DOI 10.2501JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERT.docx

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 339
INTRODUCTION
The current research program quantifies the syn-
ergy of the three strongest drivers of positive
brand-purchase change:
pricing,
in-store display, and
television advertising.
The study focused on heavily advertised consumer
packaged goods (CPG) brands that averaged
upward of $20 million in television advertising
within the categories of toothpaste, yogurt, and
cereal.
The report summarizes the findings of the first
six case studies across six brands with varied mixes
of television, price promotion, featured items in a
retail circular, and in-store display. It provides
marketers with examples of findings from this
single-source, household-level methodology.
Two critical findings:
Within the media industry, it is commonly
believed that television and a temporary price-
reduction (TPR) promotion should not be used
at the same time because television reduces the

impact of price reduction. The study has found
that to be an inaccurate assumption. For the
six case studies, approximately 50 percent of
all households exposed to television were also
affected by the TPR program and exhibited
higher sales increase than the other half reached
only by television.
Simultaneously using all three marketing tac-
tics—pricing, in-store display, and television
advertising—maximizes the positive impact
Exploding the Legend of
TV Advertising and Price Promotions
The Proper Mix of Price, In-Store, and TV
for Maximum Short- and Long-Term ROI
BILL HARVEY
TRA, Inc.
[email protected]
TERESE HERBIG
TRA, Inc.
[email protected]
MATTHEW KEYLOCK
dunnhumbyUSA
[email protected]
us.dunnhumby.com
RITESH AGGARWAL
dunnhumbyUSA
[email protected]
us.dunnhumby.com
NINA LERNER
dunnhumbyUSA

Nina [email protected]
us.dunnhumby.com
The advertising and marketing communities traditionally have
understood television
advertising effectiveness and its relationship to in-store
marketing tactics through small-
market research or marketing-mix modeling. Although these
studies have improved the
quality of advertising-effectiveness research, they have done
little to improve the tools
marketers need to translate those insights on a larger scale and
optimize their marketing
those tools and give marketers a more granular understanding of
brand-purchase behavior
and the impact of multiple marketing levers on in-store brand
sales. This paper leverages
the anonymous household-level purchase behavior data from 60
million households
across the United States and the second-by-second measurement
of television-viewing
habits from more than 2 million set-top box households, and the
current study applies
actual (non-modeled) single-source, household-level data to
demonstrate a methodology

for optimizing the mix of television advertising and in-store
marketing.
340 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September
2012
EXPLODING THE LEGEND OF TV ADVERTISING AND
PRICE PROMOTIONS
on brand sales. The combination of all
stimuli at the same time averaged more
than 11 times the sales effect of televi-
sion alone.
RESEARCH ISSUE
Despite the significant impact of price, in-
store marketing, and television on brand
sales, the authors believe there never has
been a methodology for optimizing the
three tactics together and measuring how
they work in tandem.
Advertising effectiveness has long been
a challenge for marketers—a challenge
that, in recent years, became more complex
as shopper marketing became an import-
ant player within the overall marketing
matrix. In 2008, some of the world’s larg-
est retailers, manufacturers, and adver-
tisers invested in the well-conceived but
ill-fated PRISM study to understand the
impact of in-store display on in-store sales,
an attempt to provide a clear indication of
just how critical marketers saw shopper

marketing in driving brand sales. Lauded
as the research that would “transform how
we think about in-store consumer com-
munication and behavior,”1 if the PRISM
experiment had been completed, it might
have yielded extremely valuable insight
on stimuli-mediated shopper behaviors.
Other research companies have over-
laid tests at the store level with television
1 Advertising Age, January 23, 2009, “Nielsen Suspends
PRISM Data System,” quoting A. G. Lafley, chairman,
Procter & Gamble.
to take snapshots of specific television/
promotion mixes for specific brands.
Cumulative or predictive insight from
these tests that would enable marketers
to implement stronger marketing mixes
and develop a sense of the overweening
creative variables involved, has just not
happened. Yet.
On top of these past inefficiencies, tele-
vision often is ignored when the impacts
of trade promotions are tested. Instead,
promotional programs and television tra-
ditionally are measured exclusive from
each other. The lack of synergy is rein-
forced when both marketers’ and agen-
cies’ departments in charge of television
and those that oversee trade promotion do
not coordinate and communicate.
There never has been a conclusive

