A quarterly monitor of the most effective ads in a product category

1. A quarterly monitor of the most effective ads in a product category JuxtConsult AdConnect Study

5. The Ad Connect Measurement Model Was the ad noticed? Was the ad understood? Did the ad appeal? Was the message relevant? Did it help build brand preference? The Measures Recall Message comprehension Message believability Originality/Distinctiveness Likeability Identification Message relevance Brand Differentiation Brand Inclination Brand Empathy Impact on Brand Image Brand Consideration The Ad – Consumer Interaction Points The Ad Effectiveness Criteria Noticeability Relatability Connectivity Relevance Brand preference © © Copyright JuxtConsult

6. Measuring & Rating Schema © © Copyright JuxtConsult Likeability Originality Audience Identification Ad Appeal Ad noticed and appeals Ad Appeal Index Message Connect Ad is understood, relatable and convinces Comprehensibility Relevance Persuasiveness / Believability Ad Persuasion Index Brand Impact Ad creates brand preference Brand Differentiation Brand Inclination Image Impact Brand Empathy Brand Preference Brand Impact Index Ad Momentux Total ‘audience mass’ generated by the ad for the brand TOM Ad Recall Ad Connect Ad Connect Quotient (adCQ) Qualitative impact created by the ad on the audience Qualitative impact of the ad Quantitative impact of the ad

7. The Derived Measures Message Connect Brand Impact Ad Appeal How much is the ad noticed and appeals How much is the ad understood, related to and convinces How much is the ad contributing in creating brand preference Ad Appeal Index Ad Persuasion Index Brand Impact Index Ad Connect TM Total impact created by the ad among the consumers (ad effectiveness) Ad Connect Quotient Ad Momentux TM Ad Momentum Index Consumer mass generated by the ad for the brand (audience mindshare)

8. Category Level Example Soft Drinks September - October 2007

9. Ads Tested Coca Cola Corporate Coke Thums Up Mirinda 1 Pepsi Fanta

10. Ads Tested Mirinda 2 Limca Mountain Dew Sprite Slice 7 Up

11. Top of Mind Ad Recall How much is the ad recalled top of mind for the category Brand Ad Top of Mind Ad Recall Pepsi 33% Coca Cola 19% Thums up 16% Sprite 15% Mirinda 5% Fanta 5% 7up 5% Mountain Dew 2% Limca 1% Slice 0.4%

12. The Relative Effectiveness of the Ads Total effectiveness of the ads in connecting with the category consumers Brand Ad Ad Connect Quotient (adCQ) Relative Index Pepsi 12.20 100 Thums up 12.24 99 Fanta 10.04 82 Mirinda 9.06 74 Slice 8.03 66 Coca Cola 7.90 65 Limca 7.86 64 Mountain Dew 7.30 60 Sprite 6.84 56 7up 6.43 53

13. Current ‘Ad Momentum’ of the Ads Total Audience ‘mindshare’ generated by the ad for the brand in the category Brand Ad Ad Momentum (Audience Mindshare) Ad Momentum (Relative Index) Pepsi 41% 100 Thums up 20% 48 Coca Cola 15% 38 Sprite 10% 25 Fanta 5% 12 Mirinda 4% 11 7up 3% 7 Mountain Dew 2% 4 Limca 0.4% 1 Slice 0.4% 1

14. Ad Effectiveness Perceptual Map The nearer the brand is to an attribute, more strongly is its ad associated with that attribute as compared to other attributes. The closer it is to ‘0-0’ axis, the less it Is associated with any attribute at all -.3 -.4 .3 .2 .1 0.0 -.1 -.2 Attribute Brand .3 .2 .1 0.0 -.1 -.2 Brand Impact Message Connect Ad Appeal Thums up Sprite Slice Pepsi Mountain Dew Mirinda Limca Fanta Coca Cola 7up

15. Respondent Profile – Soft Drinks October - November 2007 Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 1,256) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Gender Male 69% 52% Female 31% 48% Age Distribution Below 13 years Not included in study NA 13-18 years 9% 16% 19-24 years 30% 17% 25-35 years 38% 27% 36-45 years 15% 18% 46-55 years 6% 11% Above 55 years 2% 11% City Type Up to 1 Lakh 33% 31% (Population Size) 1-5 Lakhs 20% 27% 5-30 Lakhs 24% 25% Above 30 Lakhs 23% 17% Region-wise Distribution North 22% 24% East 8% 15% South 30% 29% West 41% 32%

