Context Matters
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
5 likes•7,334 views
A brain science study revealing why ads in quality editorial environments are more effective
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Context Matters
Similar to Context Matters (20)
More from Newsworks
More from Newsworks (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Context Matters
- 1. Context Matters: A brain science study revealing why ads in quality editorial environments are more effective
- 2. A key trading dynamic Audience Targeting Context Targeting
- 3. Multiple studies prove that context and environment deliver positive advertising impact
- 4. 3x effective for mid-funnel metrics (favourability, consideration) +51% higher effectiveness The Halo Effect (2016)
- 5. 41% uplift on brand KPI’s (online magazines) 30% longer interaction time Metrics that Matter (2016)
- 6. 16% more personally relevant than social (Facebook) content 13% greater impact on memory encoding than Facebook Your Brain on Premium Content (2017)
- 7. Ad viewing is 2.5x more likely on a newsbrand site 30%+ longer dwell time Attention in a quality environment (2017)
- 8. Ads on newsbrand sites get noticed in roughly half the time required by other sites Digital newsbrand ads 80% more likely to be viewed (when viewable) Paying (for) attention (2017)
- 9. Ads on publisher-branded sites increase consideration by 60% vs. sites without publisher branding For regular readers consideration is 152% higher on publisher- branded sites (In)famous by association (2017)
- 10. Themes from these and other recent studies Editorial media delivers significant… impact on medium-to- long term brand health positive impact on key business metrics “media multiplier” effect - especially for social media
- 11. Can we understand more about this performance? Is context impacting how ads are processed and acted upon?
- 12. Better understand what’s happening in the brain when consumers are exposed to ads in different online environments Focus on editorial contexts vs social media Project objectives Neuroscience the obvious approach to take
- 13. Overview of approach The impact of context is difficult to measure For this study, we used Neuro-Insight’s Steady State Topography (SST) But neuroscience allows us to do this
- 14. Sample and timings 139 respondents 18-60; evenly split by gender Regular internet users Had visited test sites in last month Bespoke tasks: • Newsbrands + Social = 43% • Magazines + Social = 40% • Newsbrands + Magazines = 17% Device split reflective of natural consumption Fieldwork 6th – 10th Nov 2017 in South-East London
- 15. TV intro TV punctuation TV punctuation TV outro Methodology 5 mins 10 mins3 mins 3 mins 3 mins 4 mins Free browsing Participants freely browsed different websites and naturally came across different brand communications Exposure to ads in different contexts Each respondent saw four brand ads, in two of three different environments (newsbrand, magazine and social media) Filmed online journey Respondents viewed film of someone navigating a newsbrand, magazine and then the two social media sites. Film included test and naturally occurring ads A three stage approach was used across the study as a whole
- 18. Memory and attention Correlates with decision-making and purchase intent Measures both left brain (detail and language) and right brain (more global aspects of processing) Long-term memory encoding (LTME) Measures visual attention, recorded in both the left brain (detail) and the right brain (holistic or emotional aspects) Attention
- 19. The “direction” of the emotion being experienced – whether it is positive or negative Approach/withdrawal Emotion and Engagement An indicator of how involved people are Generally triggered by material that is of personal relevance Engagement Relates to the strength of emotion being experienced Emotional intensity
- 20. Key measures and their brain regions RightLeft Engagement (personal relevance) Approach (like) Withdrawal (dislike) Long-term memory encoding (verbal, detail) Long-term memory encoding (emotional/global features) Emotional intensity (arousal)
- 21. Test ads performed the same as naturally occurring ads Placed ads achieved very similar levels and pattern of brain response to other naturally occurring ads in the same contexts 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Approach / Withdraw Memory (R) Emotional intensity Attention (R)Attention (L) Engagement (personal relevance) Memory (L) Placed brand ads (premium + social) All other ads in same contexts
- 22. The pattern of response to ads seen during the general free browsing experience (phase one) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Approach / Withdraw Memory (R) Emotional intensity Attention (R)Attention (L) Engagement (personal relevance) Memory (L) All ads - free browsing
- 23. Ads in social media elicited stronger levels of response than ads encountered during general free browsing - except for left brain memory encoding (for words and detail) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Approach / Withdraw Memory (R) Emotional intensity Attention (R)Attention (L) Engagement (personal relevance) Memory (L) Placed brand ads - social All ads - free browsing
- 24. Ads in premium environments also elicit stronger levels of response than ads encountered during general free browsing Premium environments outperformed social on all metrics except attention 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Approach / Withdraw Memory (R) Emotional intensity Attention (R)Attention (L) Engagement (personal relevance) Memory (L) Placed brand ads - Premium Placed brand ads - social All ads - free browsing
- 25. Ads placed in premium and social perform better than ‘run of internet’ But what performance differences exist between social and premium?
