I wonder if for many advertising professionals, particularly those in major city centres, the term “regional Australia” conjures up images of farmers and real-life Daisy Dukes, sheep dogs afoot and flannelette aplenty.
With these abstractions, you could forgive advertisers for believing it foolhardiness to target the regional audience.
This would explain a mere 9 per cent spend in regional by national advertisers.
There’s just one problem: almost nine million Australians live outside capitals, 36 per cent of the total population – and they’re not all wearing wide brim hats and mustering cattle.
Contrary to popular belief, most regional Australians are residing in large towns or cities, all uniquely different.
Towns such as Whyalla, Port Hedland and Dalby have little in common with regional cities such as Canberra, Gold Coast, Newcastle and Townsville, yet they are grouped under one, all-encompassing term: regional.
I know most national advertisers have access to sales data at a regional level, so it begs the questions: What is deterring national advertisers and agencies from spending in proportion to the regional population, and are hackneyed stereotypes seriously to blame?
Australia’s major regional cities are prospering and tipped for continued growth in the years to come.
The Gold Coast is estimated to grow by 9.4 per cent in the next five years, while Canberra and Wollongong will swell by 6.6 per cent and 4.7 per cent respectively.
Recent studies show the cost of living in Australia’s city centres is increasing faster than anywhere else in the world, encouraging people to purchase homes in regional locations, particularly those within relative proximity to city centres.
The federal government has recently committed $222 million in its Regional Jobs and Investment Packages designed to drive economic growth in regional areas, galvanising a positive outlook for regional Australia.
ABS data tells us that people in regional Australia have a lower cost of living than their metropolitan counterparts and have similar spending habits.
So why are national advertisers all “fishing in the same pond” in metropolitan centres, when there are largely untapped markets right on the periphery?
It also begs the question: Why are advertisers prepared to pay a premium to reach the customer in a major city centre, when there is a potentially more profitable customer right on their doorstep?
Over the last few months I have discussed this phenomenon with several leading advertisers, who all without exception boast about the sales and margins they achieve in regional markets, yet in the same breath admit to not paying enough attention to these valuable markets.
In one case, an advertiser admitted 50 per cent of their gross annual sales were generated from regional markets, yet they had committed 100 per cent of their advertising to the five capital cities to compete more aggressively with their peers.
Perhaps advertisers are favouring media they personally consume, and therefore perceive as superior.
Another explanation is increased focus on digital and social media has redirected ad dollars away from traditional media, though this logic is questionable.
While indisputably important, digital and social should not be implemented to the detriment of proven and resilient brand-building media.
It’s time advertisers and their agencies look at the facts, begin challenging their perceptions and overcome personal biases to determine how they can tap into highly prospective regional markets before their competitors figure it out first.
