We’re all familiar with the marketing mix: advertising, consumer promotion and trade promotion. Brands can, and do, spend money on all three. However, the expectation and measurement of return from each of these expenditures is different.

Advertising increases long-term brand equity. It is viewed as essential in creating brand image and generating awareness. Promotion, on the other hand, has traditionally been expected to move short-term volume.

That promotion can accomplish the same goals as traditional media is often ignored. We talk about “ad value” of a promotion but we don’t measure it. When determining payback on a consumer promotion we look at how many coupons are redeemed, or how many products are sold on a sampling day. We do NOT look at the number of impressions we’ve created. We do NOT talk (as advertisers do) about reach, frequency or gross rating points.

Do consumers realize that a newspaper advertisement is different from an FSI advertisement? I doubt it. Yet, a non-coupon bearing newspaper advertisement is viewed as an awareness and equity builder, while an FSI is viewed as a coupon vehicle. Do print advertisers think their ad with coupon placed in a woman’s magazine is meant only to move short-term volume? Let’s hope not.

An FSI is similar to a print ad in many ways. It carries a message; it showcases a brand; it conveys an image; and, it also happens to carry a coupon. There is a difference in quality between an FSI and magazine ad. One difference is “intent.” People go through coupon inserts looking for deals. Yet, an FSI reaches a broad array of interested consumers. If a marketer wishes to reach female heads of household, few vehicles can reach as many as an FSI.

Do FSIs, can FSIs, affect consumer perceptions of brand image? Absolutely. They could arguably be more effective than a traditional advertisement because they are disruptive, have less competition and are more likely to be noticed.

Let’s face it. The lines between the two practices are blurred. Both advertising and consumer promotion can generate awareness, enhance image, and move volume. But the rules of judging payback — and success — are worlds apart.

Advertising is initially measured in TGRPs — target gross rating points (number of targeted consumers reached, multiplied by frequency). After the course of advertising is complete, it is measured by impact on overall sales of the market. Since there is no absolute way to determine whether a sale was linked to a specific ad, the effect of the advertising is estimated by comparing markets with advertising to those without.

Consumer promotion is measured by volume moved — specifically by the number of coupons redeemed. Advertising value is not measured. Awareness building is not taken into account.

What if a promotion, for instance an FSI, was not measured by number of coupons redeemed, but instead measured initially like advertising: on the number of target consumers reached? How would it stack up?

Viewed solely for ad value and ability to reach potential consumers, an FSI promotion looks very attractive. It can reach up to 60 million people at a cost per thousand much lower than the other choices shown.

I am not arguing against the use of advertising due to its inefficiency. Far from it. Brands today must protect themselves from competing solely on price. What is critical is to consider the advertising value of your consumer promotion — and — to measure it accordingly. Promotion suffers, in part, because counting coupons is easier than creating a full-blown measurement plan. And promotion is undervalued as a result.

RoperASW, a leading marketing, advertising and public opinion research firm, conducted a study that compared FSI ads to traditional magazine ads. It was reported that, “FSI advertising has the same kind of power as magazine advertising to build brand awareness and brand equity… recognition of these ads is very high — higher on average, in fact, than magazine ads…” People noticed the ad even before the coupon. As promotion professionals we often think about the coupon before we think about the ad.

We must use our promotion dollars to the fullest — and get credit for doing so. As professionals we should push for measurement of the “softer” side of promotion.

Sara Owens is president of Promo-Pros, Inc. in St. Louis. Reach her at [email protected].

A report rating 30,000 Web sites has found some improvement in online privacy practices. But San Diego’s Enonymous.com, which produced the report, gave two prominent privacy advocacy groups such poor ratings that it has been criticized for its methodology.

Enonymous found that 69% of the sites have a comprehensive privacy policy, an improvement over 1998 when the Federal Trade Commission discovered that only 2% of the sites had one.

Among the 1,000 most-trafficked sites, Enonymous gave its highest rating, four stars, to 8.6%. Four stars means that these sites “commit to never share personally identifiable information with third parties, nor use such data to contact a user without permission,” according to the report.

But two major privacy advocacy groups – Junkbusters (www.junkbusters.com) in Green Brook, NJ, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (www.epic.org) in Washington – got ratings of just two stars. Two stars indicates the site will only share personally identifiable information with third parties with a consumer’s explicit permission, but that the site may contact consumers without permission.

The rating is inaccurate, says David Sobel, general counsel at EPIC. It is “more a reflection on the inadequacy of this survey than our privacy policy,” he argues. “It’s a simplistic approach.”

EPIC does not place cookies, share personal information or contact any of its newsletter subscribers without their permission, he points out.

Network advertising company DoubleClick, which has had its privacy policies examined by the FTC and five attorneys general, received “two stars, like we [did],” he says, to illustrate faults in the rating methodology.

“EPIC’s site is great, and it has a great privacy policy,” says Internet privacy expert Paul Schwartz, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “We want groups that rate Web sites, so consumers will know what sites are good and what sites are bad on the Web. Otherwise, Web surfing is costly and time-consuming.”

Though Enonymous calls its report “the most comprehensive online privacy research to date,” Schwartz says, “there could be a market for rating sites. If it turns out Enonymous is not good, then maybe another company will step in.”

Enonymous.com founder and director of privacy Timothy J. Kane says that the criticisms against his firm’s Web ratings are unfair. To receive four stars, a site “must never share data and never contact an individual unless they opted in for such contact.”

EPIC sends out an e-mail newsletter to people who choose to receive it. But, the nonprofit also sends out an annual fundraising appeal to those newsletter recipients. Although EPIC mentions that the mailing list also will be used for donation appeals, it does not give those recipients a chance to choose whether to receive the appeal.

“[EPIC] would get four stars if people had a chance to opt in or opt out for the donation appeal when they registered for the newsletter,” according to Enonymous’ Kane.