TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study

on

  • 984 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
984
Views on SlideShare
984
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study Presentation Transcript

  • TRA Confidential | 1 TRA Confidential Copyright 2012 TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc. 1 TRA Confidential TRA ROI Case Studies Measuring the Impact of TV & Digital
  • TRA Confidential | 2 Answering the big questions The TRA/dunnhumby partnership is uniquely positioned to answer these questions Can TV’s actual IMPACT ON SALES be quantified? What is the SALES LIFT IMPACT of TV and digital? Can local targeted TV DRIVE BETTER RESULTS than network TV alone?
  • TRA Confidential | 3 80% TiVo, 20% 4.4 Million Households Achieving the right composition for nationally representative sample* *all data weighted and projected to the US TV population Charter/ Fourth Wall TRA’s Set Top Box Data Sources View slide
  • TRA Confidential | 4 Matched with Best-of-Breed Purchase Data Sources TRA is the ONLY company that effectively analyzes and optimizes TV advertising using a massive sample of naturally occurring data CPG BRANDS RX Brands CRM Brands Networks Agencies TRA Customers View slide
  • TRA Confidential | 5 TRA Cross Media Solutions Digital Buying TTI2 Measuring TRA Cross Media Measurement Use TRA TV and purchaser indices to plan/buy digital media: • Reinforce messaging • Reach digitally those missed on TV Purchaser indices used to weight cookies that can be used by any ad serving network to reach the right online audience Privacy: No household level matching of TV tuning or purchase data Using the Right Data for Digital Planning/Buying Measure the results of your TV and digital campaigns Use results to inform/optimize the plan Single-source cross media solution for: • Measuring the sales impact of TV and Digital • Understanding attribution to maximize ROI Over 100,000 Households Matched • Auto 100K • CPG 70K Privacy: No surfing or PII data collected. Consumer can opt- out using ad choices
  • TRA Confidential | 6 Case Studies: TRA is Market Tested & Proven to be Actionable  Greater CPG sales from smarter TV allocations led to 4% sales lift across portfolio, including 9% lift for P&G  Increased ROI by 25% and 35% for two product categories, with data-driven planning for Mars  Measured a 31% ROI and 126% sales lift from a product placement in a popular TV program, compared to exposure to TV ads only, for Garnier Fructis  Proved the impact of Sunovion’s TV advertising and helped to plan for a media buy that maximized exposure at 30% less the cost  Understanding what programs are of greater value to specific auto advertisers by clustering auto owners around program tune-in to help A&E find better selling opportunities  Gauging the impact of TV and digital on sales to help a CPG brand understand that TV drives new customer purchase and digital drives repeat purchase  Matching customer lists to TV Tuning to help a major online retailer understand which advertising creative had the largest effect on sales lift
  • TRA Confidential | 7 Introducing dunnhumby we help companies put the customer at the center of every decision. all our work starts with data we personalize the experience in communications and the retail environment we work with clients to change the organization to put the customer at the center through new strategies, tactics, and KPIs customers repay that loyalty by buying one more product, one more time; this increases sales and profit margin and grows measurable value for our clients
  • TRA Confidential | 8 400+ Major brand owners as clients too
  • TRA Confidential | 9 ROI Cases Studies: The power of TRA & dunnhumby combined TV & Online Exposure 22MM Households 40MM Households Shopping Behavior What is seen, matched with what is purchased. 4 MM Households
  • TRA Confidential | 10 Historic Food Product ROI Study: One of the largest ever single source TV sales lift studies on ~735,000 Households 3.4MM households matched between Comcast subscribers and Kroger shoppers 2.1MM Comcast households in the targeted ad zones 735K Comcast HH in the Kroger continuous panel AnalysisSample
  • TRA Confidential | 11 Campaign Methodology Precision purchased-based zone targeting with in-store results  88 zones with high number of category purchasing households and penetration were selected, with a reach of 5 MM households  Category includes food brand and its competitors  Based on a direct household level match between Comcast subscribers and Kroger shoppers. Selected local zones and networks to target based on historical purchases Comcast served the TV and digital ads in the zones and networks selected for the campaign TRA/ dunnhumby measures impact back to point-of- sale (test vs. control / unexposed) TARGETING HISTORICAL PURCHASES
