• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
How Kellogg's Brands Work Their Digital Strategies
 

How Kellogg's Brands Work Their Digital Strategies

on

  • 5,597 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,597
Views on SlideShare
4,228
Embed Views
1,369

Actions

Likes
6
Downloads
66
Comments
1

5 Embeds 1,369

http://www.imediaconnection.com 1361
http://www.novel-ebiz.com 4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2
http://content.imediaconnection.com 1
http://novel-ebiz.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

How Kellogg's Brands Work Their Digital Strategies How Kellogg's Brands Work Their Digital Strategies Presentation Transcript

  • Case Study How Kellogg’s Brands Work Their Digital Strategies Aaron Fetters Jeff Smith Associate Director CMO & SVP Global Digital Client ServicesStrategy & Analytics Vizu Kellogg’s
  • The Online Advertising Outlook for 2012 Industry Study• A survey of more than 450 digital marketing and media professionals conducted in late 2011 by Digiday Media & Vizu• Participants included Brand Marketers, Media Agencies, and Media Sellers• Questions covered both the online brand advertising outlook for 2012 in addition to best practices for online brand advertising
  • The Online Advertising Outlook for 2012Online considered a powerful brand-building medium• Direct Response Advertising Growing: – 56% of brands respondents said they will increase spending in 2012 – 15% said they will increase spending by more than 20%• Brand Advertising Growing Even Faster: – 64% of brand respondents said they will increase spending in 2012 – 22% said they will increase spending by more than 20%
  • The Online Advertising Outlook for 2012Brand Advertising surpassing Direct Response for 1st time Brands: What type of digital advertising do you plan to use in 2012? Direct Response 41% Branding 59%
  • The Online Advertising Outlook for 2012Some channels growing faster then othersBrands: How will brand ad spending in the following channels compare to prior year? Mobile Advertising 69% 26% Social Media Advertising 63% 34% Video Advertising 57% 34% Rich Media Advertising 29% 57% Standard Display Advertising 20% 60% Connected TV/IPTV 17% 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Increase Stay about the same Decrease Dont Use
  • The Online Advertising Outlook for 2012Brand’s Perspective: What would make it better?Brands: Which of the following would lead you to increase spending on online brand advertising? (Check all that apply) Improved clarity around the actual return 68% on your brand advertising investment Ability to verify my brand advertising created the desired result (e.g. increased 56% Cleaning up the awareness of my product) “Metrics Morass” in the Ability to use the same metrics to evaluate online medium brand advertising effectiveness online as 53% are used offline Purchasing efficiency (e.g. the ability to reach audience at scale through fewer 50% outlets) Ability to verify my online brand advertising was actually delivered to my target 38% audience
  • The Online Brand Advertising Outlook for 2012Challenge: The online “metrics morass”Commenting on the amount of data bandied around in the online ecosystem, 34% of Brands stated: “I’m drowning in data; I would prefer to focus on a few meaningful metrics to evaluate the performance of my campaign”
  • The Online Brand Advertising Outlook for 2012 Challenge: The online “metrics morass”Asked to what extent they would like to leverage Asked what they typicallyoffline metrics in the online medium, brands say: report, Media Sellers say:The exact same metrics, and nothing else 6% 10% The exact same metrics, and a few additional metrics specific to the online 55% 14% medium Some of the metrics from the offline medium, some metrics specific to the 24% 30% online mediumJust metrics specific to the online medium 15% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
  • The Online Brand Advertising Outlook for 2012Challenge: The online “metrics morass”Asked specifically for the most appropriate metrics for brand advertising,marketers responded: Brand Lift generated as a result of the 80% advertising Sales generated as a result of the 57% advertising Interaction rates with the advertising 31% Clickthrough rates on the advertising 29% Shares or re-posts of the advertising 29% Time spent / Dwell time (e.g. on a micro- 20% site) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