16. Respondent Profile – Soft Drinks October - November 2007 Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 1,256) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Socio-economic Classification SEC - A 20% 9% SEC - B 28% 18% SEC - C 28% 25% SEC - D 15% 26% SEC - E 9% 22% Economic Status in the Family Chief wage earner 43% Not the chief wage earner 57% Monthly Household Income Up to Rs. 10,000 56% Rs. 10,000 – Rs. 30,000 29% Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 50,000 6% Above Rs. 50,000 9% Most Expensive Vehicle in the HH 4-wheeler 18% 2-wheeler 32% Bi-cycle / others 13% Don't own any vehicle 36%

17. Category Level Example Candy Mouth Fresheners September - October 2007

18. Ads Tested Chlormint Mentos Center Fresh Wrigley’s Orbit Happydent White Happydent Protex Chill Pillz Polo Parle Xhale Minto Blue Center Shook

19. Top of Mind Ad Recall How much is the ad recalled top of mind for the category Brand Ad Top of Mind Ad Recall Chlormint 25% Orbit 18% Minto Fresh 16% Mentos 11% Center Fresh 9% Happydent White 9% Pass Pass 7% Polo 4% Halls 1%

20. The Relative Effectiveness of the Ads Total effectiveness of the ads in connecting with the category consumers Brand Ad Ad Connect Quotient (adCQ) Relative Index Center Fresh 3.85 100 Chlormint 3.82 99 Minto Fresh 3.70 96 Mentos 3.22 84 Orbit 3.13 81 Happydent White 1.55 40 Polo 0.94 24 Minto Blue 0.03 1 Happydent Protex 0.02 1

21. Current ‘Ad Momentum’ of the Ads Total Audience ‘mindshare’ generated by the ad for the brand in the category Brand Ad Ad Momentum (Audience Mindshare) Ad Momentum (Relative Index) Chlormint 33% 100 Minto Fresh 21% 64 Orbit 15% 47 Mentos 13% 39 Center Fresh 13% 38 Happydent White 4% 13 Polo 1% 4 Happydent Protex 0% 0 Minto Blue 0% 0

22. Ad Momentum Summary * Lotte Chill Pillz and Parle Xhale got zero top of mind brand recall, so could not be included in ad momentum calculations Current Audience Mindshare Brand Ad Top of Mind Ad Recall Ad Connect (adCQ) Relative Index Ad Momentum (Audience Mindshare) Chlormint 25% 99 33% Orbit 18% 81 15% Minto Fresh 16% 96 21% Mentos 11% 84 13% Center Fresh 9% 100 13% Happydent White 9% 40 4% Pass Pass 7% - - Polo 4% 24 1% Halls 0.8% - - Minto Blue 0.1% 1 0% Happydent Protex 0.1% 1 0%

23. Ad Effectiveness Perceptual Map The nearer the brand is to an attribute, more strongly is its ad associated with that attribute as compared to other attributes. The closer it is to ‘0-0’ axis, the less it Is associated with any attribute at all .4 .3 .2 .1 -.0 -.1 -.2 -.3 .4 .3 .2 .1 0.0 -.1 -.2 Attribute Brand Brand Impact Ad Appeal Polo Mint Happydent White Mentos Orbit Minto Fresh Chlormint Minto Blue Happydent Protex Center Fresh Message Connect

24. September - October 2007 Respondent Profile – Candy Mouth Fresheners * Representative of 22 million urban current and intended users of candy mouth fresheners Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 948) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Gender Male 65% 52% Female 35% 48% Age Distribution Below 13 years Not included in study NA 13-18 years 13% 16% 19-24 years 27% 17% 25-35 years 38% 27% 36-45 years 16% 18% 46-55 years 4% 11% Above 55 years 2% 11% City Type Up to 1 Lakh 27% 31% (Population Size) 1-5 Lakhs 15% 27% 5-30 Lakhs 23% 25% Above 30 Lakhs 35% 17% Region-wise Distribution North 30% 24% East 8% 15% South 29% 29% West 33% 32%

