Digital Pilot Campaign Performance Analysis

1
CON BIZ
DIGITAL PILOT
Post campaign AAR
17 June 2016
EDB provides this presentation (including oral statements) gratuitously for
information only and not for any other purpose. While care has been
expended in the preparation of this presentation, EDB hereby disclaims
all liability including, but not limited to, inaccuracies, incompleteness or
lack of suitability for purpose of any information in the presentation.

2
2
TODAY’S AGENDA
Recap of Campaign objectives
Campaign concept and Approach
Review of Campaign KPIs
Topline Campaign Performance
Channel Insights Deep Dive
Content insights Deep Dive
Channel top 10 followers
Summary (Channel Comparison)

33
RECAP OF CAMAPIGN OBJECTIVES_
Campaign objectives
Digital Channel ViabilityContent Testing
What content speaks to
our audience?
Are our TA on LinkedIn
and Twitter?
Campaign outcomes
Awareness Building Audience Acquisition
Digital audience
acquisition on social media
Building mindshare among
target list of Con biz coys

44
CAMPAIGN CONCEPT AND APPROACH_
Campaign design
Hyper-targeting content to TA
Laser-focus content to TA down
to geography, designation and
company on social media
AmOps + Cluster Con Biz coy target list (HPC + FN = 91 coys)
Tier 1s: CEO, COO, CMO, CFO, CRO, CTO, CIO, President Tier 2s: Directors, VP, GM, Head
HPC Companies FN Companies
Brand
Management
R&D
Conbiz Companies TA engaged with horizontal content?
TA engaged with sub-sector specific
content?
TA engaged in functional content
specific to brand management and
R&D?
Content is tested on 3 levels

55
Content testing to TA over 4 phases
Phase
Target
Audience
Content levels tested FRS article served
1
HPC
General Con biz Using Design thinking to win the hearts of consumers
Sub-sector specific (HPC) The men do get it
HPC B&M
Sub-sector specific (HPC) The men do get it
Functional specific (B&M) Timing for the tipping point
FN*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Asia's growing appetite for breakfast snacks
FN R&D*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Asia's growing appetite for breakfast snacks
Functional specific (R&D) Asia's bugeoning geriatric nutrition market
*Content served for FN and FN R&D TA for LinkedIn and Twitter platforms were different, as the FN R&D list was not scalable on Twitter.

66
Phase
Target
Audience
2
HPC
General Con biz Can digital services unlock the potential of Asia?
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Beauty and personal care goes high-tech
HPC B&M
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Beauty and personal care goes high-tech
Functional specific (B&M)
Muslim beauty and personal care: A market poised for astronomical
growth
FN*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Asia's hunger for mobile food apps
FN R&D*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Asia's hunger for mobile food apps
Functional specific (R&D) Is this safe to eat?

77
Phase
Target
Audience
3
HPC
General Con biz The subscription model: Keep consumers coming back for more
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Halal household care: Small but mighty
HPC B&M
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Halal household care: Small but mighty
Functional specific (B&M) The new faces of beauty
FN*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Keeping an eye on food fraud in Asia
FN R&D*
Sub-sector specific (FN) Keeping an eye on food fraud in Asia
Functional specific (R&D) Edible beauty and wellness a big hit in Asia

88
Phase
Target
Audience
4
HPC
General Con biz
Towards the Next Billion Internet Users: How Singapore is building a
business environment for the internet age
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Growing naturally and organically
HPC B&M
General Con biz
Sub-sector specific (HPC) Growing naturally and organically
Functional specific (B&M)
A market ripe for the taking anti-ageing cosmetics for the over 50s in
Asia
FN*
General Con biz
Sub-sector specific (FN)
Feeding the Next Billion: How the Internet is Addressing Asia's Nutrition
Challenge
FN R&D*
General Con biz
Sub-sector specific (FN)
Feeding the Next Billion: How the Internet is Addressing Asia's Nutrition
Challenge
Functional specific (R&D) Eating their way to better looks

