Sei sulla pagina 1di 12
Advertising Effectiveness Awards Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, 44 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8QS, UK

Advertising Effectiveness Awards

Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, 44 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8QS, UK Tel: +44 (0)171 235 7020 Fax: +44 (0)171 245 9904



Authors: Audrey Niven and Les Binet


The Cat's Whiskers: How Consistent Advertising Built Brand Leadership

This is the story of how a long–running advertising campaign helped a cheeky young No. 2 brand take on the might of a 40–year–old brand leader and win.

Today, Felix is the biggest selling cat food brand in the UK with annual sales of more than £130 million. 1 But back in 1989 things weren’t quite so rosy. At that time, Felix only had 6% brand share and was being threatened with delisting. By 1995, however, the brand had risen to No. 2 in the market, 2 gaining 16 share points in six years.

The role of advertising in this change of fortunes was documented in a winning IPA paper in 1996. In that paper the evaluation focused primarily on the direct effects of advertising in increasing penetration. This paper picks up where we left off in 1996 and looks at what has happened to Felix since then, examining advertising effects over a more mature phase of the brand’s development.

After ten years of advertising, we can demonstrate its effects in two ways:


Continued short–term sales effects derived from penetration gains


Longer–term brand effects on loyalty, price sensitivity and distribution.

Most importantly, we are able to demonstrate the longer–term benefits of a consistent advertising campaign. Whilst Felix’s main competitor has chopped and changed in an attempt to claw back share, Felix’s owners have stuck by their little black and white moggy. Even today, as the top cat in the market, Felix hasn’t let success go to his head. He just keeps doing what he does best – getting up to mischief to get his Felix.

1989–1995: A RASCAL WAS BORN

Felix was advertised for the first time in 1989 as part of a relaunch by its then owners, Quaker, to save the brand from delisting. The primary objective back then was to generate trial by giving the brand a personality and making it seem a bigger player than it actually was. Secondarily, we aimed to reinforce buyers’ loyalty to the brand.

Creative development research led us to the now famous black and white adverts which show a mischievous little cat called Felix getting up to every sort of trick to get his favourite food. The campaign was based on an insightful understanding of cat owners’ relationships with their cats, summed up with the line ‘Cats like Felix like Felix’. And our ads broke every rule of cat food advertising:


An animated naughty moggy instead of a perfect ‘real’ cat


No voice–overs about meatiness and goodness


Illustrated cat food rather than loving photography


Targeting only a fraction of cat owners, but on a continuous basis to make them believe Felix was a big brand.

As a result, cat owners quickly took Felix to their hearts and the brand saw fantastic growth in penetration, loyalty and share (Figure 1), taking it to the No. 2 position in the market.

Having reminded ourselves of Felix’s early history, we can turn now to his ‘maturing’ years.


In 1995 Felix’s marketing team decided that being No. 2 wasn’t good enough. So they devised an aggressive five–year plan to steal brand leadership from Whiskas. This was a tough objective because Whiskas still had a clear lead of nearly 10 share points. And there were rumours of a massive relaunch to fight Felix off.

In this context, we developed our strategy to get to No. 1:




By increasing trial: We believed that persistent targeting could convert 700,000 or so occasional Whiskas buyers who hadn’t tried Felix yet.

By protecting loyalty: There were a number of reasons why we had to protect loyalty:

There were only so many potential trialists left to convert We suspected the market was becoming more promiscuous as price promotions became more prevalent Overall market volume was declining 3 so we needed to protect our volume share and, more importantly, improve our value share.

By improving brand image: Research showed that because the brand was going from strength to strength so quickly, many of our targets hadn’t caught up with the fact that Felix was now a quality brand. We needed to continue building up our image as a credible, popular choice, so highlighting more of the product range would be an important factor.

Obviously, it was going to be hard work getting from second to first position. The key question to answer, therefore, was ‘Do we need different advertising?’


In 1995 we actually knew quite a lot about how our existing campaign worked. And we had some fairly strong suspicions about how it would affect brand performance in the longer term. The things we already knew were as follows:

1. Felix advertising generates trial

People tend not to sample cat food themselves, so they rely on other elements of the marketing mix to give them clues about a brand’s likely appeal to their cat. Felix advertising shows a ‘real life’, 4 characterful cat, cheekily pursuing his favourite food. We knew that owners happily accept his enthusiasm for Felix cat food as proxy for their own cats’ tastes and therefore want to feed their cats Felix.

