Author Question: Explain why (or why not) the three-exposure hypothesis is a valid ... (Read 168 times)

anjilletteb · **on:** Jun 29, 2018

Explain why (or why not) the three-exposure hypothesis is a valid theory.

Question 2

Which of the following is NOT a major demographic aspect that has considerable relevance for marcom practitioners?
a. geographic distribution of consumers
b. age structure of the population
c. changing household composition
d. ethnic population developments
e. All of these are major demographic aspects.

chevyboi1976 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 29, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The three-exposure hypothesis addresses the minimum number of exposures needed for advertising to be effective. This hypothesis, which was based on little empirical data and a lot of intuition, has virtually become gospel in the advertising industry. Many advertising practitioners have interpreted this hypothesis to mean that media schedules are ineffective when they deliver average frequencies of fewer than three exposures to the vehicle in which a brand's advertisement is placed. This interpretation is too literal and also fails to recognize that the originator of this hypothesis (Herbert Krugman) had in mind three exposures to an advertising message and not three exposures to vehicles carrying the message. Opportunity to see (OTS) is not tantamount to advertising exposure. It must also be recognized that no specific number of minimum exposures is absolutely correct for all advertising situations. The most widely accepted view among media planners is that fewer than three exposures during a four-week media schedule is generally considered ineffective, while more than 10 exposures during this period is considered excessive. Thus, the range of effective reach can be thought of as three to 10 exposures during a designated media-planning period.

Answer to Question 2

a