolutionary stuff, I know.
But before you start planning your next Cannes-worthy epic, remember: this isn’t a blank check to blow your entire budget on CGI dragons and celebrity endorsements. The key is finding that sweet spot between “looks like it was made by interns” and “we remortgaged the office to pay for this.” Quality matters, but so does strategic thinking. Don’t mistake expensive for effective.

The Bad: Correlation, Causation, and Other Statistical Shenanigans

Here’s where I put on my skeptic’s hat (it’s a lovely fedora, by the way). The study relies heavily on correlations between advertising spend and various performance metrics. And as any first-year statistics student will tell you – usually right before passing out from too many jägerbombs – correlation does not imply causation.
Just because brands that spend more on “wasteful” advertising tend to perform better in the long run doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the waste that’s driving the success. It could be that successful brands simply have more money to piss away on broad-reach campaigns. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation, but with more expensive media buys.

The Bottom Line: Embrace the Waste, But Don’t Be Wasteful About It

So, what’s the takeaway from this academic foray into the world of advertising waste? Should we all start burning money in the name of brand building?
Not so fast, cowboys and cowgirls. What this research really tells us is that we need to redefine what we mean by “waste” in advertising. That primetime TV spot that didn’t generate a single sale? It might be working harder for your brand than you think. The billboard that your CEO’s spouse hates? It could be planting the seeds for next year’s sales boom.
But – and this is a Sir Mix-a-Lot sized but – this doesn’t give you carte blanche to throw strategy out the window and start plastering your ads on every available surface like a toddler with a new pack of stickers. The key is to be intentional about your “waste.” Understand that not every ad will (or should) drive immediate sales, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.
In the end, maybe the real waste in advertising is our obsession with short-term metrics and our failure to appreciate the subtle, long-term effects of brand building. It’s time to stop treating advertising like a vending machine where you put in money and immediately get a chocolate bar (or in this case, a sale). Instead, think of it as a complex ecosystem where every element plays a role, even if it’s not immediately obvious.
So, the next time some spreadsheet jockey tries to cut your budget because they can’t directly attribute sales to your latest campaign, just smile and hand them a copy of Ambler’s research. And if that doesn’t work, well, there’s always the option of wasting some choice words on them – just make sure they’re the kind of waste that works.