• Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco

on

  • 1,376 views

A presentation entitled MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco, was given at the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) AM 6.0 conference. Insights on Brand building were ...

A presentation entitled MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco, was given at the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) AM 6.0 conference. Insights on Brand building were presented. Presenters included Patrick McLean-Executive Director at Verizon Interactive, Helen Katz-SVP/Research Director at Starcom MediaVest Group, & Charlie Treadwell-Marketing Strategy Manager Corporate Affairs Marketing at Cisco.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,376
Views on SlideShare
1,375
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

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
  • Despite headlines peppered with strong language such as “HP takes swipes at Cisco on Interop stage” and “HP gunning for Cisco in computer network arena”, most coverage from traditional media sources was neutral or positive toward HP. Most traditional media stories mentioned HP’s FlexNetwork architecture and Donatelli’s digs to Cisco on innovation, complexity and costs. Most conveyed the message: “HP wants to transform networking.” Reaction to those stories via comments or via Twitter was unabashedly negative toward HP, as was the reaction from Interop attendees, according to some anecdotal evidence (such as ESG’s Jon Olsik).
  • Several comments from readers and event attendees disapproved of the negative tactics used by Donatelli and HP, calling the attack ‘classless.’Some commenters pointed out that HP chose not to focus on its own value proposition in favor of ‘taking the low road.’ The lack of HP customers at the event supporting the new products was also noted.Almost all Twitter coverage of the keynote was negative toward HP (86%) and neutral toward Cisco (95%).Very few bloggers from Cisco’s influential social media sources covered the story.
  • Donatelli’s assertions that HP’s FlexNetwork architecture was more modern than ‘incumbent technology that is outdated and stifles innovation and collaboration’ was frequently picked up in traditional news sources. Some sources quoted Yankee Group’s Zeus Karravella, who warned that HP’s numbers need to be viewed carefully. “They’re comparing themselves to Cisco products that are a few years old now so there’s no doubt that it’s higher performing.” Karravella added that new HP switches are for campus networks, not data centers.The VAR Guy, on the other hand was more negative toward Cisco and upbeat toward HP. The head-to-head comparison approach was praised, as was the HP cloud positioning as ‘the backbone that keeps cloud afloat’. The blog even quoted HP about Cisco’s reorganization: “You can reorganize but that doesn’t make you more competitive.”One negative Reuters story written by Jim Finkle (May 10) got picked up by several sources. The article referenced HP’s Interop keynote as part of a larger discussion about aggressive competition, lagging products, the Gartner report about the single-vendor solution and the recent reorganization
  • Recommendation: Gloves are off… but, Take the high road in large public settings. There is no question the gloves are off when it comes to HP. Our sales team should keep this in mind when in a competitive situation, however, in public forums like Interop, we should focus on solution selling that emphasizes value propositions and key differentiators without making negative statements about competitors’ products. Let Donatelli and HP continue to appear the bully while Cisco remains above the fray.Recommendation: Focus on newer solutions and leverage customers to help communicate about them. When discussions come up about this Interop session, make sure we emphasis that HP chose to reference older Cisco products – not making a fair comparison (Yankee Group / Zeus Karravella). Ensure that the media and networking followers understand that Cisco’s newer solutions are competitive and stress simplicity and cost-competitiveness. Utilizing customers in the narrative adds credibility to the story.Recommendation: Consider clear communication plans around the reorganization and how it will help Cisco to be focused and competitive. Help key influencers to understand how the organizational changes will positively impact the business in both the short and long term.

MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco Presentation Transcript

  • MAXIMIZING MOMENTUMInsights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco June 13, 2011 © 2011 Kantar Media 1
  • Featured Presenters Patrick McLean Helen Katz Charlie Treadwell Executive Director SVP/Research Director Marketing Strategy Manager Verizon Interactive Starcom MediaVest Group Corporate Affairs Marketing Cisco 2
  • Building a Digital BrandPatrick McLeanExecutive DirectorVerizon Interactive June 13, 2011 3 View slide
  • Who is Verizon? 4 View slide
  • What people sometimes think is Verizon? 1 800 GET FIOS 5
  • … but consumers are living digitally… • Need to find a new way to talk to our customers • Ecommerce is growing > 20% per year • 50% of online adults now participate in social media • Consumers want content aggregated for them, not concerned with source • Consumers expect seamless integration across platforms and devices • Mobile rapidly becoming a main channel for video and social content • Digital ad spending growing at > 25% globally … what we are doing about it? 6
  • We must transform to a Digital Brand Strategic Verizon Digital Brand Imperatives: Cross-Channel Integration Change our Culture & Incentives Customer Generated Content and Social Media Drive Digital Targeting and Personalization Conversations Evolve Online Platforms My Verizon E-Commerce/ Learn & Small Business Sales Center Market With a Digital Focus – Pricing, CTA, Spend 7
  • …and digital must become a part of Verizon‟s DNA 8
  • Shifting marketing & sales to online requiresa new strategy “When someone acknowledges us as individuals and personalizes our experience based on our unique characteristics, we feel understood and valued. Our feelings of good will increase. Our confidence grows. Our tolerance broadens. Personalization casts a powerful spell!” 9
  • Online Shopping Personas provide another layerof insightThe Collaborator The Get It Done The Wheeler/ The Methodical The Opinion Decision Maker Dealer Shopper SeekerIt‟s difficult enough to Too much detail I love the feeling of The more I know, the I‟d hate to make themeet everyone‟s slows me down. I just gaming the system less likely I am to be wrong choice so Ineeds in the house – want to check this off and getting a great ripped off. check with peoplewhy does the process my to-do list as deal. who might know morehave to be so quickly as possible. than I do.complex? 10
  • From “One Size Fits All” to Personalized Users Users User Segment / Persona Identified Returning First time First Time Wheeler Non “Switcher” visitors Visitor and Dealer Qualified from NY Visitor Homepage Homepage Homepage Homepage Homepage Learn Learn Learn Learn Learn Homepage Learn Shop Order Shop Shop Shop Shop Shop Order Order Order Order Order My Verizon My Verizon My Verizon My Verizon My Verizon My Verizon 11
  • Maximizing the Target Audience: SMG‟s Learningon Addressable AdvertisingHelen KatzSenior Vice President/Research DirectorStarcom MediaVest Group June 13, 2011 12
  • Today‟s challenges with TV advertising • Need to find a new way to talk to our customers – Consumers increasingly avoid ads – Advertisers „waste‟ money in sending ad messages to everyone • Growing concern over quality and monetization of content – Three possible outcomes 1. Consumers pay more in subscription fees 2. Content quality diminishes – audiences leave 3. Advertisers pay significantly more, for less • Addressability can solve all three outcomes 13
  • Addressable Advertising provides a solution• Delivering television ads to specific households based on characteristics of those households ‒ Combines targeting power of direct mail + internet ‒ Provides consumer engagement + relevance ‒ Offers growth engine for television industry 14
  • The landscape is changingAnd we must change too Broadcast Unicast Context + Programming Audiences Consumer based Age/Sex Demos household characteristics Broad messaging Specific messaging Acceptance of waste Waste is managed 15
  • Addressable advertising has four key benefits Locate the Improve Provide More Improve True Target Relevancy Accountability Efficiency 16
  • Addressable goes beyond simple demographics• Geography• Socio-economic data• Media usage• Lifestyle habits• Retail and business data• Purchase behaviors 17
  • SMG has worked with multiple partners inaddressable TV 2006-08 2008-09 2009 2011 Huntsville, AL Baltimore, MD Brooklyn, NY US 18
  • Two ways to determine Addressable Advertisingsuccess• Efficiency: – How much money can advertisers save by delivering ads to those homes in which they are interested?• Effectiveness: – Are homes exposed to a targeted, addressable ad less likely to tune away during that ad than homes exposed to a non-addressable ad? 19
  • Addressable advertising works!• In most recent trial saw these results: Efficiency Effectiveness +65% +32% 20
  • In most recent test in Baltimore, targeted at least2/3 of HHs • Anywhere from 3% to 38% of homes in a target segment • Approximately 60,000 Unique Subscriber HHs Advertiser Advertiser Advertiser Advertiser Advertiser Baltimore A B C D E Target Segment 1 26% 26% 25% 3% 20% Target Segment 2 18% 18% 25% 19% 8% Target Segment 3 38% 29% 26% 38% 34% Total HHs 82% 73% 77% 60% 63% Targeted % Not Targeted 18% 27% 23% 40% 37% 21