  • TRA Confidential | 12 Key Findings: Targeting works  Sales lift is highest among households exposed to both TV and digital ads  Zone targeting, coupled with purchaser category index, is the key driver for sales lift  The campaign produced a 10% uplift in sales, which is on the high-end of prior studies  TV brings in new customers - 67% of the purchasing household uplift came from new customers (new to brand, new to category)  Digital secures more sales from existing customers  The sweet spot of advertising exposure is 7-10 frequency - sales lift plateaus thereafter
  • TRA Confidential | 13 Media Delivery (Analysis Population) On average, each household was exposed to 12.8 impressions (TV + Digital) over the duration of the campaign. This included 8.4 TV impressions and 16.4 digital impressions per exposed household. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 12-Nov-12 14-Nov-12 16-Nov-12 18-Nov-12 20-Nov-12 22-Nov-12 24-Nov-12 26-Nov-12 28-Nov-12 30-Nov-12 2-Dec-12 4-Dec-12 6-Dec-12 8-Dec-12 10-Dec-12 12-Dec-12 14-Dec-12 16-Dec-12 435k Unique Households (TV + Digital) „000s Thanksgiving break in campaign 379k Unique Households (TV) 146K Unique Households (Digital) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 12-Nov-12 14-Nov-12 16-Nov-12 18-Nov-12 20-Nov-12 22-Nov-12 24-Nov-12 26-Nov-12 28-Nov-12 30-Nov-12 2-Dec-12 4-Dec-12 6-Dec-12 8-Dec-12 10-Dec-12 12-Dec-12 14-Dec-12 16-Dec-12 „000s 5.6 MM Impressions (TV + Digital) Thanksgiving break in campaign 3.2 MM TV Impressions 2.4 MM Digital Impressions Impressions Unique Households
  • TRA Confidential | 14 Advertising Exposure Media Composition Exposure Group # Households # TV Impressions # Digital Impressions Not exposed to any ads 299 K Exposed to TV ads only 290 K 2,419 K Exposed to Digital ads only 57 K 920 K Exposed to both TV and Digital ads 89 K 745 K 1,474 K TV ads only, 6…Digital ads only, 1… TV and Digital Ads, 20%Analysis Population (Exposed to Ads)
  • TRA Confidential | 15 Digital Supplements TV TV + Digital , 38%Light TV, 23% Digital Only, 39 %Exposed to DIGITAL ADS  Nearly two-thirds of those reached by the digital ads had little or no exposure to the TV campaign  Those lightly exposed to the TV campaign (1-3 impressions), represents only 2% of total TV campaign impressions but 24% of the total digital campaign impressions
  • TRA Confidential | 16 Campaign Results: Measurement Methodology  Sales impact is measured during campaign and post-campaign measurement period, for exposed vs. control/unexposed HHs  Control group (matched, not exposed) is selected to “mirror” the exposed group on pre-campaign period sales, volume purchased, trips, demographics, and geography  Sales, penetration, and volume in the campaign and post-period are then compared for exposed and control/unexposed groups  The times periods are dynamically chosen for each exposed HH based on their first exposure, last exposure and a four-week post-campaign period following the final exposure  Continuous Panel: HHs used in the analysis are part of the Kroger Continuous Panel (consistent over time, high level of spend and visits) for the entire pre-campaign, campaign and post-period
  • TRA Confidential | 17 Note: Penetration calculated based on buyers / total group (including non-buyers) and is reported at the brand-level Households exposed to both TV and Digital have the highest sales lift Sales Lift – by Media Type 1.6% 2.6% 10.6% 7.7% 3.5% 12.4% 9.1% 3.8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Sales Uplift (All Exposed HHs) Penetration Sales Uplift (Buying HHs) Digital Only (54k HHs) TV Only (274k HHs) Both TV & Digital (84k HHs)
  • TRA Confidential | 18 TV brings in new customers Digital secures more sales from existing customers 38% 33% 48% 50% 31% 32% 15% 30% 31% 35% 36% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall TV Only Digital Only Both TV & Digital New to Category New to Brand Existing Brand Buyer 100%= 7.4% 7.7% 2.6% 9.1% Buyer Flow – sources of Penetration Increase
  • TRA Confidential | 19 The campaign drove an increase in trial and repeat rates among new brand buyers; leading to higher continuing sales 4.7% 5.4% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% Control Exposed Trial 9.1% 8.1% 1.0% 9.7% 8.5% 1.2% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Overall 2X > 2X Control Exposed Repeat Note: Based on 279k HHs that did not purchase Food brand in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign
