In the early 1900s, there was a marketing “law” known as cumulative value. Publishers used this concept to convince advertisers that they needed to advertise frequently and consistently in their publications. The idea was that repeated exposure would maximize the impact of an advertisement on readers.William A. Shryer, outlined the reasoning behind cumulative value in his 1912 book ‘Advertising Analytics’:- A single ad placement isn't an effective test of its success.- To gauge effectiveness, an ad must run at least three times in a publication.- Consistent repetition will eventually yield profitable returns.- Sporadic ad placements won't work; persistence is key.- The longer you run your ads, the more profitable they become.But Shryer himself wasn’t convinced. He stated:“Their cumulative value theory attracted me mightily, first because it violated every principle of psychology, logic, and reason and nevertheless appeared to be the guiding principle of every seller of space I met, as well as the accepted belief of most advertisers.”Shryer set out to test this theory through empirical research, meticulously tracking the performance of hundreds of ads across different advertisers. The results were surprising: contrary to the cumulative value “law,” the first ad placement had the most significant impact, while the benefits of additional exposure were limited.As Shryer wrote:“The first insertion of a tried piece of copy in a new medium will pay better, in every way, than any subsequent insertion of the same copy in the same magazine.”Now, you might wonder why you should care about what someone you never heard of said over 100 years ago about a law that is never discussed.Here’s why: much of today’s marketing still relies on the idea of cumulative value. Companies invest in martech assuming that if one email works, wouldn't a workflow that will send 5 or 10 or 15 be better? Do a Google search and you will see many results that recommend prospects need to see an ad 7 or 9 or 15 times to act.But if cumulative value isn’t true, how much money are we wasting on ineffective marketing?Many modern studies also cast doubt on the cumulative value theory.  For instance, Shryer's book brought to mind a post from Dale W. Harrison where he referenced a study (link in comments), which found that “ad response is ENTIRELY flat after the initial exposure to a given brand's advertising.”https://lnkd.in/eNU5fm3FI don't know if there is a definitive answer, but there is enough research to at least make us question this belief and ask why it is so entrenched in marketing.