Heineken measuring YouTube roi vs tv
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Heineken measuring YouTube roi vs tv

on

  • 4,229 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,229
Views on SlideShare
4,015
Embed Views
214

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
150
Comments
0

6 Embeds 214

http://www.scoop.it 131
http://blog.prosharer.com 64
http://paper.li 14
http://a0.twimg.com 2
http://safe.tumblr.com 2
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

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

Heineken measuring YouTube roi vs tv Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Cross  Media  Analysis  Measuring  YouTube  Masthead  ROI  in  the  media  mix   Heineken  Buizenpost  
  • 2. Main  content   Summary  (slides  3-­‐4)     Set-­‐up  and  Objec;ves  (slides  5-­‐10)     •  Campaign  objec;ves   •  Study  objec;ves   •  ROI  Model   •  Set-­‐up  research   Analysis  (slides  11-­‐23)     •  Cost   •  Targe;ng   •  Impact   •  Cost/Effect   Outcomes  &  implica;ons  (slide  24-­‐26)   Back-­‐up  (slides  27-­‐28)     •  Monthly  efficiency  indices   2 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 3. Summary  Main  conclusions   TV  most  effecDve,  Masthead  most  efficient   1   Due  to  high  reach  TV  affects  most  people,  however  when  you  correct  for  investment  YouTube  Masthead  is  more   efficient  due  to  larger  impact  per  contact.     Masthead:  15%  of  the  effect  with  9%  of  the  budget.  TV:  85%  of  the  effect  with  91%  of  the  budget.   Highest  impact  occurs  when  TV  and  Masthead  are  combined   2   For  almost  all  KPIs  the  combined  impact  of  TV  and  Masthead  is  higher  than  the  impact  of  the  individual  medium.  So   there  is  a  clear  impact  synergy  between  the  two  media.   3   Masthead  works  most  efficiently  for  target  groups  Men  20-­‐34  and  20-­‐34.       Masthead  is  limited  in  reach,  therefore  TV  is  s;ll  required.    Background   ROI  Model   Industry   Beer Heineken Cost   Target   audience   Beer drinkers (m/v) 18-49 ObjecDve   The objective of this report is to show the effects of contacts with the TV campaign, Masthead campaign, and the synergistic effect of both campaigns on KPIs. TargeDng   Cost/Effect   Most relevant KPIs for Heineken are: Top of mind brand awareness and sales. Research  Type   YouTube Masthead in Cross Media Campaigns Impact   3 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 4. TV  is  more  effec;ve  in  driving  TOMA  and  sales,  while  Masthead  is  more  efficient  in  doing  so   Impact   Effec;veness   Cost/effect   KPI  score  on       KPI  score  on     Impact  x  Reach   Impact  x  Reach   -   exposed  group   unexposed  group   Budget   172   165   115   118   100   100   110   100   102   102   100   102   100   100   17   17   Top  of  Mind  Brand  Awareness   Sales   Top  of  Mind  Brand   Sales   Top  of  Mind  Brand   Sales   Awareness   Awareness   Significant  increase  (95%)                         Significance  measured  against  no  contacts.     Reduce  of  20%  TV  contacts.   Significant  decrease  (95%)   4 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 5. Set-­‐up  and  ObjecDves  5 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 6. Campaign  objec;ves  &  crea;ve  materials  Campaign  objecDves   •  Drive  top  of  mind  awareness  and  sales  for  Heineken  brand  and  products  TV   YouTube  Masthead   6 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 7. Study  objec;ves  Main  Research  quesDons   1   Online  and  off-­‐line  have  different  “languages”:  how  do  we  integrate  towards  one  currency?   2   Online  and  off-­‐line  have  different  impact  and  cost:  how  do  we  compare  them?  Research  QuesDons  TV  &  YouTube  Masthead   •  How  do  cost  per  GRP/Impressions  for  TV  and  YouTube  Masthead  compare?   •  How  do  reach  and  (effec;ve)  frequency  compare?   •  How  much  of  the  Masthead  reach  is  unique?   •  How  does  targeDng  of  Masthead  compare  to  TV?   •  What  is  the  impact  of  TV  and  Masthead  on  brand  funnel  and  store  purchases?   •  How  do  cost/effect  (ROI)  scores  for  TV  and  Masthead  compare?   •  What  is  the  synergy  between  TV  and  Masthead?   