  • The Online Brand Advertising Outlook for 2012Additional challengesOther key things brand advertisers are looking for: • Proof on the front end: Only 6% of brand surveyed said they “Strongly believe” media sellers claims they can reach the custom / niche audiences the brands are looking for. • Results on the back end: Nearly all respondents identified “in-market optimization of campaigns against relevant Brand Metrics” and “Proof of performance” as critical to maximizing ROI
  • The Online Brand Advertising Outlook for 2012 Conclusion• In 2012, brand advertising is set to finally surpass performance based advertising in the online medium• That said, the outlook could be even better, if we work to clean up the “metrics morass” in the online medium• Use metrics that matter to maximize the return on your online brand advertising investment Download the full report http://brandlift.vizu.com/knowledge-resources/research/2012-industry-outlook/ Benchmark Your Brand Advertising IQ based on this Survey http://brandlift.vizu.com/knowledge-resources/brand-ad-iq/
  • Real Time Optimization Based on Metrics That Matter Aaron Fetters – The Kellogg Company
  • It’s about getting the MOSTout of the $ you have– We aren’t all the New York Yankees (or Chelsea Football Club)Don’t buy players, buy winsIdentify stats indicative ofGAMES WON, vs. stats thatare easy to count– On-base % vs. HR, RBI, etc.– Wins Above Replacement
  • Digital Measurement – From a Brand’s Perspective• Kellogg Company Background• Where We’ve Been – Challenges in Digital Measurement• Where We Are – Establishing Goals and KPIs – What Have We Learned• Where We Are Going – Enhanced Planning – Informed Buying – Near-time Optimization• What it Means for Media and Measurement Partners
  • Manufacturer and Marketer of some of America’s favorite food brands
  • • Attracting more of our consumers’ media time• Attracting more of our Brands’ media $$$• But filled with endless options – our Brands are looking for guidance
  • Though broad, historical efforts to track and measure digital havebeen disjointed 1. Define a common set of Goals for Digital Media In the past 6 2. Establish the KPIs (metrics) that REALLY matter to track against our months we have Goals 3. Develop and communicate a focused on the Digital Measurement Framework, along with Principles for how we opportunities to: will track Digital and capture KPI results
  • Establishing a model for Media Effectiveness – applied initially toOnline Media PRE-MARKET QUALITY • Branded Recognition Does my creative have the right to succeed? • Brand Buy Next • % Impressions to Target AUDIENCE DELIVERY • Frequency of Exposure Did we efficiently reach our • % Impressions in View Target? • CPM • Brand Awareness IN-MARKET • Purchase Interest EFFECTIVENESS • Message Association Are we moving the needle? • Direct Response
  • Campaign targeted to a Hispanic audience“oh my gosh you are One publisher delivering only 1.2% the best ever - of our Impressions to thetotally re-worked my demographic Target audience (that’s a 98.8% waste folks)plan just now. thank you so However, another publisher had a much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Targeting Efficiency of 5.1 – meaning their Targeting ability allowed us to reach our Target 5X better than if we bought Run Of Network
  • Let’s take a look at Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewersa few of our biggest Total Campaign % on Target % on Targetcampaigns from2011(Data provided is at anindividualpublisher, individualcampaign level)
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% These publishers effectively delivered to 4.6 61.55% 38.67%our target and efficientlybalanced the exposures
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26%Conversely, this executionis generating a great deal 4.6 61.55% 38.67% of reach, but 75% is to 2.5 25.55% 27.52% someone other than our Target audience
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% And in this case Impressions are virtually 4.6 61.55% 38.67%being thrown away as the 2.5 25.55% 27.52% wrong audience is reached over and over 15.7 21.04% 24.68% again