99
REVIEW OF CAMPAIGN KPIs_
Awareness Building Audience
Acquisition
Reach Response Relationship
Measured during campaign
period:
1. SBN: # Subscribes
2. Twitter/LinkedIn: # Follows
Capturing of Con Biz TA in our
database to further nurture w/
content.
Measured through 2 tiers.
General Reach metrics:
1. SBN: Total Unique page views
on each article
2. Twitter/LinkedIn: Total
impressions made on Con Biz
short-form content
Engagement metrics*:
1. SBN: Avg time spent on article
2. Twitter/ LinkedIn: Engagement
% (e.g. likes, retweets,
mentions, shares, comments,
click through to article on
SBN)
*Engagement metrics because we
need monitor if the TA has really
consumed the content, so general
impressions is not a sufficient
indicator

1010
CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE (FRS)_
Topline campaign performance (FRS)
Channel Con biz per phase
(avg)
BM (Avg,
Always on-
Con biz)
BM (Avg,
Media trial*)
KPIs Overall
campaign
objectives
Analysis and evaluation
FRS Page views 533 1053 1229 Reach Awareness
building
Con biz campaign had relatively
lower page views vs Always-on (Con
biz articles) and Media Trial, due to:
1. More budgets (almost 7x more
social spend)
2. Better content quality/depth due
to media partnerships w/ Quartz
etc. vs content house freelance
writers who were not domain
experts.
3. FRS eDM highlights also
featured 5-7 top stories that was
promoted to subscribers (not
applied for con biz campaign)
4. Media drivers from media
partnership e.g. Quartz also
drove traffic to always-on and
media trial articles.
Unique
Users
418 904 873
Time/session 1.10 0.33 NA Response Audience
Acquisition
ConBiz campaign brought in higher
quality readers to FRS vs. Always-on
(ConBiz articles only), with +233%
Time/Session and +99%
Pages/Session.
Pgs/session 2.04 1.14 NA
Subscriptions 0.5 1 17 Relationship
*Past Media trial (31 July 2015 to 7 Aug 2015): Conducted on both twitter and linkedIn for the exact same duration of 30 days with similar ad mechanics (single-
image dark post), however budgets were higher

1111
CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE (TWITTER)_
Topline campaign performance (Twitter)
(avg)
BM (Avg,
Always on-
Con biz)
BM (Avg,
Media trial*)
KPIs Overall
campaign
objectives
Twitter Impressions 529,133 565,141.50 1,961,099 Reach Awareness
building
Con biz campaign underperformed
relative to Always on and media trial due
to:
1. A narrower media buy budget
2. Absence of media drivers from other
media partnership owners’ social
media handles (e.g. Quartz twitter
handle)
3. More hyper-targeted ad campaign
mechanics vs broad –base more
topline campaign mechanics
Impressions for Con biz campaign is also
significantly more selective and targeted.
E/R 0.92% 10.72% 1.13% Response Audience
Acquisition
Con biz campaign underperformed for
Acquisition metrics compared to
benchmarks because:
1. Always-on had a broader TA vs
hyper-targeted finite list for Con biz
Campaign
2. Ad-formats for Always-on was multi-
image + page posts vs Con biz’s
single image + dark posts
3. Content angles for media trial was
focused on function i.e. operations
and HR, suggesting that Con biz’s
campaign approach (i.e audience type
– HPC, HPC B&M) might be less
effective in garnering twitter
engagement
Follows 7 27 456 Relationship

1212
CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE (LINKEDIN)_
Topline campaign performance (Twitter)
(avg)
BM (Avg,
Always on-
Con biz)
BM (Avg,
Media trial*)
KPIs Overall
campaign
objectives
LinkedIn Impressions 134,353 58,491 657,687 Reach Awareness
building
• Again this is subject to media
buy budgets and presence of
other media drivers from
existing media partnerships.
• However, the fact that Con biz
campaign (with a more hyper-
targeted and finite TA)
performed better than Always-
on (broad base), suggests that
Con biz TA is substantial on
LinkedIn
CTR 0.57% 0.42% 0.47% Response Audience
Acquisition
Con biz campaign performed
significantly better than both
benchmarks suggesting:
1. Content angle based on
audience type (for Con biz
campaign) instead of function
(Media trial campaign) may be
more effective in garnering
Click-throughs for LinkedIn
(opp of Twitter)
Follows 61 13 174 Relationship
*Past Media trial (31 July 2015 to 7 Aug 2015): Conducted on both twitter and linkedIn for the exact same duration of 30 days with similar ad mechanics (single-
image dark post), however budgets were higher

