Marketing Executive Point of View:
The information available in this report is only valuable if you perform the research on a consistent on going basis, because by looking at only one issue and evaluating performance of the ads based on averages of other ads in the past is just stupid. As long as the measurement scale remains the same it is possible to get valuable information by comparing the scores one's ads had in previous issues to the scores for this particular issue. Another problem with these "survey" results is that the sample size is small. Only 276 people participated in the survey and these people were asked to look at and evaluate 40 ads in a short period of time. Depending on the page number one's ad is on, can affect the ratings. The earlier on in the publication, the more likely the participant in the survey is answering openly and honestly, after about 10 ads people easily lose their focus and "rush" just to get through it.
Another problem with the people surveyed is that no other information about these people was given. There is no indication on income levels or education or ethnicity or locality. Many things can bias this information and the lack of these facts makes the report of little use to me as an advertiser. Without knowing the demographics of the population surveyed, an advertiser can not know who their customer truly is. The data gathered here, while thorough and pleasing to the eye is just at the very top surface level of marketing. I'd be interested to know if this research is a longitudinal study where they use the same people issue after issue, or if it is just a random sample survey.
Advertisers Point of View:
Methodology: To gain information on the...