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% Publisher is doing a nicejob of finding our Target. 4.6 61.55% 38.67% 2.5 25.55% 27.52%Did we ask for Frequency capping with them? 15.7 21.04% 24.68% 14.5 69.57% 60.55%
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% Incredible targetingresults from a high reach 4.6 61.55% 38.67% portal 2.5 25.55% 27.52% Opportunity to shift $ 15.7 21.04% 24.68%here to reach more of our 14.5 69.57% 60.55% target, at an increased frequency 2.9 80.80% 80.48%
  • Near-Time Decisions and Optimizations Cost per Advertising Effective Effectiveness Audience Cross-Media Insights Impression measurement and Online optimization? Audience Delivery Insights 2011 2012 2013We have begun to build the foundation of our Digital Measurement needs. We now wantto move toward our vision of enabling near real-time decision making and optimizationbased on knowledge and insights of what is working.
  • Efficiency/Effectiveness Publisher Overview 80.0% 60.0% % of Target 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% $0.00 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 CPM•Improved DSP / Portal / Publisher evaluation based on historical performance•Dig in deeper with Top Performers! – improve or eliminate buys far outside our KPIs•Next step is to layer in Advertising Effectiveness 2/9/2012
  • Conversations previously NOT had with “Partner A”: “in compliance with our 2011 RFP, we would like to work with you to create makegoods for the following campaigns: •Special K Evening Snacking Q2/Q3 •Frosted Mini-Wheats •Special K Fall Challenge •Crunchy Nut” Conversations needed with Partner X: •What targeting approaches were used against Fiber Plus and Special K but not applied to Nutri-Grain?Publisher Performance Across Three Similar Campaigns Average of Sum of Impressions - Impressions -Yahoo! X Partner Target % on Target CPM TotalFiber Plus OLM Q3 F25-54 79.00% $3.44 20,284Nutri-Grain OLM Q3 F25-54 w-kids 24.80% $3.83 14,208Special K OLM F25-54 51.10% $4.92 26,340
  • Combining Insights with costs to answer: HOW CAN I GET THEBIGGEST BANG FOR MY BUCK? At a campaign level we need to drive optimization decisions in near real-time Media Avg. Impressions Impressions Lift in CPM Partner Frequency in Target in View Awareness 1 3.5 24.5% 83% 5.74 $2.44 2 3.0 16.9% 91% 0.55 $9.08 $ 3 8.4 23.5% 71% 0 $8.62 •Opportunity to optimize - $ follow performance •Multiple publishers, each with high reach potential •Wide variance in performance observed real-time
  • Media Partners Measurement ProvidersPerformance and results are the key to Need continued research and analysis of increased investments – help us get which metrics matter! more! Rigorous and diligent pursuit of Research Market Mix Models will reflect the Quality quality of what goes into them.
  • Don’t just win
  • Real Time Optimization Based on Metrics That Matter Budweiser Tackles a New Approach to Content" Aaron Fetters – The Kellogg Company
  • It’s about getting the MOSTout of the $ you have– We aren’t all the New York Yankees (or Chelsea Football Club)Don’t buy players, buy winsIdentify stats indicative ofGAMES WON, vs. stats thatare easy to count– On-base % vs. HR, RBI, etc.– Wins Above Replacement
  • Digital Measurement – From a Brand’s Perspective• Kellogg Company Background• Where We’ve Been – Challenges in Digital Measurement• Where We Are – Establishing Goals and KPIs – What Have We Learned• Where We Are Going – Enhanced Planning – Informed Buying – Near-time Optimization• What it Means for Media and Measurement Partners
  • Manufacturer and Marketer of some of America’s favorite food brands
  • • Attracting more of our consumers’ media time• Attracting more of our Brands’ media $$$• But filled with endless options – our Brands are looking for guidance
  • Though broad, historical efforts to track and measure digital havebeen disjointed 1. Define a common set of Goals for Digital Media In the past 6 2. Establish the KPIs (metrics) that REALLY matter to track against our months we have Goals 3. Develop and communicate a focused on the Digital Measurement Framework, along with Principles opportunities to: for how we will track Digital and capture KPI results
  • Establishing a model for Media Effectiveness – applied initially toOnline Media PRE-MARKET QUALITY • Branded Recognition Does my creative have the right to succeed? • Brand Buy Next • % Impressions to Target AUDIENCE DELIVERY • Frequency of Exposure Did we efficiently reach our • % Impressions in View Target? • CPM • Brand Awareness IN-MARKET • Purchase Interest EFFECTIVENESS • Message Association Are we moving the needle? • Direct Response