1313
CHANNEL INSIGHTS DEEP DIVE_
Twitter channel insights (E/R and A/R) across 4 phases – audience type
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Acquisitionrate(%)
EngagementRate(%)
FN+ FN
R&D (E/R)
HPC B&M
(A/R)
HPC B&M
(E/R)
HPC (E/R)
HPC (A/R)
Media Trial E/R: 1.13%
Media Trial A/R: 0.02%
Always on (Con Biz) A/R: 0.00045%
FN+ FN
R&D (A/R)

1414
Twitter channel insights (E/R) across 4 phases – audience type
Topline Twitter channel analysis
Engagement rates
1. FN + FN R&D audience were the most engaged audience consistently over 4 phases and outperformed
Media trial E/R of 1.13%, suggesting Twitter may be the right platform to reach out to this TA
2. HPC B&M audience were the second most engaged audience, outperforming Media trial E/R
benchmarks except for final phase when media budgets were significantly reduced which caused the drop
in E/R
3. HPC audience was the least engaged consistently underperforming in comparison to Media Trial
benchmark.
All Con biz audience E/R underperformed compared to Always on (Con biz) E/R Benchmark of 10.72%
because of the different ad format (multi-image + page post) and broader TA vs Con biz campaign ad format
(dark posts) and more limited and hyper-targeted TA list
*Phase 4 data overall faced a significant dip due to reduced media spend for the final phase. Also HPC budgets were completely reallocated to
HPC B&M and FN+ FN R&D audiences as it was the slowest “burning” in terms of social spend consumption
**FN R&D audience on its own was insufficient to scale on Twitter – suggesting Twitter may not be the right channel to reach deep dive functional
target audiences.

1515
Twitter channel insights (A/R) across 4 phases – audience type
Topline Twitter channel analysis
Acquisition rates
1. FN and FN R&D audience had the highest acquisition rates. HPC B&M audience followed closely
behind in terms of acquisition.
2. HPC audience had the lowest acquisition rates over 4 phases underperforming consistently compared
to Always on (Con biz) A/R Benchmark.
All Con Biz TAs’ A/R underperformed in comparison to Media trial A/R of 0.02% (similar campaign setup,
much bigger budgets and different content angles tested) suggesting that perhaps “functional” (i.e.
operations, human resource) content angles will work better than content angles based on “audience type”
(i.e. HPC, FN, HPC B&M etc) in digital acquisition of TA.
However, FN and FN R&D and HPC B&M audiences A/R still performed better than Always on (Con Biz) A/R
benchmark of 0.00045% over phase 1-2 (with different campaign setup but similar budgets), suggesting that a
more hyper-targeted campaign setup was more effective in acquiring our TA than broad base targeting in
Always on (Con biz).
**FN R&D audience on its own was insufficient to scale on Twitter – suggesting Twitter may not be the right channel to reach deep dive functional
target audiences.

1616
LinkedIn channel insights (CTR and A/R) across 4 phases – audience type
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Acquisitionrate(%)
Clickthroughrate(%)
Media Trial CTR: 0.47%
Always on (Con Biz) CTR: 0.42%
FN (CTR)
FN (A/R)
HPC B&M (CTR)
HPC B&M (A/R)
FN R&D (CTR)
FN R&D (A/R)
HPC (A/R)
HPC (CTR)