7 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 8. ROI  Model   Cost   TargeDng   Cost/Effect   Impact   8 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 9. Set-­‐up  Research   This  research  is  conducted  in  two  different  panels.  Within  one  panel  where  we  measure  Brand   statements,  the  other  panel  scans  purchases.  Media  consump;on  is  being  measured  on  both  panels.   Day   Augustus     September   October Week   31   31   32   33     34 35   36     37 38   39   40     41 42     43 Monday     2   2   9 16     23 30     6   13 20   27     4   11 18     25 Tuesday     3   3 10   17     24 31     7   14 21   28     5   12 19     26 Wednesday     4   4 11   18     25   1   8   15 22   29     6   13 20     27 Thursday     5   5 12   19     26   2   9   16 23   30     7   14 21     28 Friday     6   6 13   20     27   3 10     17 24     1   8   15 22     29 Saturday     7   7 14   21     28   4 11     18 25     2   9   16 23     30 Sunday     8   8 15   22     29   5 12     19 26     3 10     17 24     31 M/V  18-­‐49     Cross  Media  Campaign  Buizenpost  TV  Flight   Post   Out  of  Home   0  -­‐  Measure   XMOS   Brand   beer  drinkers   =  Youtube  Masthead   Measure   Correc;on   Media  Efficiency  Panel   Purchase   XMOS   N  =  2.800   Con;nuous  Registra;on  of  Purchases  and  Media   =  Awareness  Measurements  within  the  FMCG  Scan  Panel   0-­‐Measure   Measure  of  brand  metrics,  demographics  and  media  consump;on:   N  =  373   Awareness  of  Brand  and  Adver;sing,  Image,  Purchase  behavior  and  inten;on,  etc   Brand  XMOS   Post  Measure   50%  random  media  target  group   N  =  1.511   50%  YouTube  Masthead  exposed  group  for  detailed  analysis   Samples  have  been  sent  out  representa;vely  based  on  age  and  gender.  Samples  are  weighted  on  frequency  of  visi;ng  the  YouTube  website.     9 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 10. Media  Efficiency  Panel:  Single  Source  Media  Research   Media     Single  Source   Effect     Contacts   Rela;on   Metrics   Purchases     TV   (OTS  Calcula;on)     YouTube   Masthead (Tagging)     Brand  Funnel   “Single  Source”  measurement  means  that  from  each  member  of  the  panel  we  know  the  media  consump;on  (TV  and  online)     as  well  as  the  purchase  behavior  and  the  brand  percep;on.  This  allows  for  calcula;on  of  media  impact  on  both  metrics.   10 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 11. Analysis  1:  Cost   Cost   TargeDng   Cost/Effect   Impact  11 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 12. Reach  &  Average  contact  frequencies   Increase  in  reach  of  the  Masthead  campaign  diminishes  as  you  increase  the  number  of  Mastheads.   Budget   Reach  of  the  TV  campaign  is  5.7  ;mes  higher   allocaDon   than  the  reach  of  the  Masthead  campaign.   YouTube   9%   The  target  group  is  8.14  ;mes  reached  by  the   TV  campaign  and  2.7  ;mes  by  the  Masthead.   TV  91%   Increase  in  reach  of  the  Masthead  campaign   diminishes  as  you  increase  the  number  of   Mastheads.     Net  cost/GRP   Reach  1+   3% 97%   37%   Masthead  3   6% Masthead  2   173   Masthead  1   100   25%   17%   8% 8%   7%   9%   TV   Youtube   Masthead  1   Masthead  2   Masthead  3   Reach   Totaal   Average  frequency   8.14   2.7   GRP’s   790   46   Source:  Kobalt,  Google  &  GfK  –  Target  market  M  18-­‐49years  old  (n=749).     16%  of  the  target  group  is  reached  by  YouTube  Masthead.  YouTube  Masthead  reach  is  corrected  for  both  O.o.H.  internet  usage  and  cookie  dele;on.   12 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 13. Masthead  reach  largely  overlaps  with  TV  campaign    (1+  reach)   1+  reach   80%     Unique   TV  Reach   0%  Unique     Masthead     Reach   17%  Overlap   Reach   97%  Total  1+  Reach   Based  on  control  group  N=855   Source:  Gp  Media  Efficiency  Panel,  cross  media  analysis  for  Heineken  campaign   13 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 14. Analysis  2:  TargeDng   Cost   TargeDng   Targe;ng   Cost/Effect   Impact  14 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 15. The  Masthead  reaches  more  young  men  than  TV  does   Category  Buyers     Index  Young  Men  (18-­‐35)     (MEP  Panel,  N=15.000)   122   100   102   100   TV   Online   TV   Online   Index  Low  EducaDon   Index  AB1   117   100   100   91   TV   Online   TV   Online   Based  on  control  group  N=749   Due  to  large  differences  between  non  exposed  /  TV  exposed  and  YouTube  exposed  and  large  differences  in  image  and  awareness  amongst  these  groups,  cell  weighing   is  being  applied  in  following  media-­‐analyses.   