New Ad Models

1,006 views

Published on

A presentation on new ad models, was given at the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) AM 6.0 conference held in 2011. Dr. Duane Varan-Executive Director at Audience Research Labs Murdoch University gave the presentation. Varan presented studies done by the Beyond 30 research program.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,006
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New Ad Models

  1. 1. New Ad Models Dr. Duane Varan Executive Director Audience Research Labs Murdoch University
  2. 2. Implications of Perpetual Change When  tomorrow  looks  largely  like  yesterday......  analy<cs  and  insights  guide  the  way...  (par<cular  focus  on  audience  segments) But  when  the  shape  of  tomorrow  is  unknown......  we  need  to  focus  on  variables  (not  segments)...  and  usage  behavior  (par<cularly  variability)...  ASSUMPTIONS  ARE  DANGEROUS! 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 #ARFAM6
  3. 3. The Good News... New Research Methods Help! Usage Isolating Behavior Variables Set-­‐Top-­‐Box  Data Research  Labs Single  Source  Data Neuro  Measures Portable  Measurement Collabora<ve  Projects Ethnographic  Research Field  Experiments Cross  PlaXorm  Data #ARFAM6
  4. 4. beyond30.org
  5. 5. Beyond :30 - Wave II Partners #ARFAM6
  6. 6. Beyond :30 - Studies to Date #ARFAM6
  7. 7. Too many models... Need priorities #ARFAM6
  8. 8. Too many models... Need priorities 7 2006 Program MaximizersAdvertiser Sentiment 6 Advertiser 22 Interactive Models 42 16 Control 3 29 2 14 17 13 4 5 30 41 32 27 1 23 10 19 40 15 33 37 25 36 34 39 28 11 26 18 4 24 35 9 5 8 12 Neutral 21 38 31 6 3 7 Objectionable 20 Viewer Control 2 Viewer Sentiment 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 #ARFAM6
  9. 9. Ranked Data (2006) 42 22. Speed Bumps - Linear 42. Sponsored Console 2006 16. Record Program from Ad 3. Targeted Advertising 29. PauseAdvertiser Sentiment 36 14. Impulse Response 17. Program Reminder from Ad 4. Repeat Substitution 2. Offer Customization 13. Frequent Viewing Points Scheme 31 30. Product Placement - Linear 41. Interactive Narrative of Ad 23. Speed Bumps - Interactive - Replay Ad 32. Branded Entertainment 27. Telescopic 1. Creative Customization 26 10. Ad Rating (Voting on ads) 40. EPG - Program Reminder 33. Program Loyalty 19. Arcade Game - sponsored - Pac Man 15. DALs 21 25. Bookends 39. EPG - Program Record 37. EPG - Banner and Video Mixes 34. EPG - Picture-In-Picture 36. EPG - Banners 16 28. Showcase 11. Peer Ratings of Ads 26. Bookmarks 18. Trivia Quizzes - sponsored - Nike 24. Speed Bumps - Interactive - Bank and View Ad 11 35. EPG - Barker Ads 9. U-Vision 8. Ad Zapper 5. Customization via Style Guide 12. Peer Filter of Ads 6 38. EPG - Ads as a Program Listing 21. Shared Screen Game - Tetris 6. Customization via Filters 31. In-Program Trigger Interactive 1 20. Overlay Game on Ad - Pong 7. Strike Out Viewer Sentiment 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 42 #ARFAM6
  10. 10. 2009 Study (30 Ad Models) 3342 22. Speed Bumps - Linear 42. Sponsored Console 2009 2006 16. Record Program from AdAdvertiser Sentiment 3. Targeted Advertising 30 29. Pause 36 14. Impulse Response 17. Program Reminder from Ad 27 4. Repeat Substitution 2. Offer Customization 13. Frequent Viewing Points Scheme 31 30. Product Placement - Linear 41. Interactive Narrative of Ad 24 23. Speed Bumps - Interactive - Replay Ad 32. Branded Entertainment 27. Telescopic 21 26 1. Creative Customization 10. Ad Rating (Voting on ads) 40. EPG - Program Reminder 33. Program Loyalty 19. Arcade Game - sponsored - Pac Man 18 15. DALs 21 25. Bookends 39. EPG - Program Record 16 37. EPG - Banner and Video Mixes 34. EPG - Picture-In-Picture 36. EPG - Banners 16 13 28. Showcase 11. Peer Ratings of Ads 26. Bookmarks 18. Trivia Quizzes - sponsored - Nike 24. Speed Bumps - Interactive - Bank and View Ad 1011 35. EPG - Barker Ads 9. U-Vision 8. Ad Zapper 7 5. Customization via Style Guide 12. Peer Filter of Ads 6 38. EPG - Ads as a Program Listing 21. Shared Screen Game - Tetris 4 6. Customization via 31. In-Program Trigger Interactive Filters 1 20. Overlay Game on Ad - Pong 7. Strike Out 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 42 Viewer Sentiment 1 4 7 10 13 16 18 21 24 27 30 33 #ARFAM6