1717
LinkedIn channel insights (CTR) across 4 phases – audience type
Topline LinkedIn channel analysis
Engagement rates (CTR)
1. HPC B&M audience on the overall was the most engaged audience on LinkedIn, with phase 1 and 2
performing consistently or close to Media trial CTR benchmark of 0.47% and Always on (Con biz) CTR
benchmark of 0.42%. suggesting LinkedIn may be the right platform to reach out to this TA
2. FN audience followed closely behind in engagement rates, followed by FN R&D and HPC audiences with
an almost similar E/R average over the 4 phases.
Overall all TA’s average CTR over 4 phases outperformed Always on (Con biz) benchmark of 0.42%, while
only HPC B&M TA CTR outperformed Media Trial CTR benchmark of 0.47%. This suggests that a hyper-
targeted approach for LinkedIn (con biz campaign) is more effective in garnering engagement as compared
to a broad-base approach (Always On) from the Con biz TA.
*Phase 4 data overall faced a significant dip due to reduced media spend for the final phase.

1818
LinkedIn channel insights (A/R) across 4 phases – audience type
Topline LinkedIn channel analysis
Acquisition rates
1. FN TA had the highest acquisition rates over LinkedIn
2. HPC TA came in 2nd in terms of acquisition rates, followed by HPC B&M and finally FN R&D TA
All TA of Con biz campaign significantly outperformed Always on (Con biz) A/R Benchmark of 0.053% and
Media Trial A/R Benchmark of 0.0057%, suggesting that LinkedIn might be a better channel to acquire
Con biz TA than Twitter.

1919
Twitter channel insights (with TA size) – Average of 4 phases
0.00000
0.00050
0.00100
0.00150
0.00200
0.00250
0.00300
0.00350
0.00400
0.00450
0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100 1.200
Acquisitionrate(%)
Engagement Rate (%)
Twitter channel insights (E/R, A/R and TA size – avg)
0.736
0.740
0.906
HPC
HPC B&M
FN + FN R&D
Always on (Con
Biz) E/R: 10.72%
• Acquisition for HPC B&M audience was most effective, while FN + FN R&D audience were the most engaged
• Despite HPC audience being the most sizeable, acquisition and engagement rates paled in comparison to the other two TA list.
• All TA A/R outperformed Always on (Con biz) A/R, suggesting a hyper-targeted approach might be more effective for acquisition.
• All TA E/R underperformed compared to Always on (Con biz) E/R because of the different ad format (multi-image + page post) and
broader TA vs Con biz campaign ad format (dark posts) and more hyper-targeted TA list.
• TA E/R and A/R also underperformed in comparison to media trial, suggesting that content angles focused on function (i.e. operations
and HR) might be more effective than content angles based on audience type (i.e. HPC, HPC B&M)

2020
0.050
0.070
0.090
0.110
0.130
0.150
0.170
0.190
0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500 0.550
Acquisitionrate(%)
Click through rate (%)
LinkedIn channel insights (CTR, A/R and TA size – avg)
0.416
0.519
0.430
0.417
LinkedIn channel insights (with TA size) – Average of 4 phases
HPC
HPC B&M
FN
FN R&D
Always on (Con
Biz) A/R: 0.053%
• FN TA was the most sizeable on LinkedIn with the highest acquisition rates. On the other hand, HPC B&M TA although limited in size,
was the most engaged TA on LinkedIn outperforming both media trial and always on (con biz) CTR benchmarks.
• From the results, FN R&D may not be the right TA to reach on LinkedIn with low A/R and CTR
• All TA’s A/R significantly outperformed Media Trial and Always on (Con biz) A/R benchmarks, suggesting that a hyper-targeted approach
(dark post) and targeting content by audience type might be more effective in garnering acquisition on LinkedIn
• Overall all TA were engaged on LinkedIn performing within the benchmark ranges of Media Trial and Always on (Con Biz) CTR,
suggesting that the approach for the Con biz campaign was successful, given that Media trial also had biggest media spend bugets (5x
more than Con biz campaign pilot)