methodology on which marketers could
optimize these variables so as to maxi-
mize sales—specifically, for 1-year (“short-
term”) or 2-year (“long-term”) return on
investment ROI. In fact, many marketers
assume that promotion has no long-term
effect. If the promotion includes creative,
however, such as a feature—for instance,
the inclusion of a brand in the retailer’s
printed material—it may affect the way
shoppers think of a brand. And that effect
can be as lasting as any other subcon-
scious or conscious impression made on
the human mind.
The creative aspects of in-store display
are obvious. Yet it seems far-fetched to
suppose that a brand may make such a
bad impression on shoppers through such
displays as to injure the brand’s position
... or make such a favorable impression as
to improve the lasting brand’s standing
in that shopper’s mind. Stranger things,
however, have happened. The minute
one intellectually commoditizes promo-
tion by not thinking creatively about the
medium, the more likely those dollars will
be sub-optimized.
The authors submit
brands need a way to optimize the mix
of the main three drivers: pricing, in-
store, and television;
the industry needs a method to gather

insights on how the three tactics interact
in a way that is predictable and action-
able; and
marketers need to recognize the creative
dimension of promotion dollars.
The current research study may be the
first time that single-source data have been
used to co-measure television, TPR, and
feature and in-store display. The authors
believe that its findings are important for
a number of reasons:
This study involved approximately
2,500 stores and looked not only at the
impact of in-store display (as other stud-
ies have done), but at those sales effects
in mix with television, price, and feature
in the store’s circular.
The study allows the three main driv-
ers of ROI (according to marketing mix
modeling [MMM]) to be seen acting
together at the individual household
level.
This research makes it possible to accu-
mulate generalized learnings beneficial
to the industry and marketers by apply-
ing a methodology to optimize the pri-
mary three drivers of ROI.
The research process examined the
impact of promotional creative in an
September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH
341

PRICE PROMOTIONS
attempt to enable practitioners to ana-
lyze and identify campaign successes
they did not know were successes and,
with that knowledge in hand, learn how
to repeat and improve upon them.
The current paper summarizes the find-
ings of the first six case studies for six
brands with varied mixes of television,
price promotion, feature in the retail circu-
lar, and in-store display.
METHODOLOGY
TRA, a media marketing and analytics soft-
ware company, and marketing-researcher
dunnhumbyUSA established a strategic
partnership in 2011 to create an opportu-
nity to move from the reliance on tradi-
tional panel-based demographics to deliver
more-granular, more-effective measure-
ment and custom analytical capabilities.
This study combined leveraged a database
of anonymous customer-purchase behav-
ior for more than 60 million households
across the United States, encompassing
16 different imprints. TRA’s Media TRA-
analytics matched the second-by-second
measurement of television viewing hab-
its from more than 2 million set-top box
households with dunn humby’s customer-
purchase behavior data, enabling continu-
ous, accurate results regarding campaign

success and results.
For each household matched to the set-
top box data, a picture emerged of when
each household had its shoppers in the
store and what they bought. The results
also disclosed the day-by-day, brand-by-
brand effects of in-store pricing, features,
and display.
Three product categories were selected
to represent the widest range of diversity
in the television/price/in-store mix:
ready-to-eat cereal,
yogurt, and
toothpaste.
Within each category, two leading brands
were chosen to represent variations in this
same mix. For each brand, depending on
its campaign, an 8- to 14-month window
was defined for analysis. The research
team then was able to study each brand in
a stable campaign for a clean “read.”
Between shopping trips, each measured
exposure to brand advertising was seen.
Cursory eyeballing of the pattern at the
household level offered many intriguing
insights in terms of changes in buying
behavior in apparent relation to specific
television exposures, price discounts, fea-
tures in store circulars, and in-store dis-
plays. Multivariate analytics articulated
these associations into statistically sig-

nificant correlations, beta coefficients, and
predicted sales volumes when the market-
ing stimuli were on and when they were
off.
The analysis of single-source (SS) data
is very much like MMM carried out at the
household level instead of the “market-
average” level: the noise is greatly
reduced, as there is an obvious regres-
sion to the mean in MMM not present
in SS. The actual dynamics of stimulus/
response within a household can be seen
clearly in SS. In MMM, one is doing infer-
ential detective work to draw conclusions
from coincidences that, in fact, sometimes
just may be coincidences.
GENERALIZED RESULTS
Television Advertising Does Not Soften the
Impact of Price Discounting
Within much of the advertising and mar-
keting community, an inverse relationship
between pricing and television advertis-
ing historically has been accepted. Con-
ventional wisdom has been that television
and a TPR should not be used at the same
time because, it was assumed, television
reduced the impact of price reduction.
This finding stemmed from the MMM
observation that price elasticity is reduced
during persuasive communications, estab-
lishing perception and gut belief in brand
value.