- 26. 17%more time viewing ads on premium sites than on social media 9.1 7.8 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Premium Social Medianduration(seconds) Average time spent on the five brand ads on premium and social media
- 27. Engagement (personal relevance) is notably stronger for ads on premium sites 29% higher than on social media Comparison of brain response for premium and social media 0.71 0.72 0.66 0.56 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Emotional Intensity Engagement (personal relevance)Levelsofbrainresponse Premium Social
- 28. Comparison of brain response for premium and free browsing 0.71 0.72 0.57 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Emotional Intensity Engagement (personal relevance) Levelsofbrainresponse Premium Free browsing Emotional Intensity is: 25% higher on premium sites than during general free browsing Engagement (personal relevance) is: 50% higher on premium sites than during general free browsing
- 29. But do the higher levels of engagement, emotional intensity and time spent viewing via premium sites deliver better memory encoding?
- 30. Left brain memory encoding (for words and detail) is: 42%stronger on premium sites than social 0.68 0.60 0.48 0.55 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Memory - Left Memory - RightLevelsofbrainresponse Premium Social Right brain memory encoding (overall general picture) is: 9%stronger on premium sites than social Comparison of left and right brain memory encoding for premium and social media
- 31. Left brain memory encoding (for words and detail) is: 21%stronger on premium sites than during general free browsing Right brain memory encoding (overall general picture) is: 13%stronger on premium sites than during general free browsing 0.68 0.60 0.56 0.53 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Memory - Left Memory - Right Levelsofbrainresponse Premium Free browsing Comparison of left and right brain memory encoding for premium and free browsing
- 32. Correct targeting is important But environment and context are key for enhanced performance – this study helps us understand why Premium and social environments outperform the online ‘average’ Premium and social media have complementary strengths: • Social media provide a holistic, visual, overall brand impression • Premium stimulates high levels of left brain memory encoding (words and detail) and engagement (personal relevance) • Both produce emotional intensity
- 33. So… … do environment and context matter in today’s programmatic world?
- 34. Context Matters: A brain science study revealing why ads in quality editorial environments are more effective
Editor's Notes
- In the current media environment, context has broadened from ‘environment’ to include factors such as: location, day of week, time of day and mind-set. But environment is still a highly important factor – and one that is potentially a lot more controllable by agencies than the other factors. The recent growth of audience targeting and programmatic implementation has, for many agencies and advertisers, downgraded the importance of environment as the focus for advertising placement has been on buying audience exposures at the lowest possible cost irrespective of environment. This trend is a commercial threat to many AOP and Newsworks members. And in many cases, ignoring environment may be resulting in reduced impact and performance for advertisers. Much of the audience targeting is delivered via programmatic trading. 77% of UK display is currently traded programmatically (Zenith) and predicted to grow. Our hypothesis is that the same person can have very different responses to an ad depending on the environment in which it appears. A focus on audience targeting, without taking into account the impact of context, could fail to optimise responses. A Times reader may not respond to an ad on Facebook in the same way that she responds to the same ad in the Times Online.