  • TRA Confidential | 20 Higher TV ad frequency Drives Sales Lift Sweet spot is 7-10 frequency, sales lift plateaus above 10 exposures Note: Sales uplift was not significant for >60 exposures. For “Digital Only” households, the only significant level was 7-10 exposures, with a sales lift of 9% Sales Lift by Exposure Frequency 100% = 273k HHs15% 22% 21% 16% 11% 9% 3% 1%%HHs = 4% 5% 10% 15% 14% 15% 16% 15% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 1 2-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-25 26-40 41-60 TV Only ~26% HHs had a frequency of 11+ TV ads
  • TRA Confidential | 21 Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 77k HHs  Consistently purchase products below the average price point  Front Page of ad is very important to this segment  Heaviest users of coupons  Total price point AND price per volume are important Price Sensitive (PS), 176k HHs  Consistently purchase products around the average price point Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 106k HHs  Consistently purchase products above the average price point  Generally less restricted by a budget Splurge & Save (SS), 52k HHs  Behave differently in different parts of the store; for example, a household might “splurge” in Produce and “save” in Soft Drinks  Households look “Price Sensitive” on average Most Price Sensitive Least Price Sensitive Food brand is a special treat worth buying for “Splurge & Save” shoppers 10% 16% 11% 9% Sales Lift
  • TRA Confidential | 22 Convenience at Home (37k HHs) Watching the Waistline (40k HHs) Finest (101k HHs) Grab & Go Shoppers (26k HHs) Shoppers on a Budget (32k HHs) Family Focused (60k HHs) Traditional Homes (113k HHs) Sales lift highest Among Segments: “Grab & Go”, “Watching the Waistline”, and “Shoppers on a Budget” 19% 10% 12% 18% 4% 10% 7% SALES LIFT by Segment
  • TRA Confidential | 23 Zone sales lift: Category index is the key driver of sales increase 9% 12% 10% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Light BDI (<95) Medium BDI (95-105) Heavy BDI (>105) 124k HHs 123k HHs 164k HHs 6% 10% 11% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Light CDI (<=95.5) Medium CDI (95.5-107) Heavy CDI (>107) 101k HHs 170k HHs 140k HHs Note: CDI = average of (Category Penetration Index , Category Spend Index) Category penetration index = % HHs in the ZONE that purchased the Category / % HHs overall that purchased the Category Category spend index = Category spend per HH in the ZONE / Category spend per HH overall Overall = average penetration or spend per HH across ALL zones BDI was calculated in a similar manner to CDI above Food Brand Lift – by Zone Class Zones are divided into low/ medium/high BDI and CDI
  • TRA Confidential | 24 Key Findings: Targeting works  Sales lift is highest among households exposed to both TV and digital ads  Zone targeting, coupled with purchaser category index, is the key driver for sales lift  The campaign produced a 10% uplift in sales, which is on the high-end of prior studies  TV brings in new customers - 67% of the purchasing household uplift came from new customers (new to brand, new to category)  Digital secures more sales from existing customers  The sweet spot of advertising exposure is 7-10 frequency - sales lift plateaus thereafter
  • TRA Confidential | 25 Recommendations to Optimize Future Campaigns  Zone Selection  Select zones by setting a minimum category sales threshold. Zones with medium/high CDI have highest sales lift  TV Schedule  Reformulate TV schedule to emphasize 7-10 frequency level reach (more networks with less weight per network or more diverse networks)  Network Selection  Select networks by utilizing purchaser targets - set a minimum competitive set rating index.  Shopper Segments  Use shopper segments (“Splurge & Save”, “Grab & Go”, “Watching the Waistline”, “Shoppers on a Budget”) as an additional filter for zone and network selection  Media Type  Seek strategies to expand digital reach as the combination of television and Digital generates the highest sales lift
  • TRA Confidential | 26 Answering The Big Questions Yes! A spot cable heavy-up in high CDI areas makes sense. This Comcast 360 campaign occurred at the same time that a national flight was running. Sales lift was 10% higher with consumers targeted by Comcast 360 Can TV’s actual impact on sales be QUANTIFIED? What is the sales lift impact of TV AND DIGITAL? Can local targeted TV drive better results THAN NETWORK TV alone? Yes! This is one of the largest TV & Digital sales lift studies ever conducted, most likely the largest ever in local TV TV and digital combined, cause the highest sales lift. Each media plays a different role. TV brings in new customers. Digital gets more sales from existing customers