15 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 16. Analysis  3:  Impact   Cost   TargeDng   Targe;ng   Cost/Effect   Impact  16 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 17. All  KPIs  are  posi;vely  influenced    by  the  combined  campaign   120   108   113   107   103   100   100   100   100   100   Spontaneous  Ad  Awareness   Top  Of  Mind  Brand  Awareness   Image   Preference   Sales   Significant  increase  (95%)                       Pre  Measure   Post  measure  Flight  3   Significant  decrease  (95%)   *)    Base  post  measure  =  control  +  contact  group  (weighed  in  to  have  same  distribu;on  of  YouTube  Masthead  reach  as  control  group)     Base:  all,  except  image,  most  osen,  regular,  preference   1)  Image  =    average  of  “Heineken  is  groots”,  ”bier  is  goed”,  “posi;eve  energie”,  “Inven;ef’,  “preug  mee  voelen”,  “deel  ik  mijn  interesses”)   17 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 18. Combina;on  of  both  TV  and  Masthead  has  the  strongest  impact  on  all  KPIs   Impact   Explana;on;  shown  is  the  effect  of  each  contact  group.   Campaign  Contacts   TV  &  YT   Sample  Size   32%   No  Contact   N  =  135   30%   23%   25%   24% Only  TV   N  =  499   In  yellow:   Mainly  MH   N  =  275   Measurement  GfK  Panel   Services   None   TV   YouTube   Both   N  =  537   Significant  increase  (95%)                       Scores  are  indexed   Significant  decrease  (95%)    N  =  6000   133   136   121   118   115   131   122   118   119   117   108   110   100   100   102   102   100   100   100   102   Spontaneous  Ad  Awareness   Top  of  Mind  Brand  Awareness   Image   Preference   Sales   Source  GfK  Daphne   Significance  measured  against  no  contacts  |  Groups  are  weighed  on  age*gender  |  TOMA  is  derived  from  GfK-­‐Daphne  research   Due  to  high  TV  reach  lowest  TV  contacts  have  been  added  to  the  no  TV  contact  group   18 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 19. Op;mal  contact  frequency  for  TV  is  between  5  and  6  Op;mal  contact  frequency  for  Masthead  is  between  2  and  3   Top  of  Mind  Awareness  uplii   Sales  uplii   →  Total  Contacts   Avg.   Avg.   →  Total  Contacts   2.7   8.14   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18+   Source:  Panel  GfK  Daphne  –  Target  market  (M/V  18-­‐49  years  old).     *  Based  on  total  sample,  aware  of  Heineken;  YouTube  and  TV  group  are  weighed  on  same  distribu;on  age*gender  groups   19 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 20. Analysis  4:  Cost/Effect   Cost   TargeDng   Cost/Effect   Impact  20 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 21. Calcula;on  of  effec;veness  and  efficiency   Vision & KPI  score  on       KPI  score  on     Impact   Mission =   exposed  group   -­‐   unexposed  group   Effec;veness   =   Impact  x  Reach   Impact  x  Reach   Cost/effect   =   ____________   Budget   Source:  Gp  Media  Efficiency  Panel,  cross  media  analysis  for  Aviko  Frideaal  campaign   21 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 22. TV  is  more  effec;ve  in  driving  TOMA  and  sales,  while  Masthead  is  more  efficient  in  doing  so   Impact   Effec;veness   Cost/effect   KPI  score  on       KPI  score  on     Impact  x  Reach   Impact  x  Reach   -   exposed  group   unexposed  group   Budget   172   165   115   118   100   100   110   100   102   102   100   102   100   100   17   17   Top  of  Mind  Brand  Awareness   Sales   Top  of  Mind  Brand   Sales   Top  of  Mind  Brand   Sales   Awareness   Awareness   Significant  increase  (95%)                         Significance  measured  against  no  contacts.     Reduce  of  20%  TV  contacts.   Significant  decrease  (95%)   22 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 23. Masthead  more  efficient  than  TV  on  all  audiences,    par;cularly  for  Men  20-­‐34  and  20-­‐34   For mass reach TV is still required   The  rela;ve  efficiency  can  vary  due  to  the  fact  that  TV  varies  prices  for  target  groups,  which  is  not  the   case  for  a  Masthead.   