 As-Salaam-Alaikum-Khwathayn-oh-Azrat. I was here as and welcomes you to lecture number 24 of Marketing for Non-Prophet's MKT 628 at the Virtual University of Pakistan. The component of learning is going to be about advertising evaluation. The meaning we need to carry out evaluation of the advertising campaign that we put together. Now, this is despite the fact that advertising managers, of that matter, marketing managers in any nonprofit are very careful about putting together the communication campaigns, being very sensitive to all the fundamentals of communications. In other words, they are very careful with the fundamental that they have to have different communication campaigns for different audiences. They are also careful about the fact that their audiences could happen to be at different stages of the behavior change model and therefore they need to carry out different campaigns for audiences at different stages. They are mindful of the fact that somebody has graduated from stage one to two and from two to three and therefore along with that graduation they also have to bring about changes in their communication campaigns in order to make them very effective and meaningful. Despite all these factors, advertising campaigns still need to be evaluated and those are evaluated on three different counts. The one is the copy test, the second one is the media test and the third one is the expenditure level test. The expenditure level test is all about budgeting because marketing managers have got to be careful about the fact that they do not overshoot their budgets. So three different components are tested in two different ways. Some people have at their disposal the two different sets of tests which are classified as pre-tests and post-tests. In other words, there are tests that are carried out before and advertising campaign is kicked off and there are tests that are put into place once advertising campaign has been launched. So in other words, in the pre-tests we test the copy and in the post-tests we basically test the media. To what extent the media has been effective and of course in relation to both these levels of tests, meaning pre-tests and post-tests, we can easily get the evidence for the level of expenditure which is planned to be incurred or which already has been incurred. We plan to incur expenditure in relation to pre-tests and we talk about the expenditure that already has been incurred because once the campaign is launched and it is over. Let us talk about the pre-tests. Like I said, they are all about the copy testing and there are a few mechanisms where we can assess the strength of the copy or otherwise off it. And the first one is known as the comprehension test. And as the terminology goes, the basic objective is to reveal the strength of comprehension. In other words, whether or not our audience is in a position to understand the message very clearly because if comprehension is weak, then the message is no good and the communication is no good at all. Communication as a matter of fact is all about comprehension and we want to connect with our audiences and we want to engage them and therefore communication has got to be not just clear but very, very meaningful. So in order to ensure that the comprehension on part of the audiences is absolutely at the full scale, marketing people have their own ways and means to determine what kind of the words are to be omitted. For example, technical jargons and all those words which are difficult to understand for an average person are to be avoided and they do omit that. This is a test where they look into all those formulas and the basic benchmarks that they have in order to see that a campaign is really meaningful is not beyond the comprehension of general audience. They also look into things like the length of the sentences. The length of sentences in any communication may that be for advertising or may that be office communication that has got to be limited and these are kind of a couple of standards and benchmarks that marketing people have to themselves in order to look into the possible effectiveness of their campaign in terms of its comprehension. The main feature here is that this kind of a test is carried out within the organization and the marketing manager along with his associates, they carry out this test and nobody from outside is involved into looking how comprehensible is the copy of the communication. The next test is what they call formal questionnaires. This is an extremely interesting test and it happens to be a little more credible well as a matter of fact, it is very credible because you get into contact with your respondents who are part of the audience or who could be people from the advertising world, the good at giving you their critique about the copy of your communications and therefore what you do is you put together a set of alternatives and send those to those respondents asking them about their feedback in terms of which set of alternatives is more effective. In other words, which is the set which they think they will be influenced by most. This is kind of a direct rating method which works for organizations and as long as they are confident about choosing the right respondents, the response they get could be quite very accurate. The other option that we have as part of this particular test, the meaning formal questionnaires is sending a set of alternatives to the same respondents or similar kind of respondents with a few more questions. As a matter of fact, you ask them questions on the five different dimensions and these dimensions are then tested on a scale of 1 to 20 for example and you give the weight on that particular scale to each and every dimension that I just talked about. You like to test things like the attention strength of the copy of your communication. The meaning to what extent the communication will draw attention of the readers and this is something which the respondents have to get back to you with and on the basis of their feedback you will give the level of effectiveness of drawing attention of your audience towards the communication on a scale of 1 to 20. It could be like 10, could be 15, could be 18, whatever is the response is going to determine the level of the scale. The second dimension that you talk about is the read through strength. This basically is the strength of the communication in relation to engaging your audiences. If the respondents say that the communication has the potential to evoke your interest to go on reading the communication, then the communication passes the test. It is a good piece of communication. It really engages your