  • TRA Confidential | 27 TRA Confidential Copyright 2012 TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc. 27 TRA Confidential Measuring the In-Store Impact of TV for Brand A and B Wines in Summer 2012 TRA |dunnhumby
  • TRA Confidential | 28 Measurement universe for each brand made up of around 60K households with continuous shopping behavior and TV viewing data throughout measurement period 717K - households matched between TRA TV panel and Kroger shoppers 150K – limit to households in Kroger continuous panel 62K – limit to households with continuous TV viewing data availability 717K - households matched between TRA TV panel and Kroger shoppers 150K – limit to households in Kroger continuous panel 60K – limit to households with continuous TV viewing data availability Brand A Brand B Analysis Sample
  • TRA Confidential | 29 Key Findings: TV drives sales  Significant sales uplifts were observed for households exposed to each TV campaign  The results validate the decision to use purchaser targets comprised of brand and competitor brand products to target 2013 advertising  Although there are opportunities to refine this in the future to include particular segments based on price sensitivity and shopper, behavior  Brand A:  43% sales uplift for exposed households (total sales impact of $1.37MM), driven almost entirely by increase in household penetration  Significant sales uplift was also observed across the entire wine category, particularly Premium wine  Campaign appeared to drive customers into Brand A from outside of the named competitors  Campaign successfully drove trial of the brand, but repeat rate was lower than the control
  • TRA Confidential | 30 Key Findings: TV drives sales  Brand B:  38% sales uplift for exposed households (total sales impact of $395M), driven by a mix of household penetration and $ per household  The campaign drove incremental sales for competitor brands, but not total wine category  The campaign successfully drove trial and repeat of the Brand B brand
  • TRA Confidential | 31 While the brand saw the majority of the uplift there was also observable impact across the category, particularly for Premium Wine Sales Lift for HHs exposed to Brand A ad – by Wine Type 43.0% 38.0% 3.2% 5.8% 8.6%9.4% 10.7% 1.6% 5.0% 6.8% 2.2% 4.6% 6.6% 2.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% $ Sales Uplift (All Exposed HHs) Penetration $ per Household Brand A Competitors Premium Wine Bottled Wine Total Wine >90% for all 66% 72%Significance >90% for all 84% 83%
  • TRA Confidential | 32 Majority of Brand A customers are active competitor buyers, however the ad was able to bring in customers from outside of this universe 11% 8% 48% 62% 15% 8% 17% 15% 9% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exposed Control/ Unexposed New to Wine Existing Bottled Wine Buyer Existing Premium Wine Buyer Existing Competitor Buyer Existing Brand A buyer Buyer Flow – Post-period Woodbridge purchasers split by pre-period behavior Note: These results are based on a small sample of Brand A buyers and therefore should only be used directionally. This validates the decision to target 2013 TV campaign based on purchaser targets of Brand A & competitor brand buyers
  • TRA Confidential | 33 The campaign drove an increase in trial rates among new buyers, but not in repeat rates 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% Control Exposed Trial Rate 13.1% 10.8% 2.3% 10.9% 6.3% 4.6% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% Overall 2X > 2X Control Exposed Repeat Rate Note: Based on 34k HHs that did not purchase Brand A in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign
  • TRA Confidential | 34 Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 19% HHs  Consistently purchase products below the average price point  Front Page of ad is very important to this segment  Heaviest users of coupons  Total price point AND price per volume are important Price Sensitive (PS), 41% HHs  Consistently purchase products around the average price point Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 27% HHs  Consistently purchase products above the average price point  Generally less restricted by a budget Splurge & Save (SS), 13% HHs  Behave differently in different parts of the store; for example, a household might “splurge” in Produce and “save” in Soft Drinks  Households look “Price Sensitive” on average Most Price Sensitive Least Price Sensitive Brand A creative appears to have resonated with households who are “Price Sensitive” or “Splurge & Save” shoppers in terms of their attitude to price 62% 59% Sales Lift Note: Data is only shown where results are statistically significant (>90% significance) Note: Based on 34k HHs in analysis population exposed to ads
