• Save
Behavioural Targeting: loont het de moeite? Jeremy Mason
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Behavioural Targeting: loont het de moeite? Jeremy Mason

on

  • 3,046 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,046
Views on SlideShare
2,931
Embed Views
115

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
0
Comments
0

5 Embeds 115

http://www.fusion2007.nl 52
http://www.automotivedigitalmarketing.com 51
http://www.slideshare.net 10
http://fusion2007.onstuimig.nl 1
http://www.health.medicbd.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

Behavioural Targeting: loont het de moeite? Jeremy Mason Behavioural Targeting: loont het de moeite? Jeremy Mason Presentation Transcript

  • Behavioural Targeting Overview Jeremy Mason Director of Client Services, Europe Revenue Science
  • Behavioural Targeting - Delivering Precise and Relevant Messaging When and Where Consumers Are Bespoke Behavioural Segment Searches for hotels Booked a flight Checked airfares Visited travel section Read a travel story Registration data Downloaded Podcast Signed Up for Mobile Alert Downloaded Widget Travel Prospect Read/Posted Travel Blog
  • Why is Behavioural Targeting Getting so BIG? Source: eMarketer , February 2007 Key eMarketer numbers – U.S. online advertising spending U.S. online advertising spending in 2011, up from $16.4 billion in 2006 $36.5 billion Growth in U.S. online advertising spending in 2011, down from 30.8% in 2006 13.0% U.S. paid search advertising spending in 2011, up from $7 billion in 2006 $16.2 billion Online video advertising in 2011, up from $775 million in 2006 $4.1 billion Total U.S. advertising spending in 2011, up from $285 billion in 2006 $323 billion 11.3% U.S. online advertising as a percentage of all U.S. advertising spending in 2011, up from 5.8% in 2006 Coming From Offline View slide
  • Where are Consumers Spending Their Time Online? Data is from the June 2006 Television Bureau of Advertising (TBA) report “2006 Media Comparisons Study”. Source: comScore Media Metrix, based on average minutes per visitor by category (8/05).  Browsing/Other includes general web-surfing activity not listed in other categories, including anything from news sites (cnn.com) to retail (Amazon.com) to job sites 3 Search Voice Browsing/ other IM Discussion/ chat E-mail Percent of time spent on activity It’s not where you might think Your online audience spends most of their time browsing View slide
  • Inventory Constraints Are Limiting Contextual Opportunities Premium Contextual ROS Premium Sites ROS Portal; Social Media; Network PREMIUM INVENTORY CPM
  • The Behavioural Opportunity for Marketers Average CPM Tier 1 € 10+ Tier 2 € 1-10 Tier 3 < € 1 60 50 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20 40 60 80 * Obviously, these are very broad/average CPM ranges… Web impressions Percent Contextual targeting ~ € 15.00 - 20.00+ Behavioural Targeting with Revenue Science ~ € 10.00 - 12.00 ROS Targeting ~ € 5.00 - 10.00 Traditional ad network or Exchanges or Portal ROS € 0.50-1.00 Marketers find a premium audience at a lower CPM
  • Behavioural Targeting Becoming the Standard Most Effective Online Advertising Targeting Methodologies 52.4% 32.9% 30.5% 14.6% 4.9% (Including Daypart) Source: American Advertising Federation (AAF), November 2006 Behavioural Demographic Contextual Geographic Other
  • How Do Consumers Respond? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q: Please indicate to what extent each statement describes your attitudes: I pay more attention to online ads directly related to my online activity (Contextual); I pay more attention to online ads that fit my specific interests (Behavioural) Source: AOL/Revenue Science Sponsored Jupiter Research April 2007 Behavioural Ads More Likely To Receive Attention Represents Top 2 Box Scores: Strongly Agree, Agree 49% 63% Contextual Ads Behavioural Ads
  • How Do Consumers Respond? Represents Top 2 Box Scores: Strongly Agree, Agree Q: Which statement best describes how frequently you have shopped online (i.e., conducted research online and/or purchased online) in the past 12 months? Q: Please indicate to what extent each statement describes your attitudes: I pay more attention to online ads directly related to my online activity (Contextual); I pay more attention to online ads that fit my specific interests (behavioural) Source: AOL/Revenue Science Sponsored Jupiter Research April 2007 Behavioural Ads More Likely To Receive Attention 20% 50% 72% 36% 65% 78% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Non-Shoppers Infrequent Shoppers Frequent Shoppers
  • Marketers’ Opportunities to Reach Engaged Shoppers are Limited
    • Car shoppers spend most of their time online performing tasks other than researching and shopping for a car