2121
CONTENT INSIGHTS DEEP DIVE_
Twitter HPC TA content insights (E/R) across 4 phases
1.05 1.05
0.57
1.88
0.92 0.95
0.00 0.00
0.64
0.97
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
All Con Biz HPC
EngagementRate(%)
Content angles tested
HPC Target Audience (E/R)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Avg
• Overall HPC TA consistently underperformed for both “All Con biz” and “HPC” content angles, in comparison to both Media Trial and
Always on (Con biz) E/R benchmarks. HPC content worked better than General all Con biz content (0.97% E/R avg). Due to consistently
low E/R performance, phase 4 budgets were reallocated to better performing HPC B&M and FN + FN R&D list.
• Analysis:
1. We are not pushing out the right content to HPC TA
2. Targeting HPC TA with content based on “function” (media trial - i.e. human resource, operation etc) might be more effective vs
“audience type”
• Limitations: Always on (Con biz) and media trial had bigger budgets for content development partnership with content experts e.g.
Quartz, while Con biz campaign was limited by freelance writers who may not be able to develop in-depth or relevant content to our TA.
Always on (Con
Biz) E/R: 10.72%

2222
Twitter HPC B&M TA content insights (E/R) across 4 phases
0.78
0.73
0.59
0.48
1.05
0.660.67
0.84
0.90
0.69
0.00
0.90
0.65 0.66
0.76
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
All Con Biz HPC HPC B&M
EngagementRate(%)
HPC B&M Target Audience (E/R)
• Overall HPC B&M TA consistently outperformed media trial E/R benchmarks for all content angles tested and responded best to HPC
B&M content.
• Analysis:
1. We are pushing out relevant content that the HPC B&M TA are generally interested in
2. Targeting HPC B&M TA with content based on “audience type” is more effective than by “function” (i.e. human resource etc)
3. Specific domain expertise content (Branding and marketing) vs General or sub-sector industry content (home and personal care
goods industry) is more relevant
• Limitations: Always on (Con biz) have bigger budgets for content development and media partnership with content experts i.e. quartz,
while Con biz campaign pilot was limited by our FRS freelance writers who may not be able to develop in-depth or relevant enough
content to our TA. Con biz campaign also had a more finite target audience list compared to broad base targeting in always on.
Always on (Con
Biz) E/R: 10.72%

2323
Twitter FN and FN R&D TA content insights (E/R) across 4 phases
0.98
1.58
0.69
0.63
0.93
1.25
0.73
1.10
0.890.91
0.66
0.550.81
1.07
0.85
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
All Con Biz FN FN R&D
EngagementRate(%)
FN and FN R&D Target Audience (E/R)
Always on (Con
Biz) E/R: 10.72%
• Overall FN + FN R&D TA consistently outperformed media trial E/R benchmarks for all content angles tested and responded best to FN
content (Avg E/R: 1.07%). FN+FN R&D TA had the highest E/R avg compared to the other two TA.
• Analysis:
1. We are pushing out relevant content that the the FN + FN R&D TA are interested in
2. Targeting FN + FN R&D TA with content based on “audience type” is more effective than by “function” (i.e. human resource
etc.)
3. Sub-sector industry content (Food and nutrition) vs domain expertise content (R&D) is more relevant
• Limitations: Always on (Con biz) had bigger budgets for content development and partnership with content experts i.e. quartz, while
Con biz campaign pilot was limited by freelance writers who may not be able to deliver in-depth or relevant enough content to our TA.
FN R&D audience itself was also not scalable and therefore needed to be combined w/ FN for hyper-targeting efforts.

2424
LinkedIn HPC TA content insights (CTR) across 4 phases
0.31
0.49
0.27
0.58
0.24
0.35
0.30
0.00
0.28
0.35
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
All Con Biz HPC
ClickThroughRate(%)
HPC Target Audience (CTR)
• Overall HPC TA responded best to HPC content (Avg CTR:: 0.35%), with only phase 1-2 outperforming media trial and Always on (con
biz) benchmarks. All Con biz content consistently underperformed compared to benchmarks.
• Analysis:
1. We might not be pushing out content relevant to the HPC audience
2. Sub-sector industry content (Home and personal care goods) is more relevant vs general con biz industry content
3. Targeting by “function” (i.e. human resource etc.) is more effective than content based on “audience type”
Con biz campaign was limited by freelance writers who may not be able to deliver in-depth or relevant enough content to our TA.