  • TRA Confidential | 35 Convenience at Home (11% HHs) Watching the Waistline (11% HHs) Finest (16% HHs) Grab & Go Shoppers (7% HHs) Shoppers on a Budget (12% HHs) Family Focused (16% HHs) Traditional Homes (28% HHs) In terms of behavior, the creative resonated with households driven by convenience, family or finest products 94% 95% 245% SALES LIFT by Segment Note: Data is only shown where results are statistically significant (>90% significance) Note: Based on 34k HHs in analysis population exposed to ads
  • TRA Confidential | 36 Brand B: Largest observable sales uplift was for Brand B, however the ad drove overall segment wine volume as well as penetration of competitor brands Sales Lift for HHs exposed to Brand B ad – by Wine Type 38.4% 25.0% 10.7% 12.7% 18.1% 15.9% 15.5% 3.4% 0.4% 6.9% 0.6% 6.6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% $ Sales Uplift (All Exposed HHs) Penetration $ per Household Brand B Boxed Wine Competitors Bottled Wine Total Wine 74% 99%Significance 85%89% 100% 58% 63%89% >80% >90% >90% >90%
  • TRA Confidential | 37 The TV campaign appeared to pull in a larger proportion of bottled wine buyers who were new to boxed wine 10% 3% 38% 55% 50% 35% 2% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exposed Control/ Unexposed New to Wine Category Existing Bottled Wine Buyers Existing Competitor Buyers Existing Boxed Wine Buyers Note: These results are based on a small sample of Brand B buyers and therefore should only be used directionally. Buyer Flow – Post-period Black Box purchasers split by pre-period behavior The vast majority of households that try the Brand B brand appear to be existing competitor or bottled wine buyers, validating the purchaser targets selected for the 2013 campaign
  • TRA Confidential | 38 The campaign was able to encourage trial of the brand as well as repeat purchase as customers moved into the Brand B wine format 0.10% 0.12% 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.12% 0.14% Control Exposed Trial Rate 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 20.0% 18.0% 2.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Overall 2X > 2X Control Exposed Repeat Rate Note: Based on 41k HHs that did not purchase Brand B in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign
  • TRA Confidential | 39 Brand B Sales uplift was observed across a wide range of exposure frequencies with no clear pattern for optimal exposure Note: Data is only shown where results are statistically significant (>90% significance) Brand B Sales Lift by Exposure Frequency 100% = 41k HHs22% 16% 11%%HHs = 140% 154% 117% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 2-3 7-10 11-15 Similarly to Brand A, the focus going forward should be on reaching the right customers effectively rather than driving frequency against a wider audience
  • TRA Confidential | 40 Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 19% HHs  Consistently purchase products below the average price point  Front Page of ad is very important to this segment  Heaviest users of coupons  Total price point AND price per volume are important Price Sensitive (PS), 41% HHs  Consistently purchase products around the average price point Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 27% HHs  Consistently purchase products above the average price point  Generally less restricted by a budget Splurge & Save (SS), 13% HHs  Behave differently in different parts of the store; for example, a household might “splurge” in Produce and “save” in Soft Drinks  Households look “Price Sensitive” on average Most Price Sensitive Least Price Sensitive The Brand B creative appealed to two polar groups in terms of price sensitivity, reflecting the message of great quality at a big discount over comparable wines when purchased in volume 160% 211% Sales Lift Note: Data is only shown where results are statistically significant (>85% significance) Note: Based on 41k HHs in analysis population exposed to ads
  • TRA Confidential | 41  Both campaigns were able to drive significant sales uplifts for their respective brands  This sets a solid benchmark from which to measure performance of the 2013 campaigns  The results add weight to the decision to base the 2013 buy on brand and competitor purchaser targets  TV is able to bring in new customers to both the brand and category, however existing brand and competitor purchasers are the strongest group from which to build targeting  This is the third study that proves TV brings in new customers from "outside a brand's immediate competitive waters"  The creative for each campaign appeared to resonate with the intended target groups  The challenge going forward is to reach these targets efficiently and effectively Key Findings: Targeting works