respondents. The third one is the cognitive strength which means how understandable is the message given in the copy. If the message is very clearly understood, we can say that the level of cognition is good and it passes the test. The next dimension that we like to test our copy on is what we call cognitive strength. Cognition basically is understanding and therefore this test essentially tells us to what extent the message is understandable. The objective, of course, is to make the message as clear as possible so that it could be understood by any members of the audience. The final and the fifth test is known as behavioral strength and this basically tells us to what extent the message takes the audience into the follow-through action stage. In other words, it must be powerful enough to actuate the members of the audience to take the final action, meaning the members of the audience who happen to be at the final stage of preparation and taking the action, the communication should be so effective that they end up taking that particular action. As you have seen, we test this particular alternative on five different dimensions and together all the dimensions or variable have the highest score of 20 and the scale is from 1 to 20 making the aggregate 100 and on a scale of 1 to 100 we can have different scores for the five different dimensions of this particular test. This also goes without saying that this is more credible and authentic in relation to getting the direct rating from a set of respondents on one piece of the alternatives. Now, this is not to undermine that particular option of testing your copy. It all depends on the circumstances and the nature of advertising that you are involving yourself in. If the ads could happen to be such that you are well off with the option one, which is just sending a couple of alternatives to your respondents and seeking their direct rating on the effectiveness of the copy, then so be it. And if you think that advertising is a bit more complex and you need to be very clear to yourselves about the effectiveness of the copy of the advertising, you may as well carry out option number two. And the objective here is not to overdo your testing and at the same time, not to fall short on the assessment scale because you would like to be quite very clear in objective terms as to how much effective is the copy of your advertising is. The next test is known as the portfolio recall test. And the mechanics of this test works like the following. You put together a portfolio of different ads and send those to your panel of experts who go through all those ads. And after they have seen the ads, you ask them to give you their feedback on whatever they registered. Now, at the time they give you their feedback, the ads are not in front of them and this is where the real test lies. They have to tell you what they really remember about the effectiveness of those ads and they are asked to say anything they want to say about the different aspects of the ads they saw. And this is how you come up with your assessment of which ad or which message that carries a higher level of effectiveness in terms of reaching the audiences. The fourth and the final test, marketing people have to themselves in terms of testing the copy as part of pre-tests is the focus group tests. And as we already understand the focus groups are a platform where you have more than one person. And as a matter of fact, you have somewhere like 6 to 12 persons who work collectively to give their feedback to you on your advertisements. And therefore the synergism which is created by the collectiveness of the members of the focus group is more vibrant and it creates more reactions in terms of one-on-one session with your respondents. And the assessment that is given as part of a group has a higher level of authenticity in relation to an opinion which is given by a single individual. So this is how different tests are put together to establish the effectiveness of communications before those are put together and kicked off. Like I said earlier, we have another component which is tested as part of post-tests and that is the component of media. Of course, you cannot test the effectiveness of the media until the time that you really have lost your campaign. And therefore you carry out these tests after the launching of your campaign. And the fact is that you get to know the real strengths and the weaknesses of your campaign. The very first test is known as the recall tests. And you measure the recall by talking with those people who use the media regularly. And you talk with those people in relation to your campaign without pinpointing any one particular medium. You ask those respondents to give you their impressions in terms of anything that they found interesting and exciting about the advertising regardless of the medium like I said earlier. It could be about television, it could be about magazines and newspapers, or any other medium within the overall tools that you have used to kick off your advertising campaign. The basic objective here is to register to what extent the advertising was noted and to what extent it was remembered. And the fact of the matter is that the kind of questions that you ask them without having to resort to any one particular medium says it all in terms of the generality of this particular test in relation to its notability and its remembrance. The next test that you can carry out is what you may call recognition tests. This is an extension of recall tests and the fact is you get to build up on the recall factor. But the only difference is that you talk with your respondents in relation to just one particular tool of communications. For example, they're just a magazine or television or just the internet. And you talk with the respondents in terms of extracting their responses at three different stages of their impressions. You ask them things about to what extent they have noted the advertisement. And then assess what is the percentage of respondents who really noted the ad. Don't forget you are talking about just the one tool, for example, magazines. You like to get into things like how many people have seen the ad and associated themselves with that ad. So in other words, how many people have there been who saw the ad, read it and can recall the name of the organization or the program and associate themselves with that particular program. And hence, giving us the clear assessment of the reachability of our message and the effectiveness of our message in terms of developing certain associations. And then you also like to assess how many people really read the