  • Campaign targeted to a Hispanic audience“oh my gosh you are One publisher delivering only 1.2% the best ever - of our Impressions to thetotally re-worked my demographic Target audience (that’s a 98.8% waste folks)plan just now. thank you so However, another publisher had a much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Targeting Efficiency of 5.1 – meaning their Targeting ability allowed us to reach our Target 5X better than if we bought Run Of Network
  • Let’s take a look at Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewersa few of our biggest Total Campaign % on Target % on Targetcampaigns from2011(Data provided is at anindividualpublisher, individualcampaign level)
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% These publishers effectively delivered to 4.6 61.55% 38.67%our target and efficientlybalanced the exposures
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26%Conversely, this executionis generating a great deal 4.6 61.55% 38.67% of reach, but 75% is to 2.5 25.55% 27.52% someone other than our Target audience
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% And in this case Impressions are virtually 4.6 61.55% 38.67%being thrown away as the 2.5 25.55% 27.52% wrong audience is reached over and over 15.7 21.04% 24.68% again
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% Publisher is doing a nicejob of finding our Target. 4.6 61.55% 38.67% 2.5 25.55% 27.52%Did we ask for Frequency capping with them? 15.7 21.04% 24.68% 14.5 69.57% 60.55%
  • Average Frequency Impressions Unique Viewers Total Campaign % on Target % on Target 6 71.79% 61.26% Incredible targetingresults from a high reach 4.6 61.55% 38.67% portal 2.5 25.55% 27.52% Opportunity to shift $ 15.7 21.04% 24.68%here to reach more of our 14.5 69.57% 60.55% target, at an increased frequency 2.9 80.80% 80.48%
  • Near-Time Decisions and Optimizations Cost per Advertising Effective Effectiveness Audience Cross-Media Insights Impression measurement and Online optimization? Audience Delivery Insights 2011 2012 2013We have begun to build the foundation of our Digital Measurement needs. We now wantto move toward our vision of enabling near real-time decision making and optimizationbased on knowledge and insights of what is working.
  • Efficiency/Effectiveness Publisher Overview 80.0% 60.0% % of Target 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% $0.00 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 CPM•Improved DSP / Portal / Publisher evaluation based on historical performance•Dig in deeper with Top Performers! – improve or eliminate buys far outside our KPIs•Next step is to layer in Advertising Effectiveness 2/9/2012
  • Conversations previously NOT had with “Partner A”: “in compliance with our 2011 RFP, we would like to work with you to create makegoods for the following campaigns: •Special K Evening Snacking Q2/Q3 •Frosted Mini-Wheats •Special K Fall Challenge •Crunchy Nut” Conversations needed with Partner X: •What targeting approaches were used against Fiber Plus and Special K but not applied to Nutri-Grain?Publisher Performance Across Three Similar Campaigns Average of Sum of Impressions - Impressions -Yahoo! X Partner Target % on Target CPM TotalFiber Plus OLM Q3 F25-54 79.00% $3.44 20,284Nutri-Grain OLM Q3 F25-54 w-kids 24.80% $3.83 14,208Special K OLM F25-54 51.10% $4.92 26,340
  • Combining Insights with costs to answer: HOW CAN I GET THEBIGGEST BANG FOR MY BUCK? At a campaign level we need to drive optimization decisions in near real-time Media Avg. Impressions Impressions Lift in CPM Partner Frequency in Target in View Awareness 1 3.5 24.5% 83% 5.74 $2.44 2 3.0 16.9% 91% 0.55 $9.08 $ 3 8.4 23.5% 71% 0 $8.62 •Opportunity to optimize - $ follow performance •Multiple publishers, each with high reach potential •Wide variance in performance observed real-time
  • Media Partners Measurement ProvidersPerformance and results are the key to Need continued research and analysis of increased investments – help us get which metrics matter! more! Rigorous and diligent pursuit of Research Market Mix Models will reflect the Quality quality of what goes into them.
  • Don’t just win