2525
LinkedIn HPC B&M TA content insights (CTR) across 4 phases
0.40
0.51
0.44
0.00
0.75
0.86
0.00
0.47
0.17
0.42
0.00
0.36
0.20 0.44 0.46
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
All Con Biz HPC HPC B&M
ClickThroughRate(%)
HPC B&M Target Audience (CTR)
• HPC B&M CTR was comparable to benchmarks and preferred HPC B&M content best (Avg CTR: 0.46%). HPC B&M TA was also the
most engaged TA out of all the TA list
• Analysis:
1. We are pushing out relevant content that HPC B&M TA is interested in and LinkedIn may be the right channel to reach this TA
2. HPC B&M audience is agnostic to both content based on “audience type” and by “function” (i.e. human resource etc.)
3. Domain expertise content (Branding and marketing) is more relevant vs General con biz industry content
Media Trial CTR:
0.47%
Always on
(Con Biz)
CTR: 0.42%

2626
LinkedIn FN TA content insights (CTR) across 4 phases
0.25
1.15
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.32
0.17
0.00
0.11
0.47
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
All Con Biz FN
ClickThroughRate(%)
FN Target Audience (CTR)
Media Trial CTR:
0.47%
Always on
(Con Biz)
CTR: 0.42%
• FN TA preferred FN content with an avg CTR that is comparable to media trial and outperformed Always on (Con biz) Benchmarks.
Despite pumping budgets in for “All con biz” content angle, media budgets did not burn (i.e. no engagement w/ content though there was
impressions)
• Analysis:
1. FN TA are not interested in General con biz industry content but prefers sub-sector industry content (Food and nutrition)
2. FN TA are agnostic between content based on “audience type” vs content based on “function” (i.e. human resource etc.)
Con biz campaign pilot was limited by freelance writers who may not be able to deliver in-depth or relevant enough content to our TA.

2727
LinkedIn FN R&D TA content insights (CTR) across 4 phases
0.28
0.64
0.43
0.24
0.50
0.23
0.06
0.28
0.32
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.24
0.46
0.36
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
ClickThroughRate(%)
FN R&D Target Audience (CTR)
Media Trial CTR:
0.47%
Always on
(Con Biz)
CTR: 0.42%
• FN R&D TA prefers FN content most, while FN R&D and All con biz content angles underperformed in comparison to benchmarks.
Despite FN R&D TA being the least sizeable on LinkedIn, CTR performance for FN content (0.46%) was still better than Always on (Con
biz) benchmarks (CTR: 0.42%) and comparable to media trial CTR 0.47%
• Analysis:
1. FN R&D audience is agnostic to content based on “audience type” vs by “function” (i.e. human resource etc.)
2. Sub-sector industry content (Food and nutrition) is more relevant to FN R&D audience vs domain expertise content (R&D) or
general con biz content

2828
LinkedIn FN R&D TA content insights (CTR) across 4 phases
0.28
0.64
0.43
0.24
0.50
0.23
0.06
0.28
0.32
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.24
0.46
0.36
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
ClickThroughRate(%)
FN R&D Target Audience (CTR)
Media Trial CTR:
0.47%
Always on
(Con Biz)
CTR: 0.42%
• FN R&D TA prefers FN content most, while FN R&D and All con biz content angles underperformed in comparison to benchmarks.
Despite FN R&D TA being the least sizeable on LinkedIn, CTR performance for FN content (0.46%) was still better than Always on (Con
biz) benchmarks (CTR: 0.42%) and comparable to media trial CTR 0.47%
• Analysis:
1. FN R&D audience is agnostic to content based on “audience type” vs by “function” (i.e. human resource etc.)
2. Sub-sector industry content (Food and nutrition) is more relevant to FN R&D audience vs domain expertise content (R&D) or
general con biz content