most part of the communication. You know, not everybody goes through the whole advertisement. There are people who just noted and say, yes, we have seen it. You know, there are people who know what the advertising is all about and they can talk about the organization, your program. But they do not really know what you have talked about as part of the copy of the advertising. And then there are people who have read the most parts of the advertising. And they can tell you the things that you have talked about in detail in relation to your program. I mean, they can say that your program is all about anti-smoking, but they do not know the measures that you are suggesting. You know, you want those people to come to the office and to be part of a group on which you carry out certain programs in terms of lectures or whatever with the help of audiovisual aids, telling them how injurious smoking could be. So there are people who just see the ad and associate themselves with that ad. And there are people who go through the most parts of the ad and understand the ad in its entirety. So, you know, this really can give you leads into how effective has been your ad in terms of generating the level of interest, meaning what percentage of people noted the ad, what percentage of people associated themselves with the ad and what percentage of people read the most parts of the ad. The third testing method is what you call direct response to the method. And this is a test in which you like to seek the final outcome of the program and then determine to what extent your advertising has been successful. And you talk directly with your respondents. For example, with the help of certain coupons which you send as part of the advertising campaign, you send those coupons to be sent back to you with information which you require from your respondents. Here, you know, a big question is, why should they send those coupons back to you? They have to have some kind of incentive to send those back to you. And therefore, you come up with things like the free checkups. If you happen to be into a healthcare program, you can offer things like you will get a free checkup in the form of free blood pressure. Check blood sugar test and so on and so forth. And then you can assign a 0800 number on which they should call you and tell you what to think about your advertisements. And then again, the question is, why should they volunteer that kind of calling until they are really convinced about the nobleness of the cause. And I would say if your communication has been effective in terms of engaging them, then they really will call. But then just in order to make sure that they do take this step of calling you and sharing information rather than feedback with you, you again have to incentivize them. And you can incentivize them by telling them if they call, you can provide them with. The more information which is going to be even more helpful than what they have seen as part of the advertising program. So these are some of the testing methods that we have at our disposal to test our advertisements. And evaluate the communications while they are being prepared, the meaning before they are launched. And we have certain tests which we carry out after campaigns have been launched. And the pre-testing basically is done to test the copy of your communications. And post-testing basically is carried out to the test, the effectiveness of the media. And you determine things like to what extent the media or tools that you have used have been noted and people have associated themselves with the cause. And to what extent the people really have gone through complete advertising that was intended for them, and so on and so forth. With this we are finished with advertising evaluation and on to the next component. This component is going to be about managing the media in terms of public relations. I've talked about the paid advertising and the personal persuasions in terms of putting together our communication campaigns. But the fact is that there is still one more tool which is extremely effective in terms of highlighting the cause that we people have very dear to us and the cause that we are publicizing. We are publicizing by paying money to the media and we are publicizing with the help of the personal communicators and by developing relationships with the different audiences. Here I'm going to talk about the one audience which happens to be the media and the importance and the power of that media dictate that we develop an extremely good relationship with them to be able to earn advertising on the media. Now this is a new terminology. What is earned advertising? This is what the whole thing is all about as a matter of fact. Earned advertising as against paid advertising is that form of advertising which you as the marketing managers extract from the media by not paying. You convince the media to the extent that they really are bought into the cause that you are working for and they offer you airtime or they offer you some space in the print media and so on and so forth. And this is how you earn some space and time and publicize your cause. Given the strength of the media, the marketing managers all across the globe are getting more and more sensitive to this particular fact of developing good relationships with the media. Now the question is what are the different forms of these earned ads? We have to be clear about that first. Well, you must have noticed founders are community leaders talking on television as part of a certain program, meaning getting some airtime out of a lengthy program and talking about their cause for a few seconds. And that is something which can go a long way in terms of generating a promotional mileage and that could be a promotional mileage which is far greater than the one that you generate with the help of paid advertising. The second form of the earned advertising is opinion pieces and articles that appear in magazines and newspapers about different social welfare causes. And, you know, it again is with the help of the media that we are in a position to create that space for ourselves by convincing them that this is a cause for which media has to come up with their support. And of course there are certain dynamics which are at play before the media becomes favorable to your cause. And I'm going to talk about that as well as a separate component. But here let's confine ourselves to the fact that the relationship building with the media is of imminent importance nowadays in order to be able to earn some advertising space and time on the media. The question here is who are the people who can earn