Measuring Engagement - Future of Advertising Research 2008


Published on

Presentation on Measuring Engagement given by Mark Brown, Strategy Director, Weapon7, and Doug Edmonds, Head of Numbers, 2CV at the WARC Future of Advertising Research 2008 event.

1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Measuring Engagement - Future of Advertising Research 2008

    1. 1. Engagement In The Interactive Space Prepared by Doug Edmonds, 2CV and Mark Brown, Weapon 7 September 2008
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Weapon7 is an interactive agency. We create campaigns which are designed to encourage people to participate with brands. We believe that if you can tempt people to get involved then you can achieve a far greater level of engagement than more traditional interruptive approaches. </li></ul><ul><li>However, unlike mass media it is increasingly difficult to measure the effectiveness of such campaigns. This is because the media we utilise is more fragmented and the numbers involved much lower. </li></ul><ul><li>We recognised that if we were to demonstrate the effectiveness of interactive communications we needed a different cost effective research approach. This culminated in the ICE methodology developed by 2CV which Doug will talk more about shortly. </li></ul><ul><li>Our campaigns run across online, interactive TV and mobile as well as other direct channels. One of the challenges we have is to demonstrate the power of interaction over and above interruptive media. </li></ul><ul><li>Interestingly we found that interactive TV campaigns gave us a unique opportunity to demonstrate how interactivity can drive engagement. </li></ul><ul><li>This is because interactive TV campaigns tend to have a broadcast element followed by an interactive element for those who are tempted to interact. By comparing the difference in communication effect for the interruptive and interactive experiences, we can begin to understand what engagement brings to the mix. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Ribena – Brand Participation TEMPTING TV + trigger Email You Tube PARTICIPATION Film making Online Microsite Interactive TV BUILD Word of mouth Couponing PR
    4. 8. Engagement
    5. 9. Engagement
    6. 10. <ul><li>Ideas understood. </li></ul>Engagement = More enjoyment. Learn more. Like things more. The response of an engaged audience
    7. 11. Does interactivity lead to greater comprehension? +10% + ► Average effect of interactive over TV *Finding ad very easy to understand
    8. 12. Does interactivity allow people to learn about brands? +13% + ► Average effect of interactive over TV Spot *Strongly associating brand with correct attribute
    9. 13. Does interactivity lead to greater enjoyment? +9% + ► *Those who enjoy a lot/quite enjoy the ad Average effect of interactive over TV Spot
    10. 14. Does interaction change appeal? +19% + ► *Finding brand much/a little more appealing Average effect of interactive over TV Spot
    11. 15. <ul><li>Adding an interactive component to a piece of communication increases engagement </li></ul><ul><li>The effect of this engagement is witnessed across a range of measures, some of which are </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased enjoyment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased appeal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction (i.e. Engagement) makes people think about things a little differently and there is a positive impact on core communication measures </li></ul></ul>What does this mean?
    12. 16. The big question <ul><li>Should we measure engagement directly, somehow? </li></ul><ul><li>No is the short answer. </li></ul><ul><li>But we should be starting to measure the product of engagement, which is not restricted to the following. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enjoyment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appeal </li></ul></ul>