Fewer Messages in a communication work best!

About a year and a half ago, the planning team at Hal Riney of which I am a part, suggested through quantifiable methodology (done with an independent third-party research vendor) that not only does the law of diminishing returns apply to the number of messages contained in an ad, but the existence of secondary messages creates a diminishing impact on those that preceed it.

In other words, (in theory) if say Coke were to create an uber-campaign carrying 10 of its most memorable slogans; "Coke is it", "Can't beat the real thing", "Always Coca-Cola", "Enjoy", etc. and each of these slogans were placed in a single ad, the recall of slogan 2 would be less than that of 1, the recall of slogan 3 would be less than that of 2 and through transitive theory one can deduce 3 less than 1. And so on with each additional messge. Nothing beyond intuitive, but valid nonetheless. What is also interesting is the effect consecutive messages would have on the recall of those preceeding it. Message 1 recall would decline further as messages 2-10 were added in subsequent order (the delta of diminished recall would increase as you added more messages).

The irony is that as the ability to reach mass audience through single media channels declines (see the decline of the average network TV rating), marketers are trying to put more content in single executions to make up the difference. And, in doing so they inherently undermine the effectiveness of their message recall.

The bottom line for marketers is that in trying to convey more of a story in an ad you are likely to convey less. Don't do it! Avoid the temptation to tell the whole story at once and treat your ads a part of a greater whole. You don't score a touchdown on every play, and most good coach's don't try to...consider the parallels.

The Art of Achieving Break-Through: Part 1

It hit me a little while back; the revelation that marketers and advertisers are trapped in a viscous cycle of inefficiency that is fueled by variables of control as much as variables beyond control (those set in motion by external sources that result from the conditions of an evolving society.) We (marketers) see advancing technologies as vehicles that provide new channels to reach customers, but fail to realize that in doing so, we create a larger degree of clutter through which our communication must breakthrough. We often gauge the scale of their efforts on a "share of voice" within a given category or sector, but what we are really competing for is a fixed commodity aptly coined "share of mind", the 10% of the human brain (give or take) that is allotted towards cognitive choice...

...has anyone else considered that less may actually be more when trying to engage consumers?