2. Felix advertising encourages loyalty

Everybody who knows about cats knows they are famously fussy eaters. Whereas dogs are often less discerning, cats can be fickle and suddenly decide they no longer like a particular food. Because cat owners get the rough end of this deal, they’re always on the lookout for something different to keep their cats happy. So, every time a cat owner goes to the supermarket, there is a risk they might stray to another brand. This was being exacerbated by the increasing number of price promotions in the


We believed our continuous advertising encouraged people to stay loyal to Felix in several ways:





By reminding owners how much like their cat Felix is and reinforcing their fondness for him

By reassuring owners that ‘Cats like Felix like Felix’

By making Felix look like a big, quality brand to inspire owners’ confidence

By reflecting the regular purchase of cat food in our media strategy to deliver our message just when owners were most likely to be lost to another brand.

That was what we already knew. The things we strongly suspected about Felix advertising were:

1. Advertising would help support a higher price

If advertising could help maintain customers’ loyalty to Felix and encourage them to feel it is a good quality, popular brand, then we strongly suspected advertising could help increase the price on shelf. As we’ve said, cat food volume sales were in long–term decline so it would be increasingly important to add value to the brand.

2. Advertising could help distribution

Distribution is a crucial link in the chain because of cats’ fickleness. Owners feel it is important to give their cats variety. So it is vital for a cat food brand to have lots of varieties on shelf. We desperately needed to close the gap on Whiskas’ facings. And our hypothesis was that advertising would have a significant effect on distribution in a number of ways:



If advertising made more people want to buy Felix and keep buying Felix, then supermarkets would sell more, making it more popular with retailers.

If, as a result of the same advertising, we were able to increase the price of Felix, then retailers would be even happier because they’d make more profit from selling it.

Taking these reasons together, we believed that advertising could help increase not only the number of stores stocking Felix, but also the number of Felix variants retailers were willing to stock.

What we had learned thus far (and admittedly what turned out to be a couple of good hunches) reinforced our confidence in the Felix campaign. We had all the ammunition we needed to get us to No. 1 and it was therefore an easy choice to keep on making animated ads about a mischievous little black and white cat called Felix.


Creative strategy 1995–2000

The Felix campaign had proven its worth. But, talking to Whiskas users, we discovered that we needed to evolve our messages to challenge their ideas about Felix and win them over. So we created new ads in our ongoing campaign that talked about Felix’s growing popularity and promoted kitten food and new foil trays, to build the brand’s credibility with cat owners.

Media strategy, 1995–2000

As the brand grew, so did the media investment and we broadened our reach, still maintaining as near constant a presence as possible (Figure 2). We retained the core idea of our original media strategy and, as we’d done creatively, evolved our approach to meet our new goal. So we became more persistent in chasing those who hadn’t yet adopted the brand 5 and continued to reinforce the Felix brand message to existing buyers.

Three important steps forward were:

1. We used posters to support a regional product sampling programme aimed at non–users.

2. In 1997 we launched the new foil trays and a new £100,000 give–away promotion. In order to

build awareness for both of these very quickly, a burst strategy was adopted.

3. To redress a regional sales imbalance between the North and South of the UK, we instigated a

regional upweight of activity in the North in August 1998. But apart from the increase in media spend, nothing else in these regions was changed.

It’s also worth mentioning that, in spite of budget increases, Felix still spent much less than competitors. Even today, as the No. 1 brand, Felix is outspent roughly 3:1 by Whiskas.


Felix’s persistence spurred Whiskas into action to defend the brand leadership it had held since 1958. The heavily rumoured relaunch happened in 1996, featuring a rejuvenated product range, updated packaging and an £8 million investment in just three months behind new advertising (Marketing Week, 22 November 1996). This was touted as the biggest relaunch in FMCG history, but Felix wasn’t scared off. Despite Whiskas’ advantage of heritage, shelf space and media muscle, they couldn’t outsmart Felix’s strategy.


It certainly did! In 1997 Felix became brand leader in wet cat food and has been ever since. Just two years into our Five–Year Plan the rascal had toppled Whiskas from its No. 1 position in the category (Figure 3).


Everything worked pretty much as we had expected.

Penetration increased

Penetration increased as our renewed efforts succeeded in converting cat food buyers (many of them Whiskas users) who had overlooked Felix in the past (Figure 4).