2929
Name Company Position URL
Jose Quesada Data Science Retreat Dir. https://twitter.com/Quesada
Ian Bell Digital Trends CEO https://twitter.com/IanBell330
Mark Westron Fujitsu Chief Architect http://twitter.com/westron2005
Martin Faller IFRC Head of Ops, APAC http://twitter.com/martin_faller
Dan Radley KPMG Dir., ASPAC Sales & http://twitter.com/danradley
Dave Peck PayPal
Global Head, Social Media
& Influencer Marketing
http://twitter.com/davepeck
Jay Samit SeaChange International CEO http://twitter.com/jaysamit
Bill Carmody Trepoint CEO http://twitter.com/BillCarmody
Simon Mainwaring We First Inc. CEO
http://twitter.com/simonmainw
aring
Larry Kim Wordstream CTO http://twitter.com/larrykim
TOP 10 AUDIENCE FOLLOWS (TWITTER)_

3030
Name Company Position URL
Karl Kusreau Comcast
Regional Manager,
Sales Strategy
https://www.linkedin.com/in/k
arl-kusreau-iv-34384654
Bill Giermann Energizer National Manager, Sales
https://www.linkedin.com/in/b
illgiermann
Sara Thompson Gap GM, Athleta
https://www.linkedin.com/in/s
ara-thompson-4548a544
Linda Wang L’Oreal
Area Manager,
Greater China
https://www.linkedin.com/in/li
nda-wang-93585537
Victoria Campbell L’Oreal
GM, Designer
Fragrances
https://www.linkedin.com/in/v
ictoria-campbell-06b01b64
Sebastiano Collino Nestlé Head, Metabolomics
https://www.linkedin.com/in/s
ebastiano-collino-81b01a70
Audrey Yoo Nike
Senior Dir., Emerging
Markets
https://www.linkedin.com/in/a
udrey-yoo-74339142
D. Scott Miller P&G Dir., Corporate Design
https://www.linkedin.com/in/d
miller9
Karen Clark P&G
VP, Global Business
Services
https://www.linkedin.com/in/k
aren-clark-430a523b
Chang Andy Shiseido GM, Sales (Taiwan)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/c
hang-andy-505838b0/en
TOP 10 AUDIENCE FOLLOWS (LINKEDIN)_

3131
SUMMARY (CHANNEL COMPARISON)_
Twitter LinkedIn
Digital audience Acquisition (measured by response and relationship metric)
Most engaged TA (response) FN+ FN R&D (below both E/R benchmarks) HPC B&M (above both CTR benchmarks)
Least engaged TA (response) HPC (below both E/R benchmarks) HPC (below Media trial, comparable to Always on
CTR benchmarks)
Which Channel is more effective in
engaging the Con Biz TA?
All TA performed below E/R benchmark #,
suggesting that Twitter might not be the best
platform to engage con biz TA
All TA either performed better or comparable to
Always on CTR benchmarks, suggesting that
LinkedIn might be a better platform to engage
our TA
TA with highest acquisition rates (R/S) HPC B&M (above always on below media trial A/R
benchmarks)
FN (above both A/R benchmarks)
TA with lowest acquisition rates (R/S) FN + FN R&D (above always on below media trial
A/R benchmarks)
FN R&D (above both A/R benchmarks)
Which Channel is more effective in
acquiring the Con Biz TA?
All TA performed better than Always on A/R
benchmarks but underperformed in comparison to
Media Trial A/R
All TA performed better than A/R benchmarks,
suggesting that LinkedIn might be a better
platform to acquire our TA
Content preference of each target audience list
HPC audience HPC content (below both E/R benchmarks) HPC content (below both CTR benchmarks)
HPC B&M audience HPC B&M content (above media trial, below
always on E/R benchmarks)
HPC B&M content (above always on, close to
media trial CTR benchmarks)
FN audience
FN content (above media trial, below always on
E/R benchmarks)
FN content (above always on, similar to media trial
CTR benchmarks)
FN R&D audience FN content (above always on, close to media trial
CTR benchmarks)
Content preferences across both
channels
Clear consistency in content preference for both channels in each TA.

Digital Pilot Campaign Performance Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Digital Pilot Campaign Performance Analysis

Similar to Digital Pilot Campaign Performance Analysis (20)

Digital Pilot Campaign Performance Analysis

Editor's Notes