• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go?
 

Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go?

on

  • 846 views

At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 annual re:think convention, a key issues forum presentation was held entitled, Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When ...

At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 annual re:think convention, a key issues forum presentation was held entitled, Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go? Research done on the effectiveness of digital marketing along with key findings was presented by Anne Hunter-VP, Advertising Effectiveness at comScore.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
846
Views on SlideShare
846
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

    Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go? Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go? Presentation Transcript

    • Identifying Maximum ImpactMedia Placement Strategies IIWhen Money Moves toDigital, Where Should it Go? Anne Hunter VP, Advertising Effectiveness comScore
    • BackgroundContinuing on a successful ARF paper• Last year comScore and ValueClick presented a paper to the ARF on the impact of various media placement strategies in digital media• The goal of the research was to help marketers understand how to allocate the money they were moving to digital and potentially provide a basis for a Market Mix Model for digital• The response to the paper was overwhelming – Over 1,500 people downloaded it from the comScore site – Presented at the MIXX conference and IAB site
    • What We LearnedUsing behavioral search and site visitation liftsusing AdEffx™ Action Lift™• Different strategies drove very different results• The best performing strategies changed from the short-term to long-term• Retargeting drove both organic search and site visitations better than all other online display buying strategies• When multiple strategies were used in concert, results were often higher than when a single strategy was used alone
    • Site Visitation Lifts by Media PlacementStrategy Over 4 Weeks Highest % Lift in Highest % Lift inVisitation within 1 week Visitation within 4 weeks1. Retargeting* 1. Retargeting*2. Audience 2. Audience3. Efficiency* 3. Contextual4. RON* 4. Premium5. Contextual 5. RON*6. Premium 6. Efficiency**Indicates strategy that is based on optimizing to site visitation
    • Insights Lead to QuestionsClients asked us to continue the research• Do placement strategies work the same way when measured by attitudinal data?• What are the effects outside of a single ad network?• How are different strategies affected by frequency?• Could frequency be the cause of the multiplier effect?• What is the cost per lift by strategy?
    • MethodsMeta data by strategy• To understand the relative costs of achieving the attitudinal lifts and coverage we evaluated prices paid for each strategy across a wide variety of industries. In order reflect current pricing and buying methods, 6,362 individual placements which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used in the cost evaluation.• All costs were normalized to a CPM basis• Reach was determined using census tags placed on all ads in combination with comScore’s 2 million worldwide person panel to create a unified person based reach calculation. 4,454 of the above placements were used to calculate the reach and frequency estimates using AdEffx™ Campaign Essentials™.
    • MethodsAttitudinal analysis, massive scale• 256 campaigns which included 4,454 individual placements which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used in the attitudinal analysis with AdEffx™ Brand Survey Lift™• All campaigns had a brand focused objective and at least 15 distinct campaigns per strategy with most strategies averaging 62 studies per strategy. There were an average of 36,500 survey respondents per strategy.• Altitudinal lift was calculated from in-flight survey responses based on exposure to a census tagged ad campaign. On scaled questions top two boxes out of seven were considered positive. comScore’s Smart Control™ methodology was used to calculate lifts of exposure based on the difference between the base lifts and incremental lifts generated by exposure.
    • Placement Strategies Evaluated• Audience Targeted – Ads placed run of site or run of network which were additionally targeted to a specific demographic or behavior usually by cookie targeting• Context – Ads which were placed in content relevant to the brand• High Impact* – Ads which took over a high percentage of the viewers screen usually involving sight, sound and motion such as home page takeover units• Retargeting – Ads where were shown to people who had previously visited the marketer’s site• ROS and RON – Ads placed either run of site or run of network which did not have any additional targeting. They are often auto optimized via an ad server to the high converting audiences.• Sponsorship* – Ads which surrounded premium content, usually in a permanent position and implied support of the content*New to wave 2
