1 / 54

Introduction to the Cross Media Optimization Study

Introduction to the Cross Media Optimization Study. Robert Acquaotta Director, Advertiser Relations. Largest Cross Media Study Ever Conducted. Landmark study methodology assesses “Cost Effectiveness” of each Medium Scientifically evaluates real world, in-market campaigns

Télécharger la présentation

Introduction to the Cross Media Optimization Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to the Cross Media Optimization Study Robert Acquaotta Director, Advertiser Relations

  2. Largest Cross Media Study Ever Conducted • Landmark study methodology assesses “Cost Effectiveness” of each Medium • Scientifically evaluates real world, in-market campaigns • Marketers carefully considered methodology

  3. Introducing the Participants • IAB: The organizing Association • Marketing Evolution/Rex Briggs: Developed landmark study methodology and executed the studies • Dynamic Logic: Applied AdIndex® product to collect consumer views and behavior • ARF (Advertising Research Foundation): Reviewed the study methodology • Forrester Research: Full analysis & review

  4. State of The Union:Interactive Medium

  5. Which trend matters to marketers? 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% Percent of time spent Online by Users

  6. Online Delivers the Audience Fully Two Thirds of the Adult U.S. Population is Now Online 137 Million Consumers Online Source: Harris Interactive, April 2002 Source: Harris Interactive, April 2002

  7. …And their Usage Doubles Over Time Source: eMarketer; UCLA Center for Communications Policy, November, 2001

  8. In Fact, Essential to Consumer’s Lives • When was the last time you: 42% Travel Info/Mo. 21% Map Info 92% News At Work 26% Check Quotes 40% Not Decided 15% “Making New Friends” 30% “Competitive” Research Source: Jupiter, eMarketer, Forrester, NetRatings

  9. The Media Landscape Has Changed Percent of adult evening viewers who can name a brand advertised watched Source: NAB (1965-1986); Nielsen (2000) Make bars in same colors

  10. Perhaps you have questions about the Effectiveness of Online advertising…

  11. 1,000+ Ads Tested – Online Advertising Works! +3.7 +5.9 +2.0 +2.1 Mean Changes for Four Measures of Effectiveness Source: Dynamic Logic MarketNorms – Database of 400 campaigns *All measures statistically significant at 99%; n=campaigns; between 375 and 416

  12. The New Marketing Question • No longer talking about Why Online • Howto integrate • Specifically, how to integrate to maximize: • Brand Awareness • Brand Image • Purchase Intent & Sales

  13. Key Findings from XMOS The major findings of the Study to date

  14. The Key Finding of the Study • Same budget Better results

  15. Coverage Effectiveness Value Why does Increasing Online produce better results within the same budget? Online advertising is typically more cost efficient at producing branding gains Online advertising affects branding metrics Online reaches those who would otherwise not get the advertising message

  16. Coverage • Media potholes Coverage

  17. 75% 25% Heavier TV Not Reached By TV Coverage

  18. Frequency Does Not Fall Evenly LIGHTEST HEAVIEST 15% Frequency considered wasteful Frequency considered not helpful Avg. Freq by Quintile

  19. 60% 40% Heavier TV Not Reached By TV Coverage 25%

  20. Coverage • Media potholes!

  21. Effectiveness and Value

  22. Effectiveness and value 100 90 80 70 Diminishing returns 60 % Purchase intent 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency: Number of OTS* ad exposures *OTS = Opportunity to see advertisement based on GRP levels

  23. Effectiveness and value Internet Branding effect Television Marketing spend

  24. Coverage Effectiveness Value • Brand Awareness • Brand Image • Purchase preference

  25. Growing Brand Awareness The major findings of the Study to date

  26. Growing Brand Awareness • Increasing Online is more cost effective way to build brand awareness

  27. 50% 45% 40% Broadcast Only 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 6/3 6/5 6/7 6/9 6/11 6/13 6/15 6/17 6/19 *4 day moving average (for greater sample size stability) Product Awareness Aided awareness: Grilled chicken flatbread sandwich

  28. 60.0% 13.6% Of budget 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Online builds brand awareness • *Online advertising: • 60% reach/2.0 frequency • TV TRPs trimmed by approximately 20% Point of diminishing returns That’s a 3pt incremental branding gain for same budget

  29. 60% InternetReach 6Million More Consumers Aware of the Product! Awareness = or The Affect Optimizing for Brand Building Recommendation

  30. Coverage Effectiveness Value

  31. Positioning the Brand Brand Image The major findings of the Study to date

  32. Building Brand Image • For McDonald’s Flatbread Sandwich… • “New”, “Different” and “Combination of great flavors” • For Dove Nutrium Bar… • “Nourishes your skin” and “is a for people like me” • For Colgate • “Long lasting protection” and “complete protection” • For Kleenex soft pack • “Convenient” and “innovative design”

  33. Creative reinforced the core message across media Cross-media synergy

  34. “ Just as each speaker accomplishes the same goal by exploiting its unique position and strength, each element of the marketing mix must find its strength and leverage it to surround the consumer with a synergistic and consistent message.” “Surround Sound Marketing”

  35. What about the 40% of your targetthat are not reached by TV?

  36. The Kleenex® TV campaign

  37. 60% 40% Campaign over 8 weeks Heavier Online 25% Heavier TV Not Reached By TV Lighter TV Lighter Online Not Reached By Online

  38. Summary of branding gains among lightly reached / not reached TV audience Positive Brand association (top box average) Magazine and Online Magazine (no online) Online (no mag) No Mag or Online

  39. Coverage Effectiveness Value

  40. Purchase Intent & Sales The major findings of the Study to date

  41. Results in a 14%increase in purchase intent Same Budget, Better Results Optimizing Online

  42. Online + Offline(freq & 3.1) 14.2% 11.5% Offline Only Pre-campaign 8.7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Effectiveness and Value Purchase intent (top 2 box)

  43. Value Value Cost per person affected by advertising Online + Offline 65 Offline Only 100 Pre-campaign 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

  44. All Media Demonstrate Diminishing Returns Television Online Magazine Average of Branding Metrics (%) Number of advertising exposures

  45. 3.1 Impressions (up from 1.7) 60% Internet Internet TV Print 2.0 impressions (down from 2.6) 5.5 impressions (down from 6.0) Optimizing the Dove Plan for Brand Building Reach Frequency 85% 50% TV Print 10% 10% in Original Plan

  46. Colgate Total Toothpaste

  47. Online ads increase purchase intentEffectiveness Index of Improvement in Purchase Intent

  48. Online is More Cost Effective than Other Media Purchase Intent Cost of Change by Other Media Indexed to Online Effective TV and Print CPMs are compared and indexed to this number.

  49. Overall, Online is the most cost efficient media Cost per impact Point gain over baseline is calculated by measuring the post branding level and subtracting the pre-campaign level (linear regression used to measure underlying trend). Costs per person impacted indexed against online advertising only and rank ordered.

More Related