  • An example of addressable multi-brandtarget segmentation Priority 1 Target Ad Priority 2 Target Ad Priority 3 Target Ad Priority 4 Default Ad Health Care Hispanic Care Givers Women 25-54 Advocates Hispanic HH HH with Women and Adults Age 50+ Balance of kids, Interest in Healthy unselected HH’s Living … plus Control Group NOTE: Each of the 3 Target Segments use different demographic selection criteria. HH‟s that meet the targeting criteria for multiple Target Segments are de-duplicated based on Target Ad Priority sequence. The Default Ad spot used separate Ad copy for the entire Trial period. 22
  • Most advertisers saw significant efficiency savings Advertiser/Brand % Savings Advertiser A/Brand A 64% Advertiser A/Brand B 67% Advertiser A/Brand C 67% Advertiser B/Brand A 62% Advertiser D/Brand A saved Advertiser B/Brand B 39% 88% in reaching just this Advertiser B/Brand C 78% target segment and not Advertiser C/Brand A 59% paying for any other group. Advertiser C/Brand B 62% Advertiser C/Brand C 63% Advertiser D/Brand A 88% Advertiser D/Brand B 70% Advertiser D/Brand C 45% Advertiser E/Brand A 36% Advertiser E/Brand B 77% Advertiser E/Brand C 97% AVERAGE 65% 23
  • Effectiveness measured by pre/posttest v. control method Pre-AA Post-AA (Baseline) (Trial Months) Addressable TA1 TA2 Homes Control TA3 TA4 Homes Difference d1 d2 d1-d2• The control group consists of 10% of the homes selected for the trial and is isolated from receiving addressable ads for the duration of the test.• Differences in tuneaway (d1 – d2) are examined using t-tests to determine the statistical significance. 24
  • While not all advertisers saw effectivenessincrease, many did % of Change Advertiser/Brand (Overall % Diff. vs. Chg in Control) A/Brand A -12% A/Brand B 6% A/Brand C 114% B/Brand A 149% B/Brand B 109% B/Brand C 66% C/Brand A -44% C/Brand B -13% C/Brand C -21% D/Brand A 4% D/Brand B 71% D/Brand C -62% E/Brand A 42% E/Brand B 98% E/Brand C -5% Average 32% 25
  • For one advertiser, two seemingly similar addressabletargets watched different networks True Target (Client Database) LookalikeTargetNetwork Rating (%) Index Network Rating IndexFox News .75 155 HGTV .729 204CNN .38 124 Fox News 1.055 151ABC Network 1.09 119 CNN .776 148NBC Network 2.24 117 Noggin .232 137Discovery .28 115 ABC 31 1.618 128TLC .22 112 Westerns West .302 128HGTV .40 112 Hallmark .470 125Comedy .23 110 Cartoon .556 123CNN Headline .22 105 Nickelodeon .840 122Nickelodeon .50 104 PBS 1.257 119And neither watched the same as buying target 26
  • Combined ratings and tuneaway for true targets to find „sweet spot‟ networks Rating by Tuneaway Target Index vs. Control HIGH RATINGS/HIGH 200 HIGH RATINGS/LOW TUNEAWAY TUNEAWAY ESPN, LIFETIM CNN, DISCOVERY, E, TNT HGTV, USA DISCOVERY LIFETIME HGTV USA TNT ESPN CNN200 0 FOX NEWS LOW RATINGS/HIGH LOW RATINGS/LOW TUNEAWAY 0 TUNEAWAY 27
  • Up Next: DirecTV• Launch: Early 2012• Full deployment will deliver addressable ads to 8-10MM homes• Insertions in “local” inventory on multiple cable networks• Advertiser only buys desired HHs; DR ad delivered to remainder 28
  • Discussion Snapshot: HP Interop KeynoteCharlie TreadwellMarketing Strategy Manager, Corporate Affairs MarketingCisco June 13, 2011 29
  • Objectives and Approach• How was HP‟s keynote perceived by key stakeholders• Draw actionable insight from the discussion in traditional and social media, May 10-18, 2011URL: bit.ly/mgHC3C 30
  • By the numbers 256 Number of stories/posts that discussed HP/Cisco and Interop, conference, Las Vegas 40%/40% HP‟s percentage of positive /negative Interop discussion 15%/25% Cisco‟s percentage of positive /negative Interop discussion164.7K HP‟s negative Twitter reach about Interop 10.7K Cisco‟s negative Twitter reach about Interop 31
  • Reactions to HP‟s Keynote 32
  • Responses to HP‟s Keynote “…I guess when you lack anything of“Hewlett and Packard were known substance, youd better try andfor innovation. Now HP is known distract from that with a little bravadofor trash talk.” and noise.”“I didn‟t see Dave‟s keynote but I did “From the „awkward public momentshear a lot of post-presentation series‟: HP takes swipe at Cisco oncommentary. Much of the networking Interop stage.”crowd was aghast.”“HP… should concentrate on “Donatelli epitomizes everything that‟smaking good products … not wrong with HP these days! No classrelishing in bluster and bullying.” and at the bottom end of IT pyramid.” 33
  • Balance of the Conversation Sentiment HP Cisco 40 63 Positive Positive 100 100 Neutral Neutral Negative Negative 146 47 34
  • Conclusions and Recommendations• Gloves are off… but, take the high road in large public settings.• Focus on newer solutions and leverage customers to help communicate about them.• Consider clear communication plans around the reorganization and how it will help Cisco to be focused and competitive. 35
  • MAXIMIZING MOMENTUMInsights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco June 13, 2011 36