- There have been a number of recent, independent, studies that have shown that the context/environment provided by premium publisher environments outperform other digital environments (including social media) on a number of key business and brand measures. Studies include…
- Summary: comScore US wanted to understand whether its true that ads appearing on premium publishers performed better than on other inventory? And if it’s true that premium inventory performs better, how much more valuable is it? They conducted research to examine the branding effectiveness of digital display and video ads appearing on Digital Content Next (DCN) member sites (seen as ‘premium’) compared to non-member sites. (FYI – DCN is the US equivalent of the AOP.) The study found that this segment of publishers delivered significantly better branding effectiveness results across a number of measures. The primary driver of this increased effectiveness is the halo effect that comes from the value of the contextual environment in which these ads are seen. Methodology: comScore compared metrics of inventory quality and advertising effectiveness for DCN premium publishers vs. all other publishers. The study analysed the brand lift results for 15 large brand display and video ad campaigns across a number of advertiser categories, including consumer packaged goods, household goods, auto, consumer electronics, and telecom. The campaigns were selected from among previously run comScore Brand Survey Lift studies that were sufficiently large in impression volume, ran on both DCN and non-DCN publishers, had at least 400 total survey respondents, had at least 75 respondents in the DCN publisher exposed group, and had at least one brand metric showing statistically significant lift. Year: 2016
- Summary: ‘Metrics that Matter’ acknowledges that metrics such as relevance and quality are much harder to move than others. These metrics also have some of the most significant impacts on brand KPI’s. The deep and meaningful connections magazine readers have with their chosen magazine brands makes them better drivers of key KPI’s. Methodology: Magnetic teamed up with Carat Insight, making use of their Integrated Communications Evaluation (ICE) tool – gaining access to a back catalogue of print, online magazine environments, display, advertorial and native activity. This consists of 65 studies, dating 2010-2015. Carat looked at all of the campaigns from the last five years to make comparisons. For a more detailed magazine media analysis, they focused on 39 magazine media campaigns, amounting over £11m in spend with publishers. ICE is a three stage process whereby people are asked about their brand perceptions, experiences and whether they recognise marketing and media activity in-situ. Carat then performs factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) to quantify themes and finally regression analysis to isolate and quantify how effective each touchpoint is. Year: 2016
- Summary: Teads.tv partnered with Neuro-Insight in the US to quantify the value of premium content for video advertising. The findings show that premium editorial content outperforms Facebook in 3 ways: - More personally relevant (16% more personally relevant than Facebook social content) - Creates memorable advertising experiences - Provides an opportunity for a broad range of creative strategies to be successful Methodology: Neuro-mapping approach measuring brain activity looking at specific regions of the brain. - Environment: Two test groups of n=50. One was exposed to eight, 15-second video ads on mobile within premium articles; the other group was exposed to the same eight ads within their personal Facebook feed - Four publishing brand environments: Time Inc., Conde Nast, Forbes, and The Atlantic - Social Environment Tested: Facebook Social Content - Advertiser Video Creatives: eight, 15-second mobile creative spots across CPG, QSR, hospitality, entertainment, electronics, retail, and Ecommerce
- Summary: Eye-tracking research to demonstrate the value of newsbrands’ print and digital offerings for brands. Shows the high levels of attention paid to ads on newsbrands, with uplifts in standout (whether an ad is seen) and dwell time (length of time ad is looked at) compared with non-newsbrand sites/publications. Methodology: Digital and print data collected through desktop eye-tracking devices. Digital – Tested through Aimia Lumen 500 strong panel. Panellists were asked to read articles on a selection of newsbrand and other sites, browsing naturally Print – Print tested via a hall test. Sample = 739 for Christmas element and 160 for Black Friday element. Respondents asked to read the first 19 pages of a pdf copy of either The Mirror, The Metro, The Daily Mail, The Times or The Sun. Year: 2017
- Summary: Lumen Research demonstrates the advantages of the quality digital newsbrand environment, as evidenced by eye-tracking. Viewable ads don’t always get viewed, but digital newsbrands provide a quality inventory and out-perform all other sites on attention, getting noticed earlier and viewed for longer. Brands can outperform the market if they invest in quality inventory like newsbrand sites. Methodology: On-going eye-tracking research conducted by Lumen, using their 500 strong UK wide panel. Year: 2017
- Summary: Inskin Media worked with ResearchNow and Conquest Research to investigate reactions to online advertising in different scenarios. They wanted to find out what impact an ad’s environment has on its effectiveness? Does the tone and content of an article really affect perception of the brand advertising around it? Methodology: An online test with multiple brands, display formats and publishers. From July – August 2017, a nationally representative sample of 4,364 UK respondents was surveyed using both explicit and implicit measurement methodologies in order to uncover both conscious and subconscious associations people held of the brands tested. Year: 2017
- The studies outline in the previous charts use different research methodologies and cover different countries/environments/metrics. However, there are some very clear themes about how advertising within editorial/premium environments is performing vs. other types of digital context…
- Rather than doing a study to provide (yet more) evidence of the better performance, AOP & Newsworks felt it would be more appropriate to conduct a study to try to understand why the better performance exists. An obvious starting point was to investigate whether context was impacting performance.