Masthead  is  not  targeted  which  means  that  Masthead  works  beyer  for  target  groups  that  visit   YouTube  more  osen.   2.5   Masthead  efficiency  in  driving  sales   (Indexed  against  TV  efficiency)   2.1   2   1.8   1.6   1.5   1.5   1.4   1.4   1   0.5   0   20-­‐34   20-­‐49   Shoppers  20-­‐49   Shoppers  +  Kid   Men  20-­‐34   Women  20-­‐49   Since  GRP’s  and  therefore  price/GRP,  targe;ng  and  Impact  are  known,  the  efficiency  within  different  target  groups  can  be  calculated.   23 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 24. Outcomes  &  ImplicaDons  24 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 25. Outcomes  &  implica;ons   TV  most  effecDve,  Masthead  most  efficient   1   Due  to  high  reach  TV  affects  most  people,  however  when  you  correct  for  investment  YouTube   Masthead  is  more  efficient  due  to  larger  impact  per  contact.  Masthead:  15%  of  the  effect  with  9%  of   the  budget.  TV:  85%  of  the  effect  with  91%  of  the  budget.   Highest  impact  with  combined  use  of  TV  and  Masthead   2   For  almost  all  KPIs  the  combined  impact  of  TV  and  Masthead  is  higher  than  the  impact  of  the   individual  medium.  So  there  is  a  clear  impact  synergy  between  the  two  media.   3   Masthead  works  most  efficiently  for  target  groups  Men  20-­‐34  and  20-­‐34.       Masthead  is  limited  in  reach,  therefore  TV  is  s;ll  required.     25 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 26. Masthead  higher  efficiency  than  TV    due  to  more  impact  per  contact   Cost   Brand  Index:  0.58   Sales  Index:  0.58   TargeDng   Cost/Effect   Brand  Index:  1.02   Brand  Index:  1.44   Sales  Index:  1.02   Sales  Index:  1.72   Impact   Brand  Index:  2.4   Sales  Index:  2.9   Impression  Efficiency  =  Cost/GRP  of  YouTube  Mastheads  /  Cost/GRP  of  TV.   Targe;ng  Efficiency  is  the  %  of  category  buyers  reached  of  YouTube  Mastheads  /  TV   Efficiency  R.O.I.  index  =  R.O.I.  score  of  YouTube  /  R.O.I.  score  of  TV.  (Efficiency  R.O.I.  Score  Index  is  the  average  score  of  ToMA,  Image  and  Preference)   Impression  Impact  =  Efficiency  R.O.I.  /  (Impression  Efficiency  *  Targe;ng  Efficiency)   26 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 27.   Back-­‐up  slides  27 Google Confidential and Proprietary
  • 28. Cost/effect  of  Masthead  indexed  against  TV   Calculated  for  all  audiences  and  months  due  to  varia;on  in  TV  pricing.   Index  of  monthly  prices   Jan   Feb   Mrt   Apr   Mei   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Okt   Nov   Dec   STER   100   61   74   82   104   129   114   75   71   128   126   127   109   RTL   100   58   72   89   113   133   123   79   79   127   133   133   109   SBS   100   56   73   87   111   129   117   74   73   125   127   127   101   Avg.   100   58   73   86   109   130   118   76   74   127   129   129   106   EsDmaDon  Impact  Efficiency  Index  Masthead  (indexed  against  TV)   Net  cost/GRP   Jan   Feb   Mrt   Apr   Mei   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Okt   Nov   Dec     58   73   86   109   130   118   76   74   127   129   129   106   13+   625   0.8   1.0   1.2   1.6   1.8   1.7   1.1   1.1   1.8   1.8   1.8   1.5   20-­‐34   795   1.1   1.3   1.6   2.0   2.4   2.1   1.4   1.3   2.3   2.3   2.3   1.9   20-­‐49   691   0.9   1.1   1.3   1.7   2.0   1.8   1.2   1.2   2.0   2.0   2.0   1.7   BDS  20-­‐49   633   0.8   1.0   1.2   1.6   1.9   1.7   1.1   1.1   1.8   1.8   1.9   1.5   BDS  +  Kind   625   0.8   1.0   1.2   1.6   1.8   1.7   1.1   1.1   1.8   1.8   1.8   1.5   M  20-­‐34   925   1.2   1.5   1.8   2.3   2.7   2.5   1.6   1.6   2.7   2.7   2.7   2.2   V  20-­‐49   624   0.8   1.0   1.2   1.5   1.8   1.7   1.1   1.1   1.8   1.8   1.8   1.5   Heineken  Case  SpecificaDons   Target  Group   20-­‐49   Cost/GRP  pre-­‐roll   1304   Targe;ng  efficiency  index  Masthead   1.02   Impression  impact  index  Masthead   2.9   *  Montly  Cost  for  TV  is  derived  from  Carat  Media  Facts,  the  average  discount  of  70%  has  been  taken  into  considera;on.   **  Within  the  cell  the  average  efficiency  score  is  shown  for  the  market  based  on  the  Aviko  research;  Cost  TV  within  the  specific  month  /  Cost  Pre-­‐roll  *  Targe;ng  Efficiency  *  Impression   Impact   28 Google Confidential and Proprietary