25. Respondent Profile – Candy Mouth Fresheners September - October 2007 Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 948) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Socio-economic Classification SEC - A 16% 9% SEC - B 23% 18% SEC - C 44% 25% SEC - D 8% 26% SEC - E 9% 22% Economic Status in the Family Chief wage earner 28% Not the chief wage earner 72% Monthly Household Income Up to Rs. 10,000 54% Rs. 10,000 – Rs. 30,000 38% Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 50,000 3% Above Rs. 50,000 5% Most Expensive Vehicle in the HH 4-wheeler 13% 2-wheeler 42% Bi-cycle / others 15% Don't own any vehicle 30%

26. A quarterly monitor of the most effective ads in a product category Deodorants September - October 2007

27. Ads Tested Axe Rexona Fa Exotic Set Wet Zatak Spinz Salsa Nivea Aqua

28. Top of Mind Ad Recall How much is the ad recalled top of mind for the category Brand Ad Top of Mind Ad Recall Rexona 36% Axe 30% Fa 11% Set Wet Zatak 9% Park Avenue 4% Denim 3% Nivea Aqua 2% Adidas 1% Spinz Salsa 1% Others 3%

29. The Relative Effectiveness of the Ads Total effectiveness of the ads in connecting with the category consumers Brand Ad Ad Connect Quotient (adCQ) Relative Index Rexona 3.57 100 Axe 3.53 99 Fa 1.40 39 Set Wet Zatak 1.05 29 Nivea Aqua 0.18 5 Spinz Salsa 0.13 4

30. Current ‘Ad Momentum’ of the Ads Total Audience ‘mindshare’ generated by the ad for the brand in the category Brand Ad Ad Momentum (Audience Mindshare) Ad Momentum (Relative Index) Rexona 49% 100 Axe 41% 84 Fa 6% 12 Set Wet Zatak 4% 7 Nivea Aqua 0% 0 Spinz Salsa 0% 0

31. Ad Momentum Summary Current Audience Mindshare Brand Ad Top of Mind Ad Recall Ad Connect (adCQ) Relative Index Ad Momentum (Audience Mindshare) Rexona 36% 100 49% Axe 30% 99 41% Fa 11% 39 6% Set Wet Zatak 9% 29 4% Park Avenue 4% - - Denim 3% - - Nivea Aqua 2% 5 0% Adidas 1% - - Spinz Salsa 1% 4 0% Others 3% - -

32. Ad Effectiveness Perceptual Map The nearer the brand is to an attribute, more strongly is its ad associated with that attribute as compared to other attributes. The closer it is to ‘0-0’ axis, the less it Is associated with any attribute at all .2 .1 -.0 -.1 -.2 -.3 .3 .2 .1 0.0 -.1 Attribute Brand Brand Impact Message Connect Ad Appeal Spinz Salsa Nivea Aqua Zatak Fa Axe Rexona

33. Respondent Profile – Deodorants September - October 2007 Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 957) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Gender Male 50% 52% Female 50% 48% Age Distribution Below 13 years Not included in study NA 13-18 years 13% 16% 19-24 years 29% 17% 25-35 years 38% 27% 36-45 years 11% 18% 46-55 years 5% 11% Above 55 years 4% 11% City Type Up to 1 Lakh 30% 31% (Population Size) 1-5 Lakhs 16% 27% 5-30 Lakhs 28% 25% Above 30 Lakhs 26% 17% Region-wise Distribution North 19% 24% East 16% 15% South 23% 29% West 42% 32%

34. Respondent Profile – Deodorants September - October 2007 Demographic Attributes Ad Momentux Study Respondent Profile (Sample – 957) Census 2001 Projected Actual Urban Population Socio-economic Classification SEC - A 19% 9% SEC - B 28% 18% SEC - C 32% 25% SEC - D 10% 26% SEC - E 12% 22% Economic Status in the Family Chief wage earner 36% Not the chief wage earner 64% Monthly Household Income Up to Rs. 10,000 49% Rs. 10,000 – Rs. 30,000 36% Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 50,000 7% Above Rs. 50,000 8% Most Expensive Vehicle in the HH 4-wheeler 17% 2-wheeler 42% Bi-cycle / others 3% Don't own any vehicle 38%

38. Thank You!