you this kind of advertising? The answer lies in having very special people who direct their efforts toward getting time and space on the media. And they are the people who are known as public relations people. Public relations always has been around. As a matter of fact, you know, for as long as organizations have been around because they are the people who have been responsible for developing images of their respective organizations. Not only they have been responsible for developing images, they also have been responsible for controlling the damage whenever their organizations, you know, were engulfed into the different kinds of prices and they still do it. The development that has now taken place is that the public relations has gone across the boundaries of what these people have been doing in the past and they are now going to seem to be getting into territories where they are also making contributions toward not just developing the image of the organization, but also toward accomplishment of the mission of the organization. Now, this is the real crux of the matter. Public advocacy basically involves itself in changing the structure of social norms and values. It works not only at the organizational level, it also works at the macro level, which is the society level. Now, let me explain the whole concept in a little detail. Many non-profit managers and scholars are of the view that there has been and still has a lot of undue stress on the behavior change of individuals because individual behaviors could basically flow out of the social norms at a higher social level. It all depends on the social conditions which give rise to individual behaviors. So in other words, if there are a lot of people in the society who take to smoking, it is because the society accepts smoking as something fashionable and as something which is sophisticated. There was a time when smoking was considered as fashionable and sophisticated because there was no movie in which the main characters did not smoke. There was no social party where people did not smoke and there were no public places where people did not smoke, which is not the case now. Ever since the awareness on the part of the general public following revelations from the medical field that smoking really is injurious and it can kill people, some public advocates could have done a marvelous job of a campaign that went against smoking and particularly in the US, bringing about a primary change in the very concept of rather the structure of the social norms and values of the society at that time. The society in which all ways had thought that smoking was good and fashionable was forced to believe otherwise. That smoking is not good. It is bad. And as a result, advertising was banned and all the cigarette packets contained the warnings which they contain even today. And advertising world is becoming more and more stringent in terms of deciding to what extent to publicize the area of smoking. So this basically is one classic example of how public advocacy can change the values at a higher level of the society. And this is what scholars call the upstream. The advocacy that could work at the upstream level of the society is good for the downstream individual values as well because it becomes less difficult for public advocates to bring about changes in individual behaviors. Once they have changed the overall structure of the societal values and norms, this is what the whole concept is all about. And smoking campaign, rather anti-smoking campaign, it happens to be one of the most classic examples of the social advocacy in the literature of nonprofits. This component is about public relations versus marketing. There is a dire need for us to understand in clarity what is the difference between public relations and marketing because we've been learning things which could fall on both sides of the fence, whether it is the PR which is more important or is it marketing that's all encompassing. That is something that we have to decide on. And toward that, we have to take a look at PR first and we know that the public relations has been around for as long as organizations have been around and therefore there are a few functions which PR managers have been getting out very effectively all along the years that I've talked about in historical perspective. And the things that they have been doing very effectively are they always anticipated the problems which can befall their organizations and they always have been prepared to face those negative situations and they always could have created opportunities where they could plant some positive and interesting stories with the media, with the press in particular, so that they can maintain the positive image of their organizations. And the public relations people always have been following public oriented policies which were good for the organization and which also were good for the cause they were working for. And also they have been putting together communication campaigns for the organizations they worked for. These campaigns have been in oral form as well as in written form. And I will not go to the extent of saying that these communications could have been as comprehensive and as strategic as the marketing people have starting putting together because the public relations never had to the kind of perspective which the marketing people have. Now this is not to bias you to begin with but this is a statement I think which I have to make in the very beginning of the discussion. Public relations managers always have been working as part of top management of their organizations. And the fact is that they always have been involved in the top notch things and they were always in the picture of what was going on within the organization and what the organizations were up to in terms of affecting their audiences until the marketing really came up. So the question here is how do we draw the comparison between these public relations managers and marketing managers? Well, the answer lies in the fact that there are so many audiences that are the common to both the areas to the area of PR as well as to the marketing. This is not the case with commercial in the marketing sector. I think I have to draw your attention in order to clarify your perspective in terms of the comparison between these two areas in the non-profits. The commercial sector operates very clearly in terms of the marketing and sales of their products. Well, even when they are operating in the services of the marketing, they're very clear about selling their services. They start developing a certain product and then they go all the way down to