Loyalty was protected

We kept our buyers loyal whilst, as we had feared, the market as a whole became more promiscuous. As there isn’t really any single measure of loyalty agreed by all academics or practitioners, we have looked at two common measures.

Firstly, the number of Felix buyers claiming to buy Felix most often has been defended, whilst Whiskas has lost out (Figure 5). As a result, Felix now has the strongest loyalty in the category.

More importantly, our loyalty as measured by actual purchase has been protected. We have defended our share of our buyers’ cat food repertoires much better than Whiskas has (Figure 6).


We had increased penetration and defended loyalty. But, as we said earlier, we also suspected that continuing our campaign would have an effect on both pricing and distribution. So were we right?

The price of Felix increased

As the brand grew in stature and we kept people loyal, the price of Felix increased above the market average (Figure 7). Felix is now just 1p cheaper than Whiskas. This is no mean feat when you remember that back in 1989 Felix was 17% cheaper than Whiskas.

Brand distribution improved

Because we had managed to increase trial and defend loyalty, the rate at which Felix sold through supermarkets increased (Figure 8). Once again, this was a bit of an achievement because rate of sale in the market as a whole was declining.

As Felix was now the fastest selling brand in the category, commanding a higher price, it became increasingly attractive to retailers. So it was stocked in more stores, closing the distribution gap on Whiskas as we had hoped (Figure 9).

Variant distribution increased

And since the brand was becoming such a hit with retailers, they stocked more Felix variants – although still not as many as Whiskas (Figure 10)!

So our suspicions had been correct. More people went to the supermarket to buy their favourite brand, Felix. They kept on buying Felix and were happy to pay more for it. And they had lots of varieties to choose from to keep their cats happy, just like Felix.


To prove that advertising really did play a significant role in all of these achievements, we’ll look at all the evidence in five different ways:

1. We’ll show that people responded to the ads as we expected

2. We’ll show that all the improvements we’ve illustrated correlate with variations in advertising

support over time

3. We’ll show that improvements in brand performance were greater in regions where there was

more advertising

4. We’ll explain why no other factors can account for these patterns

5. Finally, we’ll use econometric modelling to measure the advertising effects.

1. People responded to the ads as we expected

First, we ought to prove that people actually respond to Felix advertising in the way we claim they do.

People like Felix advertising People like the advertising and they love Felix:

‘I really like the ads. You like the cat because he’s so cute but he gets into all sorts of bother.’ ‘He ’s a little pest, but you love him. ’ ‘He ’s got a real personality. ’ ‘He ’s a right little character. I ’ve got one just like him at home. ’

Felix is just like a real cat

Source: BMP Qualitative Research, 1995 –2000

More and more people agree that Felix is just like their cat (Figure 11).

They remember the ads Felix advertising awareness has steadily climbed over the years (Figure 11).

The advertising is outstandingly efficient at generating lasting advertising memories. Felix ads have the highest advertising Awareness Index (AI) in cat food, generally achieving at least double the market average score. 6

They’re more aware of the brand and think better of it In response to the advertising, people have stronger spontaneous awareness of the brand, 7 and their impressions of Felix have improved (Figure 11).

2. Brand performance correlates with advertising

Across all the variables we expected advertising to affect, we can see a correlation between brand performance and variations in advertising over time.

Advertising awareness increases as the number of TVRs increases (Figure 12). Identification with the advertising, i.e. its ability to remind people of their own cats, improves in line with advertising support (Figure 13). Increases in spontaneous brand awareness over time correspond with increases in TVRs (Figure 14). As Felix becomes better known, and the advertising promotes a better quality image, so people’s impressions of the brand improve. They believe Felix is increasingly popular, better quality, more trustworthy and enjoyed by more owners’ cats. All these improvements in image correlate with increases in advertising 8 (Figure 15).

Finally, looking at market share 9 , it’s more difficult to show the relationship between sales and advertising in simple graphs like the ones above because fluctuations in price and distribution can obscure the correlation between share and TVRs. We will show later on that these effects can be disentangled using econometrics.

But for now, we can look at what happened to share in 1997. As explained earlier, there was a deviation from the normal media plan in that year and we adopted a burst strategy. The share performance across the year follows the pattern of advertising spend (Figure 16). And the pattern of share changes correlates with our advertising (Figure 17). We can be confident in the correlation between share and TVRs because in 1997 both distribution and price remained relatively static, so they don’t cloud the issue.