  11. 11. Across the Studies ... Good news, bad news, and many surprisesNo shortage of insights highlighting models thatwork... AND with reasons why they work.Also many models which fail (again, with reasonsWHY they don’t work)But usually the studies highlight just how complexthe landscape really is and the wide range of factorswhich must be considered. #ARFAM6
  12. 12. Examples of Models... ...that Work
  13. 13. Interactive Online Video Ads 2010 (Jan) #ARFAM6
  14. 14. Minimum Effective FrequencyOne Opportunity to Interact Suffices... 2008 Journal  of  Direct,  Data  and  Digital  Marke4ng #ARFAM6
  15. 15. Example of Models... ...that Don’t Work
  16. 16. Execution Factors for Interactive TV 2007Conducted analysis of UK interactive TV responsedata for over 500 ad campaignsCoded ads for over 100 creative execution factors(over 80,000 coding decisions)Later replicated for US data (using Wink) in 2009 andcompared to Canoe model in 2010 (still underembargo) #ARFAM6
  17. 17. “Click for More Information” is the kiss of death for interactive TV... -423%A call to action that promises‘more information’ suffers in termsof response rates. This isconsistent with our findings inUses & Gratifications study. Journal  of  Business  Research #ARFAM6
  18. 18. Example of Models... ...that are More Complex than You Think
  19. 19. Addressable AdvertisingNot as simple as it sounds... 2008We tested the impact of category-based relevantaddressability across 30 categories (for almost 90brands)Based on two assumptions: 1) where only one ad isrelevant; 2) where ALL ads are relevantDouble gate for relevance: Both in-market and topthird of self-identified relevant categories #ARFAM6
  20. 20. Ad Skipping6 Control5 1  Ad  Relevant ALL  Relevant4 3.5 3.3 3.13210 Number of Ads #ARFAM6
  21. 21. Percentage of Ad Seen100 Control 90 1  Ad  Relevant 80 69.6 70.3 ALL  Relevant 70 66.7 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of Ad Seen #ARFAM6
  22. 22. Relevance & Serial Position100 Percentage of Ad Seen Control 1  Ad  Relevant 80 74 69 71 70 69 68 60 40 20 0 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Serial Position in Ad Pod #ARFAM6
  23. 23. Brand Attitude7 Control6 1  Ad  Relevant 5.2 5.1 5.1 ALL  Relevant54321 Attitude toward the Brand #ARFAM6
  24. 24. Ad Attitude7 Control6 1  Ad  Relevant 5.3 5.2 5.1 ALL  Relevant54321 Attitude toward the Ad #ARFAM6
  25. 25. Ad Tolerance7 Control6 1  Ad  Relevant ALL  Relevant54 3.9 3.6 3.6321 Tolerance of Ad Breaks #ARFAM6
  26. 26. Viewer Arousal100 Not  Relevant 90 Relevant 80 70 60 50 40 31.5 30 28.2 20 10 0 EDA % change from baseline #ARFAM6
  27. 27. An Exception... Allergy Medication 100.0100 Control 90 82.0 1  Ad  Relevant 80 70 ALL  Relevant 60 53.0 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of Ad Seen #ARFAM6
  28. 28. Other Factors More Important...Percentage of Ad Seen Brand Attitude Category Relevance 10% 30% Percentage of total explained variance in percentage of ad viewed (R² = 15%). Ad and Brand Attitude contribute 90% of explained variance and the only significant predictors (why? They vary within categories, so contribute more to explaining variance across ads). In a model with just Rated Relevance and In Market as predictors, neither was significant. In Market is Ad 59% marginally significant (p = .062) when Ad Attitude is included. Attitude #ARFAM6
  29. 29. WHY? “Relevance” not stable...People know what they DON’T want betterthan what they DO want #ARFAM6
  30. 30. CAUTIONDon’t draw the wrong conclusion... otherresearch we have done demonstrates thataddressability DOES work...But there are many factors to take intoconsideration.You can’t simply transplant the SEARCHonline paradigm (TV far more complex) #ARFAM6
  31. 31. beyond30.org

×