Within six case studies, the current
study found that about 50 percent of all
television-reached households also were
reached by a TPR. As such, the nonalign-
ment of television and price reductions
is demonstrated not only to be a perva-
sive understanding in the media indus-
try but a standard to be a mis-conclusion.
The research also found TPR to be a sig-
nificant driver overall as it averaged an
11.83-percent increased-sales lift over
what television had achieved on its own
across these first six cases.
The authors believe that it is wrong
to conclude that television advertising
should not run coincidental with in-store
TPRs just because television allegedly
softened the effect of discounting by add-
ing brand value perception. Television,
in fact, may weaken price as a stimulus,
but the TPR retains lots of strength to mul-
tiply the sales lift television alone would
have.
Using All Marketing Tactics in Tandem
Maximizes Sales
The current study found that television—
in combination with each of three other
2012

PRICE PROMOTIONS
readable stimuli combinations—produced
an average sales lift higher than television
alone. Using TV in combination with a
TPR and feature and display promotions
maximized sales response. The combina-
tion of all at the same time averaged more
than 11 times the sales effect of television
alone (See Figure 1).
On average, TV by itself produced a
+0.5-percent sales lift over this period.
This uplift may seem small at first glance,
but it measures individual household
levels and, when factored across all of
the households reached by television, the
effect is significant.
Note that there appears to be an impor-
tant synergistic effect. Even double-
counting television by adding TV+TPR’s
+1.8 percent and TV+Feature’s +0.7 per-
cent, the result is only +2.5 percent. It is
hard to believe that display by itself added
the other +3.2 percent. In essence, the total
is more than the sum of the parts. Promo-
tional activities for these six brands did not
allow for the interaction of TV+Display
alone to be measured for each brand to
validate this. The sensible conclusion is
that there was a compounding effect of the
various in-store promotional levers in syn-
ergy with television.
These findings are in synch with other

findings by the authors in a study of a
diet soft drink-brand, where television
performance was greatly increased by a
combination of that medium plus display
(and also by television plus price). It also
aligns with other findings that feature
appeals to a smaller-sized, more price-
sensitive audience and provides lower
volume uplift than other promotional
activities.
The baseline television sales effect upon
which the rest of the stimuli build each
brand can be seen in Figure 2. As is typi-
cal with single source, there is a very wide
range of TV sales effectiveness across
brands.
INDIVIDUAL BRAND RESULTS
Results for individual brand case studies
illustrate the type of findings emerging
from this new methodology and technol-
ogy. Each table includes all combinations
that had sufficient sample sizes. Two of
the metrics analyzed are described below.
Both of these metrics are percentage
increases for the stimuli combination over
the parameter for television alone:
% Reach increase: How much the stim-
uli combination increased coverage of
households (i.e., the percent of house-
holds contacted by at least one of the
stimuli) and
% Volume increase: How much the

stimuli combination increased brand
volume (e.g., ounces) used in place of
dollar volume to separate out from the
negative dollar effects of TPR.
Yogurt Brand A suggests synergy
between the various marketing elem-
ents. Television+TPR produced a healthy
+14-percent volume increase. TV+Feature
increased the effect of television alone
by +9 percent. Further, television com-
bined with feature and display increased
the television effect by +27 percent. All
in-store stimuli had a greater impact
on existing brand buyers. Television
0.5%
1.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Average
Toothpaste G

Toothpaste F
Cereal D
Cereal C
Yogurt B
Yogurt A
B
ra
nd
TV Sales Lift per Household per Week (%)
Figure 2 Six-Brand Average Sales Lift Per Household Per Week
5.7%
0.7%
1.8%
0.5%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
TV + TPR/Feature/Display
TV + Feature
TV + TPR
TV Only

S
ti
m
ul
i
Average Percent Sales Lift
Figure 1 Average Percent Sales Lift
343
PRICE PROMOTIONS
advertising exposure had a greater impact
in bringing in new buyers to the brand
(See Figure 4).
Yogurt Brand B experienced more mod-
est increases from TPR and feature on
top of TV—only 3 percent and 2 percent,
respectively. Feature plus display, how-
ever, added a significant bundled effect,
bringing the overall sales lift to +27 per-
cent. Presumably, the greater part of the
increase in households and volume during
this event was due to the display, which
had the advantage of capturing the con-
sumer at the point of decision.