    • Measures EvaluatedAwareness Measures Impact Measures• Ad Recall • Brand Favorability Did they remember seeing Did they think highly of the the measured brand ads measured brand• Aided Awareness • Intent to Recommend Were they aware of the Would they recommend the measured brand when measured brand to a friend prompted • Intent to Purchase• Top of Mind Recall Did they intend to buy the When asked for the first measured brand brand they thought of, did they mention the measured brand
    • Strategies Vary in Cost and ReachEach has a different level of scarcity and value inthe market – site placements have highest costs $14 250 $12 200 $10 Reach Index 150Average CPM $8 $6 100 Reach Index $4 Average CPM 50 $2 $0 0
    • Frequency Varies by StrategyRemarketing and sponsorship have very highvariance between mean and median frequencies 9 8 7 6Frequency 5 4 3 Average frequency 2 1 Median frequency - Variance
    • Example: Sponsorship FrequencyDistribution VarianceMost people see ads 1-2x while most impressionsare served to 20% of the viewers Average70% frequency60% is50% 6.67, media n is 2.9640% Impressions30% Viewers20%10% 0% f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+
    • The More You Show Ads, the MorePeople are Aware of ThemAverage point lift across all strategies andindustries for awareness measures87654 Average Point Lift321 - f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+Results significant at 90% confidence
    • But Not All Ad Strategies Generate theSame AwarenessHigh Impact ads and ROS and RON generated thehighest lifts in awareness, from lowest bases 40% 2 1.8% of Viewers Already Aware 35% 1.6 30% 1.4 25% 1.2 Average Point Lift 20% 1 Point Lift 15% 0.8 0.6 10% Base Line 0.4 5% Awareness 0.2 0% 0
    • The More You Show Ads, the More TheyInfluence PeopleAverage point lift across all strategies andindustries for impact measures0.9 But generating0.8 lift in impact0.7 is much0.6 harder than0.5 generating lift0.4 in awareness0.30.2 Average Point Lift0.1 0 f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+
    • Not All Ad Strategies Generate the Same Impact Remarketing and High Impact ads greatly increase perceptions of a brand 50% 2.5% Already Impacted by Brand 45% 40% 2 35% Average 30% 1.5 Point Lift Point Lift 25% 20% 1 Base Line 15% Impact 10% 0.5 5% 0% 0 Audience Context High Remarketing ROS and Sponsorship Targeted Impact RON
    • Sponsorship and High Impact Ads Work Well But at a Cost Audience targeting generates lift most inexpensively Awareness Impact Lift Cost per Cost per Average Average Cost per Lift Points Points per Awareness Impact Lift CPM Frequency Viewer per Viewer Viewer Lift Point PointAudience $7.35 4.47 $0.03 0.35 0.63 $0.01 $0.02Context $10.75 4.71 $0.05 0.15 0.68 $0.01 $0.03High Impact $11.99 5.03 $0.06 0.83 1.75 $0.05 $0.11Remarketing $7.75 8.03 $0.06 2.18 0.81 $0.13 $0.05RON and ROS $8.30 3.59 $0.03 0.24 1.64 $0.01 $0.05Sponsorship $12.82 6.67 $0.09 0.46 1.03 $0.04 $0.09
    • If Frequencies Were Better Managed to the Median, Costs Could Go Down Reduce costs or reinvest for greater reach or more impact Awareness Impact Lift Cost per Cost per Average Median Cost per Lift Points Points per Awareness Impact Lift CPM Frequency Viewer per Viewer Viewer Lift Point PointAudience $7.35 1.91 $0.01 0.35 0.63 $0.00 $0.01Context $10.75 2.04 $0.02 0.15 0.68 $0.00 $0.01High Impact $11.99 2.58 $0.03 0.83 1.75 $0.03 $0.05Remarketing $7.75 2.79 $0.02 2.18 0.81 $0.05 $0.02RON and ROS $8.30 1.74 $0.01 0.24 1.64 $0.00 $0.02Sponsorship $12.82 2.96 $0.04 0.46 1.03 $0.02 $0.04
    • ConclusionsIdeas reinforced and new learnings• Remarketing continues to be a highly effective strategy for awareness and impact measures which is consistent with it’s earlier success in lifting Wave 1 behavioral measures• RON and ROS advertising works well at generating awareness but viewers are not persuaded by the messaging, similar to the finding in wave 1 where effectiveness of RON wore off quickly• High Impact ads and Sponsorships generate awareness but at a high cost• Audience targeting is quite cost effective• Better managing frequency can drive greater results for the same dollar
    • Next StepsBuild media planning model for digital strategies• Correlate Behavioral effects from Wave 1 with attitudinal effects from Wave 2• Link strategies to sales data with Wave 3• Evaluate effects by industry• Put input data into model to determine upstream behavioral and attitudinal markers that predict sales based on spend by tactic