Overall, then, there is some compelling evidence that our advertising had a positive impact on the brand’s performance over time.

3. Regional performance matches regional advertising upweights

Having shown how advertising investment affects brand performance at a national level, we can now exclude other factors quite simply by looking at what happened when we began to upweight advertising in Scotland and the North of England (Figure 18) from August 1998 onwards. 10 Since nothing else in the marketing mix was changed in these regions, we can be sure that any improvements in brand performance in the North were due to the advertising.

Felix’s performance in the upweighted regions reflects what we saw at a national level. Both advertising awareness and spontaneous brand awareness improved more in the North than in the South (Figure 19).

People’s identification of Felix advertising with their own cat increased (Figure20). Consequently, their overall perceptions of the brand improved more in the North too (Figure 20). As a result, penetration increased more in the North (Figure 21). And loyalty was better protected 11 where there was more advertising (Figure 22). Increased penetration and insulated loyalty led to a better rate of sale in the North compared with the South, and Felix fared better than competitors (Figure 23) But probably the most compelling evidence of advertising’s success is the impact of our media upweight on sales, which increased more in the North than the South (Figure 24). And the correlation between increased TVRs and improvements in share on a region–by–region basis is even stronger than we saw nationally (Figure 25).

4. Are we sure nothing else explains this performance?

We’ve shown that improvements in brand performance correspond with advertising over time and that increased advertising leads to even stronger brand performance via our regional upweights. Can we be absolutely sure nothing else generated these results?

Better distribution? There are two ways a brand can increase volume:

• growing rate of sale

• growing distribution.

As we’ve seen, Felix has managed to do both. But improvements in rate of sale were the main driver of our success, accounting for 77% of our growth since 1995. By comparison, our 5% gain in brand distribution is more modest.

More variants? The number of Felix variants on shelf has indeed increased. But the brand really took off long before retailers started stocking more variants (Figure 26). And Felix is still ‘under–faced’ relative to both its market share and Whiskas. So, whilst improvements in brand and variant distribution did help us along, they were only a small part of the picture.

In fact, later we will come on to show that these distribution gains were partly a consequence of the advertising.

Better product? Felix’s palatability versus Whiskas has remained fairly constant. 12 Also, it doesn’t vary nationally, so it wouldn’t explain the successes of the northern regions, or any of the other regional variations we’ve seen.

New products have been added to the wet cat food range, as we mentioned, but while these have probably helped improve our image, they have not significantly added to volume (Figure 27).

Cheaper price? We’ve already seen that Felix is now dearer than it has ever been (Figure 28).

Regional sampling? The regional sampling programme did make some contribution to penetration and share, but it ended before the regional upweight of advertising began. So it doesn’t explain the regional variations since August 1998. Neither does it explain why Scotland was the fastest growing region, as Scotland wasn’t part of this programme in the last five years.

More PR?

Felix has had little PR, especially compared with Whiskas which had lots of attention around both its relaunch and its various advertising campaigns.

Promotional activity? Felix promotions such as feeding mats, cat toys and the £100,000 give–away are always popular. But over the years, the level of promotional spend hasn’t increased in real terms (Figure 29), 13 so this is unlikely to have affected the improvements we have seen. Also, all these promotions are run nationally so they don’t explain any of the regional variations in performance.

Reduced competitor activity? As we mentioned earlier, Felix has consistently been at a disadvantage in media spend versus its key competitor, Whiskas.

More cats? Lifestyle changes? The economy? Anything? The cat population has increased in recent years, but there’s no reason why Felix would have benefited more from this than any other brand. Neither can we find any evidence that Felix has benefited disproportionately from the increase in single–person or older households, or the upturn in the economy. Nobody is famous for having a cat like Felix and, if you look around, there don’t seem to be any more black and white cats.

None of these possible influences seems to be sufficient to explain Felix’s continued success on all dimensions.

But are we absolutely convinced Felix’s advertising works as well as it does, in the way we suspected it would?

5. Measuring advertising effects with econometric modelling

Can we learn any more by quantifying the effects of the Felix campaign?

Using econometrics we can show that, without our advertising, Felix’s volume share by the end of 1999 would have been 7% less than it actually was and Felix would still only be No. 2 in the market (Figure 30). How, exactly, has advertising done this?


