Impact of Online and Television Advertising on Consumer Behavior

6,907 views

Published on

A presentation entitled Impact of Online and Television Advertising on Consumer Behavior, was given at the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) AM 6.0 conference held in 2011. The presentation includes, the challenges to measuring cross-platform media impacts, comscore methods, case studies and results. Presenters included Joan FitzGerald-Vice President of comScore & Alan Vaughn- Statistical Analyst at comScore.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,907
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impact of Online and Television Advertising on Consumer Behavior

  1. 1. Impact of Online and TelevisionAdvertising on Consumer Behavior Joan FitzGerald Alan Vaughn Vice President Statistical Analyst comScore comScore
  2. 2. comScore is a Global Leader inMeasuring the Digital WorldNASDAQ SCORClients 1600+ worldwideEmployees 900+Headquarters Reston, VA 170+ countries under measurement;Global Coverage 43 markets reportedLocal Presence 30+ locations in 21 countries #ARFAM6 V0910
  3. 3. BackgroundReaching Consumers Is More Challenging New media and devices equals: – More opportunity to create brand experiences that consumers enjoy – More opportunity to create compelling programming to build and retain audiences How do we measure the impact across TV, Internet and mobile? – Methodologies in development for use in 25,000 multi-screen consumer research panel #ARFAM6
  4. 4. ChallengesMeasuring the impact of cross-platform media is asignificant challengeEconometric modeling is not an optimum solutionfor media Works best with single, immediate response and clearly-defined time periods – Think promotions, sale pricing, couponing Media responses are multiple, not necessarily immediate, and time periods are not clearly defined – Think awareness, likeability, favorability, intent-to-purchase – Think long-term, short-term, carry-over, “halo” effects
  5. 5. Opportunity“Single-Source” Research Presents Opportunity To Uncover Media Effects More granular – Break out and understand groups of consumers who may use media in dramatically different ways Think “OTT,” heavy DVR, mobile video, mobile app users Faster – After each week of campaign, not after 24 months of prior data – Answer questions about what marketers should do now #ARFAM6
  6. 6. MethodsComscore Established 3,700+ PersonMulti-Screen “Test Panel” Persons-level Internet usage matched to household-level television viewing – Blind, third-party match Data sources – TV ad exposure: ad schedules matched to TV “set top box” viewing data – Internet ad exposure: comScore technology – Consumer response: website visitation via comScore technology January – April 2010 #ARFAM6
  7. 7. Research Hypotheses The combined impact of TV and Internet advertising exposure is greater than the impact of TV advertising alone and Internet advertising alone The impact of exposure will be greater for the target consumer group The closer the timing of the exposure to the response, the greater the impact will be (recency) It is possible to determine the “equivalent” number of Internet ads that equal the impact of a 30 second TV advertisement #ARFAM6
  8. 8. Analysis2 Case StudiesMajor Entertainment/Film andFinancial Services brands Neither solely or primarily e-commerce brands; however, online behavior important measure of success Multiple creative executions and websites combined for analysis Financial Services brand contained insufficient sample sizes #ARFAM6
  9. 9. Methods Generalized linear model – Estimates probability of site visitation Exposure “windows” – 3-day, 7-day, 14-day – TV advertising only, Internet advertising only, TV and Internet advertising Online behavioral response – website visit: 0 (no site visit) or 1 (site visit) #ARFAM6
  10. 10. Methods 3,700+ sample size lower than 25,000 planned for multi-screen panel Demonstration data; not weighted TV advertising exposure is household-based while Internet advertising exposure is persons-based Online advertising and online behavioral response are “co-located,” therefore, one might expect online advertising to show greater response using the methods presented here #ARFAM6
  11. 11. Results1 + 1 = 2.X For the Entertainment brand, the combination of TV and Internet Advertising resulted in a 28% and 66% higher probability of a website visit than exposure to TV advertising alone or Internet advertising alone, respectively – Results seen for both brands, although sample sizes insufficient for reliable results for Financial Services brand 128 Results 100 indexed to TV only 77 advertising exposure Index of Behavior Probability with 3-Day Exposure Window TV Only Internet Only TV and Internet #ARFAM6
  12. 12. Results“Recency Effect” For the Entertainment brand, there was higher probability of website visitation the closer the exposure to the behavior, with the greatest “recency” effect shown for the combination of TV and Internet advertising For exposure to both TV and Internet advertising, the probability of website visitation increased by 62% within a 3-day window compared to a 14-day window The probability increased 32% for TV only exposure and 10% for Internet only exposure 0.17 TV Only Internet Only 0.12 TV and Internet 0.07 3-Day 7-Day 14-Day #ARFAM6
  13. 13. ResultsTarget Consumers Responded More For the Entertainment brand, there was a higher probability of website visitation for consumers within the brand target group compared to consumers that were not within the brand target group The probability increased by 28% for consumers exposed to both TV and Internet advertising, 31% for consumers exposed to TV only advertising and 38% for consumers exposed to Internet only advertising 128TV and Internet 100 77 Target Internet Only 55 Not Target 100 TV Only 77 #ARFAM6
  14. 14. Similar Targeting Impact Seen forDigital Advertising and CPG BrandsLift In In-Store SalesMedia Sales Lift in 3-Months from Digital Advertising from CPG Brands 38% 21% Non-Purchase Based Targeting Purchase Based Targeting *Source: comScore AdEffx Offline Sales Lift Norms for CPG, March 2011 Non-purchased based targeting includes, but is not limited to, the following types of buys: contextual, audience, run of site//run of network, etc.** Source: comScore Audience Advantage, which leverages sophisticated predictive targeting algorithms that are created using anonymous panel and census data sources; targeting was deployed on the Microsoft Network sites. Note: Retail sales is measured by linking the comScore panel of 1 million U.S. Internet users to their retailer loyalty card data from dunnhumby, which provides a measure of the panelist’s in-store buying activity.
  15. 15. ResultsMedia “Equivalencies” For the Entertainment brand, 5 Internet Only advertising exposures had the equivalent impact of 1 TV Only advertising exposure The impact of exposure to both TV and Internet was higher than TV and Internet alone, even at higher frequency levels for Internet 1 TV and 1 Internet Exposure 1 TV Only 5 Internet Only Exposure Exposures Behavior Probability with 3-Day Exposure Window #ARFAM6
  16. 16. ConclusionsMethod Uncovered Multi-screen Media Effects TV and Internet advertising alone in combination, showed measureable impact on online behavioral response – TV and Internet combined had a greater impact on change probability of a website visit than TV or Internet alone The study found a measureable “recency” effect Target consumers had a stronger response than non-target consumers Media “equivalencies” can be calculated and used in media planning #ARFAM6
  17. 17. Opportunities for Future ResearchMulti-Screen Media Effects Frequency of exposure… How many exposures on what media in advance of the website visit? Sequencing of exposure… How do the media reinforce each other? Response curves… Optimizing exposure to generate a response #ARFAM6
  18. 18. Next Steps25,000 Multi-Screen Panel 25,000 opt-in panelists with access to mobile, TV, Internet Recruitment begins Q3 2011 Single-source cross-platform measurement #ARFAM6

×