    • This is how agencies justify the value of behavioural targeting to their clients (from an agency panel we hosted in June)
  • Privacy considerations
    • Always ensure that any behavioural targeting solution can prove that it follows these minimum standards :
      • An opt-out policy so users can choose not to be targeted by simply clicking a link
      • Auditing by an independent 3rd-party to ensure Privacy Policy commitments are met (TRUSTe is an excellent example)
      • Membership in a well-regarded industry association like the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) http://www.networkadvertising.org/
      • A highly-visible privacy policy on the web site
      • A policy of never collecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
      • Uses IP Targeting from an industry leader like Digital Envoy (which enabled IP targeting in ad servers like DART, Atlas, Accipiter, etc)
  • How Behavioural Targeting Should Work All segment memberships are created in real time and loaded into real time JavaScript servers which pass the segment IDs into an array which goes into the ad server 3 On the user’s next page view after they become a member of a segment, their cookie is stamped with all current segment IDs, and the IDs are placed into the ad tag or cookie 4 All ad calls now consider a user’s segment IDs. The ad server will always make the final decision on which ad runs (based on priority, CPM, etc) but now it has a segment option 5 1 Publishers have a set of standard and bespoke segments…  … meanwhile, users navigate through a site displaying behaviours
    • What they do
    • Microsites
    • Sections
    • Pages
    • Words in articles
    • Searching for specific terms
    • How they do it
    • Frequency
    • Recency
    • Who they are
    • Geo-target, SIC (Industry), Domain (Company Name), Company Size
    2 Users are assigned to one or more segments based on:
  • Behavioural Overall
    • Strongest behavioural categories in the Europe:
    • Seeing strong growth amongst niche categories like Environmental Issues, Recruitment, Property, Luxury, and Education
      • Behavioural works well because agencies have difficulty finding contextual placements for these narrow areas
      • Category-based segments are still most popular
        • Users visit a particular section, then retargeted in other sections later
      • Search by Content is almost as prevalent
        • Users that read articles with specific keywords and phrases
      • IP Targeting is growing in popularity
        • Allows for 100% targeted audiences
      • Not many ‘Search Terms’ segments
    Automotive Travel Finance Technology
    • Objectives:
      • Increase brand awareness and perception within their target audience - defined as business decision makers working in information technology and telecommunications
    • Solution:
      • Run both the ROS and the behaviourally targeted campaigns simultaneously on Financial Times (FT.com) using Dynamic Logic to test branding results side by side.
      • Conduct the study post campaign and on a single site, so the only variances in the findings are direct effects of ROS and behavioural targeting.
    • Results:
      • Targeting users based on behaviour on FT.com, NTT DoCoMo saw greater lifts in brand metrics tested across all key areas.
    Case Study – NTT DoCoMo & Financial Times
    • Overall average across the attributes was 61% lift over ROS and as high as 83% lift in one attribute. Because branding was the key objective of the campaign, this data was particularly important to NTT DoCoMo.
    Case Study – NTT DoCoMo & Financial Times % Lift BT ROS +55% 45.8% 29.5% innovative mobile phone operator +51% 32.7% 21.6% reliable company +83% 49.3% 26.9% pioneer in field of mobile telecommunications +59% 46.0% 29.0% a leader in technology +67% 45.1% 27.0% company with potential for growth +45% 32.5% 22.4% company am familiar with Brand Attributes: (Agreement Scores)
  • Case Study – BP Target Neutral & Guardian
    • BP Oil used behavioural targeting on the Guardian.co.uk to help educate consumers about how to reduce CO2 emissions.
      • Educate people about how BP Oil is working to reduce CO2 emissions
      • Drive awareness of the BP targetneutral campaign
      • Track brand favourability and intent to sign-up for the target neutral scheme
    • Behavioural targeting advertising was more effective than ROS at reaching citizens who are “very concerned’ about the impact of vehicle CO2 transmissions on the environment
    • Conversions attributed to the behaviourally targeted ads were significantly higher than the non-targeted portion of the campaign
      • Even though the actual click rate was lower for behavioural, the clicks were highly qualified, and converted much better
  • Thank you Jeremy Mason [email_address] www.revenuescience.com/uk