Similar to yogurt Brand A, all in-store
stimuli had a greater impact on exist-
ing brand buyers, with display having
the greatest impact. Television advertis-
ing exposure had a much greater impact
in bringing in new buyers to the brand
as compared to yogurt Brand A (See
Figure 5).
RTE cereal Brand C showed a 12-percent
increase in volume over TV alone when
TPR was added. Feature added to televi-
sion had almost the same size effect (10
percent) as TPR without cannibalizing rev-
enues as TPR did. Combining feature and
display was the strongest option: the bun-
dle brought total impact to +93 percent,
nearly doubling overall brand volume
(See Figure 6).
RTE cereal Brand D did not benefit
much (4 percent) from adding TPR on
top of television. Feature was used in so
few store/weeks that it did not support a
breakout on its own. The full bundle with
display, however, more than doubled tel-
evision alone, with a +112-percent volume
lift. Combining multiple promotions again
appeared to be a stimulus of immense
power when added to television. Addi-
tionally, all in-store stimuli had a greater
impact on existing brand buyers for both
RTE cereal brands (See Figure 7).
Toothpaste Brand E saw great benefit

from adding TPR on top of television, with
a solid 26-percent increase. Feature again
was not used in enough store/weeks to
read on its own. The TV+Feature+Display
brought the total impact of all stimuli com-
bined up to a substantial +39 percent over
television alone. The study also showed
%
27%
9%
14%
20%
6%
12%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
TV + Feature +
Display
TV + Feature
TV + TPR
S
ti
m
ul

i
% Increase in
Household Reach
% Volume
Increase
Figure 3 Yogurt Brand A Findings
%
27%
2%
3%
25%
2%
4%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
TV + Feature +
Display
TV + Feature
TV + TPR
S
ti
m

ul
i
% Increase in
Household Reach
% Volume
Increase
Figure 4 Yogurt Brand B Findings
%
93%
10%
12%
83%
11%
12%
0 20 40 60 80 100
TV + Feature +
Display
TV + Feature
TV + TPR
S

ti
m
ul
i
% Increase in
Household Reach
% Volume
Increase
Figure 5 RTE Cereal Brand C Findings
2012
PRICE PROMOTIONS
that all in-store stimuli had a greater
impact on existing brand buyers. The
impact, however, was lower than other
categories (See Figure 8).
Toothpaste brand saw the highest
television-produced sales increase of all
six brands in the current study. TPR added
only 5 percent. Feature actually had a
negative effect on sales when added to
television, lowering brand volume among
current purchasers by –3 percent and
across the entire market by –14 percent.

Toothpaste is a highly promoted cat-
egory with considerable brand switch-
ing. The negative results likely were due
to coincidental heavy promotional activ-
ity by a competitive brand. Another fac-
tor: Brand E was not in the feature often;
unlike other brands that were in the fea-
ture more often, any competitive activity
could have affected the analysis of the cur-
rent study. Display once again performed
admirably with a 14-percent lift. The net
positive volume lift across the market-
place of the stimuli bundle was +12 per-
cent, apparently lower than it would have
been without feature.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
IMPLICATIONS
The authors believe that the current paper
demonstrates, for the first time, a method-
ology for measuring and predicting the
synergist impact of in-store tactics with tel-
evision advertising with household-level
data. For this reason, they also believe that
this study carries great implications for the
future of media planning and marketing
spend. Although it does not deliver a blue-
print, it does offer a course of action for
more accurate media buying and a more
strategic allocation of marketing funds.
One important conclusion from this
study is the role of creative and com-
petitive media and their influence on
short-term results. As the current study

demonstrated, results will not be predict-
able based on any simplistic rules or aver-
ages. Each marketer would do well to use
single source to study each brand over
time so as to be able to learn what is work-
ing and what is not and to tune the mix of
stimuli to take fullest advantage of where
creative is working. Further, this type of
analysis can give media planners the tools
%
39%
26%
34%
22%
0 10 20 30 40 50
TV + Feature +
Display
TV + TPR
S
ti
m
ul
i
% Increase in
Household Reach