We said at the outset that we knew our advertising would affect penetration and loyalty and we have shown the direct relationship between advertising and these two factors in our success.

We also said that back in 1995 we had a couple of hypotheses about how advertising affects pricing and distribution. On the evidence of our econometric models, which can disentangle these variables, it really does look as though we were right.

First hypothesis: advertising would help support a higher price

We have seen that Felix’s price relative to that of competitors has increased as we have improved our brand image and protected our loyalty. In fact we can show that, as we have continued with the advertising, there has been a reduction in price elasticity (Figure 31). As a result, people are willing to pay more for Felix than they used to.

Second hypothesis: advertising can affect distribution

We suspected that advertising would have an effect on distribution and it turns out we were right.

Firstly, gains in aggregate distribution 14 were greater in the North of the country, where we upweighted the advertising (Figure 32). And looking at the performance of all the regions in more detail, there is a significant correlation between increases in advertising and increases in aggregate distribution (Figure 33). So advertising clearly does affect distribution. The question now is how?

Our hypothesis was that advertising would indirectly affect distribution by increasing consumer demand. This does indeed happen, as we saw in Figure 26 which showed that distribution lags behind rate of sale.

Figure 34 shows that distribution growth correlates with rate of sale over the preceding three years. So Felix is steadily being ‘pulled through’ supermarkets by the consumer demand advertising creates.

We have built a second econometric model to look at advertising effects on distribution. Out of this exercise we have discovered something new about our ads. Felix advertising has had a second effect on distribution which is more immediate and direct.

We had always believed that retailers only increased distribution in response to improved consumer demand. We now discovered that our advertising caused them to increase stocks before rate of sale improved. Intuitively this makes sense: retailers watch TV and read the papers too. They will have seen our ads over the years and will probably have come to think of Felix as a more important brand. 15 And the campaign will have increasingly encouraged them to think it’s important to stock Felix. 16

Qualitative evidence from the Felix sales team confirms this:

‘Felix is now becoming an institution within the industry as well as our customer base. The character appeals to retailers as well as their customers.’

‘They [retailers] now respect our category views and acknowledge our expertise in the cat category, predominantly as a result of our proven success with this brand.’

BMP Research 2000

Using modelling to quantify this direct effect, we learn that a third of all Felix’s distribution gains since 1995 are the direct result of advertising (Figure 35).

Getting to grips with the model of how our advertising works

We now have a complete model of advertising (Figure 36):







Advertising drives up penetration, increasing the number of Felix buyers

At the same time, it protects loyalty so we can charge a higher price

As a result, retailers find Felix more attractive because it sells better than other brands and is more profitable for them

However, advertising also directly encourages retailers to stock Felix

All these factors together mean there is more choice on shelf

This keeps both new and loyal customers (and their cats!) happy, and the tills keep ringing.

As our modelling shows, the effects of advertising on both rate of sale and distribution have made a significant contribution to Felix’s share. Advertising research tends to focus on advertising’s influence on demand. But we have been able to show that advertising has had a direct effect on the retail trade and has helped to increase supply.

We had not assumed this direct effect existed, and we suspect it’s not one which has been quantified before. But we have calculated that the direct effect on distribution accounts for more than one third of advertising’s total effect on Felix sales (Figure 37).


Absolutely. The continued strengthening of Felix via advertising has paid dividends in four ways.

1. Customer value

Earlier we looked at two different measures of loyalty. But probably the ultimate loyalty measure is the value to the brand of each of its users. Felix users have become more valuable to the brand over time (Figure 38). Therefore, we can argue that advertising has helped to increase brand loyalty.

2. Sales revenue

As the number of people buying the brand has increased, together with the value of each user, Felix’s sales value has increased, too. Modelling shows that without advertising, the value of Felix’s sales would be 11% less than it is today (Figure 39).

3. Profit

Our econometric model enables us to calculate how much incremental profit has been generated by advertising. While confidentiality prohibits us from disclosing sensitive information, the model shows that our advertising has already paid for itself (Figure 40). And by 2004, the advertising investment from 1995 to 1999 will have been recouped 2.5 times over.

The next question is, how quickly does advertising pay for itself? Our model shows that Felix advertising pays for itself in six months. Using discounted cash–flow analysis, we calculate that this is equivalent to Felix investing the advertising budget and receiving 67% annual interest.