  • TRA Confidential | 42 TRA Confidential Copyright 2012 TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc. 42 TRA Confidential Q&A |dunnhumby | TRA
  • TRA Confidential | 43 Appendix A. Measurement Methodology B. Additional Campaign Results
  • TRA Confidential | 44 A. Introducing TRA: TRA Matches TV Tuning, CPG Purchase Data, Rx Prescriptions and Auto Registrations TRA directly matches purchases and the TV tuning of the exact same household (HH) with huge samples.  Auto: TRA matches 115 Million HH automotive registrations to HH TV tuning via 85% Cable/15% TiVo set-top-boxes (4.2MM total)  Household Demographics: Via Experian by HH (115MM)  CPG: TRA matches supermarket purchase by HH (50MM) to HH TV tuning via set-top-box data  Pharma: TRA matches IMS 70 Million HH Rx prescriptions filled to HH TV tuning  CRM: TRA matches tuning data with proprietary purchaser databases from advertisers
  • TRA Confidential | 45 C. Measurement Methodology  Time periods are dynamically chosen based on first and last exposure to the campaign as well as the number of weeks post final exposure  Pre period: 52 weeks prior to the start of the campaign  Campaign period: Weeks the campaign was executed  Post period: 4 weeks post the campaign Nov 12 Dec 16 = Exposure Final Post period=Campaign Period + Post Period Jan 13
  • TRA Confidential | 46 Food Brand TV Exposure Frequency Most impressions occur in 4-20 range # HH # TV Impressions % HH % TV Impressions Low (1-3 imps) 142 K 263 K 37% 8% Medium (4-20 imps) 204 K 1,796 K 54% 57% High (>20 imps) 34 K 1,105 K 9% 35% Low High %ofHouseholds %ofTVImpressions 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41+ HHs TV Impressions
  • TRA Confidential | 47 Food Brand Digital Exposure Frequency Most impressions occur in 5-50 range # HH # Digital Impressions % HH % Digital Impressions Low (1-4 imps) 50 K 110 K 34% 5% Medium (5-50 imps) 85 K 1,427 K 59% 60% High (>50 imps) 10 K 857 K 7% 36% Low High %ofHouseholds %ofDigitalimpressions 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 7… HHs Digital Impressions
  • TRA Confidential | 48 Brand sales of exposed HHs and their matched control / unexposed HHs match closely in the pre-period, for all exposure segments  Sales in 4 week periods, Analysis Population $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 TV Only Both Digital Only During and after campaign Pre-period
  • TRA Confidential | 49 TV + Digital Exposure Frequency – 72% of homes reached in three quadrants (Medium TV/Medium Digital) Digital Exposures TV Exposures Low Medium High Low 11 K HHs (12%) 3% TV imps 2% Dig imps 20 K HHs (22%) 5% TV imps 23% Dig imps 2 K HHs (3%) 1% TV imps 14% Dig imps Medium 17 K HHs (19%) 20% TV imps 2% Dig imps 28 K HHs (31%) 33% TV imps 31% Dig imps 3 K HHs (4%) 4% TV imps 19% Dig imps High 3 K HHs (3%) 13% TV imps 0% Dig imps 5 K HHs (5%) 20% TV imps 5% Dig imps 1 K HHs (1%) 2% TV imps 3% Dig imps
  • TRA Confidential | 50 Convenience at Home - 37k HHs: motivated by foods that can be produced at a moment‟s notice and not spoil. Their need for convenience foods can be driven by various factors, like being paid only once a month, hence having fewer large shopping trips Watching the Waistline - 40k HHs: choose their products based on their fat/calorie content, with the main motivator being weight loss or maintaining a healthy weight. They look for the best quality when making their grocery purchases, focusing on diet/organic foods, fresh fruits and vegetables Finest - 101k HHs: quality food is central to the “Finest” segment. They do not tend to buy pre- packaged foods‟ instead they will spend their money on fresh, quality foods. They shop in the Gourmet, Home Cooking, Organic and Vegetarian sections Grab & Go Shoppers - 26k HHs: motivated by the speed at which they can get in and out of the grocery store. They make more trips than the avg. HH and spend less per trip. They also tend to buy items in smaller packages. Shoppers on a Budget - 32k HHs: governed by one factor – price. They are careful not to impulse buy and use shopping lists to save money Family Focused - 60k HHs: little time to spend shopping. They tend to buy a diverse set of products, as they do not have the time to „cherry pick‟ offers across stores. They buy in Healthy Snack, Sport, Kid and Baby sections Traditional Homes - 113k HHs: the driving force is the ability to prepare good quality home cooked meals. A typical meal consists of meat and vegetables. They opt for fresh seafood and meat rather than pre-packaged. Dunnhumby Shopper Segments HH‟s in Exposed To The Campaign