% Volume
Increase
Figure 7 Toothpaste Brand E Findings
%
12%
14%
–14%
5%
35%
17%
–3%
5%
–20 –10 0 10 20 30 40
S
ti
m
ul
i
% Increase in
Household Reach

% Volume
Increase
TV + TPR
TV + Display
TV + Feature + Display
TV + Feature
Figure 8 Toothpaste Brand Findings
%
112%
4%
97%
6%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TV + Feature +
Display
TV + TPR
S
ti
m
ul
i

% Increase in
Household Reach
% Volume
Increase
Figure 6 RTE Cereal Brand D Findings
345
PRICE PROMOTIONS
to reconcile a competitive brand’s media
mix during the planning process so that
allocations are determined with a high-
resolution understanding of the dynamics
of the category.
The current study includes the first six
brand case studies; as this type of house-
hold level analysis continues, the follow-
ing questions can now be answered:
Under what conditions, and for which
product categories, is there positive
synergy between television and in-store
and between television and price?
How do different consumer groups
respond to the various television and
in-store promotions? Do they work bet-
ter for price-sensitive consumers but not

others?
What is the effect of different promo-
tional stimuli on reaching existing brand
buyers versus reaching new or lapsed
buyers? Does television reach a different
buyer than in-store promotions?
Under what conditions are either of
these combinations negative anti-
synergies? In other words, under what
conditions—and for which product
categories—is it wasteful to use televi-
sion at the same time as either in-store
or price?
What decisions made one way based on
1-year ROI would be made differently
based on 2-year ROI? For example, in
optimizing the three variables, would
more television be used based on 2-year
ROI than on 1-year ROI?
BILL HARVEY, vice chair and CRO, TRA, Inc. has spent more
than 35 years in the area of media research with special
emphasis on new media. As the strategy head of the
American Research Bureau (now Arbitron), he invented
Century Media and New Electronic Media Science,
third-party research companies serving 70+ of the top
100 advertisers and most major cable and satellite
operators, networks, agencies, and other research

companies. He is a former executive of Arbitron,
Interpublic, Grey Advertising, and OpenTV.
TERESE HERBIG, senior vice president, sales and marketing,
TRA, Inc. brings more than 20 years of packaged goods
experience to TRA. Terese has held positions within
SAMI, Nielsen Marketing Research, and Information
Resources. Herbig has held senior positions in Global
Solution
Product Management and Marketing;; CPG and
Retail Marketing and Client Service;; and sales force
development. Follow her on Twitter @therbig
MATTHEW KEYLOCK is senior vice president, new business
development and partnerships at dunnhumbyUSA.

Keylock oversees dunnhumby’s capabilities and growth
in media and marketing effectiveness. Keylock has
been immersed in dunnhumby’s business for more
development of the Clubcard program, its immensely
successful loyalty program and its targeted shopper
communications strategy that have helped to drive
Tesco’s growth. On Twitter: @mattkeylock
RITESH AGGARWAL is Director of Custom Insight at
dunnhumbyUSA, responsible for analyzing customer
purchase behavior to deliver unique, data-driven
insights. He earned a Bachelor ofTechnology in
Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology in Bombay, India, and a Post Graduate

Diploma in Management from the Indian Institute of
Management in Ahmedabad, India.
NINA LERNER is Associate Director of Analysis at
dunnhumbyUSA, responsible for generating
media insights for dunnhumby’s engagement with
key consumer markets’ clients. Prior to joining
Nielsen Company. She earned a Bachelor of Business
Administration in Business Administration with a
Concentration in Marketing from Emory University, and a
Master of Arts in Quantitative Research Methods in the
Social Sciences from Columbia University.

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of
Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

DOI 10.2501JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERT.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DOI 10.2501JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERT.docx

Similar to DOI 10.2501JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERT.docx (20)

More from jacksnathalie

More from jacksnathalie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DOI 10.2501JAR-52-3-339-345 September 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERT.docx