distributing that product and they're putting together all the four piece of the marketing mix in total clarity and not isolation but in almost independence of the PR area. And the PR area would take care of the image perception. I don't think a lot of examples are to be given here to clarify this perspective but I think I would like to draw your attention toward the recall on part of car manufacturers and motorbike manufacturers who like to remove the defect which they think has gone unnoticed into the marketplace. And PR people coming into a great action by planting positive stories about their organizations and the steps they have taken to rectify the defect. They also talk in terms of what really caused the defect and then try to cover up the shortcoming with the help of some of the positive, the happenings that surround their situation at that particular time. And because of the fact that they have a good relationship with the media, media also gives them the benefit of the doubt. So this is where the whole crux of the matter is. You have to develop good relationship with the media. Back to the area of non-profits, where lines could be between PR and marketing are not drawn as distinctly as you have seen on the commercial side. We have to make an effort to draw those lines. The reason the lines tend to be a little fuzzy because both the areas of the PR as well as marketing deal with some common audiences. And it is this basic overlap that took the causes with some problems and some frictions and also some tensions. And therefore, our job is to make sure that the two complement each other and not be at odd with each other. And the fact of the matter is that the PR people can do a lot of support for the marketing people. It will be very clear when I talk about the concept of the marketing mix, how the marketing is all encompassing and PR is just one of the subsets. But the fact remains that the PR could be supportive of the marketing effort and therefore the lines could have to be drawn in terms of PR working mostly in those areas that are supportive to the cause toward mission accomplishment but which do not really infringe on the formulation of marketing strategies and marketing tactics. This is all that we can say in order to bring about clarity between the two. And it will be a little more clear in a moment because when I talk about the tension factor and the real difference between the two. Let me say a few more words about what really has caused this particular tension in addition to the fuzzy lines that we see between the two areas. One of the reasons is that the PR has existed, has rather pre-existed the marketing in non-profit organizations. And it has been a recent phenomenon that the experts thought that the marketing savvy from the commercial sector could be borrowed and applied as effectively in the non-profit sector when the PR people started feeling threatened. And the factors when the marketing departments came up when the PR people started feeling kind of relegated to positions they were not really used to because they used to be all important a group and finding the marketing people with doing those jobs which are more prestigious which are better paid and which are more sophisticated they found they were at a disadvantage and they were a little demotivated and this basically has caused the tension between PR people and the marketing people. So I would again say that it all depends on the smartness kind of the marketing managers to take PR people along with them because there are certain constituencies and audiences which really are the specialization of PR people. For example, when it comes to dealing with the governmental or international agencies it is the PR managers who will do the job. We have been learning all along the course so far that the marketing has to be in contact with all these audiences and we need to have communication campaigns that are tailored for different audiences but it is now more clear that this job is done with the help of PR specialists because they are the ones who are used to collecting all the information regarding all those agencies that support the non-profit causes and therefore they are the ones whose input in that particular regard is absolutely essential because the marketing people are already too much engrossed with all the four piece of the marketing mix and therefore going out and dealing with an audience which is not really familiar with the marketing efforts being carried out by marketing people and vice versa. Meaning the marketing people not being very familiar with the way they work, the two will always find themselves at odds when they interact with each other. So the interaction has to come through those specialists who specialize in dealing with that particular audience. So this is where the importance of PR comes in and this is just one example. There could be so many other audiences where their importance really overwhelms the marketing expertise and overwhelms in respect of providing support in terms of providing a supplement to the overall aggregate marketing effort. Having known all that, we now have a chance to look at the real difference between public relations and marketing. Having known the audiences with which the PR people interact and specialize in handling them and managing them, I think it now has become clear that the PR still remains a communication tool. The PR is not something which can replace marketing. Whereas marketing conversely is something all encompassing. Marketing basically takes into consideration all the four Ps and marketing basically deals with the marketing mix. And I think that's where lies the answer. And we are talking about the product, place, pricing and promotions and all these four Ps are so comprehensive that we are talking about a host of activities and strategies of which PR just happens to be the one part. And that is why I said that PR supplements marketing and it is a support, a great support. And therefore the PR has got to be the part of marketing and not otherwise. Another big difference is that the public relations does not define goals for the organization. Whereas the marketing is responsible for defining the goals, the marketing defines target audiences, it gets into the segmentation, it establishes the positioning and based on positioning it defines objectives, goals and then gets into the complete formulation of strategies for the whole program. So this is a big difference between the PR and marketing and I think that with this could be now very clear about what PR is and the place of PR as part of the overall marketing program. Thank you.