Our previous IPA paper included a similar analysis, and we can now see that Felix advertising has become even more profitable (Table 1). This is because, by increasing penetration and loyalty, consistent Felix advertising has:




helped generate volume with increasing efficiency

enabled price increases

helped reduce unit costs via economies of scale.







Bank deposits

4. Brand value

Annual rate of return 1989 – 1995

Annual rate of return 1995 – 1999









Because Felix has changed hands twice in recent years – in 1995 and 1998 – we are able to make an estimate of how much the brand’s financial value has grown. In just those three years, the value of

the brand grew by £25 million. We wouldn’t claim that this growth is entirely due to our ads, but all the evidence we’ve looked at here suggests that advertising made a significant contribution. If we look at the amount invested in advertising 17 compared with the increase in brand value, we see once again that advertising is a very efficient investment (Figure 41).


We should also point out something about the value of Felix’s advertising efficiency. Millward Brown tracking has always shown that our advertising is very efficient at generating awareness. This makes the campaign even more valuable to the Felix marketing effort.

Assuming our advertising to sales ratio had been on a par with that of Whiskas, we would have had

to spend an extra £25 million on advertising over the last five years to reach our goal (Figure 42).

From all our experience in monitoring this campaign over the last ten years, it does look as though a large part of its efficiency is due to the abiding originality, relevance, popularity and, above all, consistency of Felix ads.


Since we devised our Five Year Plan in 1995, Felix has grown to become the biggest, fastest selling, best loved brand of cat food. It actually stole volume brand leadership in the category from Whiskas

within eight years of being advertised for the first time. In the last five years Felix has also continued

to increase in value (Figure 43), which is increasingly important as market volume declines.

A great deal of this success is attributable to an animated advertising campaign featuring a

mischievous, lovable little black and white cat who loves his food. It’s a simple idea, but it works very hard and will hopefully continue to make Felix’s owners very profitable and very happy.

1 IRI 52 weeks ending January 2000 shows Felix as overall leader in cat food by volume.

2 Throughout this paper ‘the market’ is defined as wet cat food, i.e. all meaty food sold in cans, foil trays and pouches, which accounts for more than 80% of all cat food.

3 Sales of dry cat food and single serve packs of wet cat food grew in popularity, thereby reducing wet market volume.

4 Although he is an animated cat (some even call him a cartoon!), Felix ’s antics are entirely based on real-life stories from cat owners about their cats.

5 Eventually, we had enough robust research data to be able to build a media plan that literally ‘avoided’ consumers who were so loyal to Whiskas that they wouldn’t be convertible to Felix.

6 Millward Brown ’s advertising Awareness Index (AI) is a measure of the advertising ’s efficiency at generating awareness. Felix’s AI score has rarely dipped below 10 in the last five years v. a market average of 5.

7 It was very important to increase spontaneous brand awareness as we needed to overcome Whiskas’ position as the ‘generic’ for cat food in people ’s minds.

8 The correlations between increased TVRs and improvements in brand awareness and image dimensions are all statistically significant.

9 We aren’t able to do correlation analyses on the intermediate measures of penetration and loyalty because we only have annual data on these measures.

10 We have used 1997 as our benchmark in this analysis giving us a year’s ‘clean’ read of the data before the upweight began.

11 It isn’t possible to look at Superpanel loyalty data on a regional basis as the sample is too small, so we are obliged to use TGI’s ‘Buy most often’ measure instead.

12 Palatability is measured in homes and in the Felix cattery where cats are offered samples of different foods and their preferences recorded.

13 Unfortunately, only the last four years of promotional spend data have been preserved.

14 Aggregate distribution accounts not only for the number of stores stocking Felix but also for the total number of facings on shelf, so it ’s the best overall measure of the brand ’s distribution strength.

15 Felix is now in the top twenty of all grocery brands according to AC Nielsen (quoted in Marketing Magazine ‘Biggest brands’ survey, 12 August 1999). This is pretty impressive given that only around 20% of all UK households actually have cats in them.

16 Several ads since 1995 have referenced Felix’s growing popularity, product range and stature. 17 Confidentiality obliges us to use MEAL data for this exercise which obviously excludes the media discounts negotiated on Felix’s behalf.

excludes the media discounts negotiated on Felix’s behalf. © IPA, Institute of Practitioners in

© IPA, Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, London 2000