- It seems logical that a key determinant of advertising performance is what is happening in the brain when people are exposed to communications. For this study we decided to focus on editorial/premium environments (provide by AOP/Newsworks members) and compare brain activity with social media environments. To best understand this we decided that implementing a neuroscience study would be appropriate.
- The impact of different media contexts is hard to assess using traditional approaches, as people simply aren’t aware of the way in which context impacts their perceptions and therefore find it hard to articulate. Removing conscious responses by looking at changes in measured brain response allows these differences in impact to be quantified and understood in a way that would be difficult to establish using conventional research approaches. For this study, the chosen approach was Neuro-Insight’s unique technology - Steady State Topography (SST), which measures second by second electrical activity in the brain in order to report on various cognitive functions proven to relate to advertising impact. SST has been used extensively in the medical profession since it was first developed in 1990. The technology has been used to look at brain function associated with: various emotional processes, long-term memory, working memory, visual vigilance and abnormal brain functions such as schizophrenia and ADHD. SST has been used in market research for over 15 years.
- This is just an expanded version of the previous chart – don’t need to present both!!!
- The second by second electrical activity in the brain is measured by the use of a skull-cap (see picture on the slide). As shown in a later chart, it is known where in the brain certain activities happen (e.g. memory encoding) so this can be matched with the images respondents were being exposed to at the moment specific brain activities were happening. For shared activities, like watching television, Neuro-Insight record the second by second responses of all participants in real time. When people are carrying out individual activities (i.e. in our study) their second-by-second responses can’t be aggregated in the same way because everyone is acting in their own particular timeframe. In these cases, individual behaviour is recorded using a video camera. Time codes on each individual film are used to mark specific activities – e.g. looking at a particular web page or reading a particular section of the newspaper. Using bespoke software, Neuro-Insight can synchronise these coded pieces of activity with individual brain response and aggregate these coded activities across the group as a whole. In every group Neuro-Insight run, participants are shown video clips comprising images and music that have been developed to elicit a particular brain response. Neuro-Insight know what response to expect in relation to this material, and this allows them to create a baseline reading of the brain for each participant; enabling the consistent benchmarking of responses across groups and studies. Key points to stress on the methodology for our study are: Sample size is quite big for a neuroscience project Respondents were not forced to go to any particular site – they were given sites that they would normally read We tried to reflect normal device usage in how respondents were exposed to content – e.g. Facebook mainly via mobile See Neuro-Insight Q&A document for responses to most of the questions people normally raise about the methodology and measures.
- The study consisted of three phases punctuated by periods watching a (generic day-time) TV programme designed to ‘re-set’ brain activity. The free browsing phase is designed to get respondents used to the measurement equipment + to identify and collect each person’s ‘normal’ brain activity levels. In this phase, respondents were given free choice of what sites to surf. This resulted in them in being naturally exposed to a number of ads, enabling us to measure brain activity for ‘run of internet’ ads The core part of the study is the second phase where respondents were directed to two out of three of the environments we were testing (newsbrand, magazine and social media). In each environment, respondents were given a number of options for sites they could browse. Each respondent had a bespoke set of sites they could select based upon sites they had visited in the past month. Respondents were directed to look at the sites on mobile or desktop as defined by the sample design (and their normal consumption behaviour). On each site, respondents were exposed to the test ads – meaning that we could monitor the differences in brain activity when respondents saw the same ads but in different contexts. The core metrics reported by this study were generated by this phase of the study. In the final phase of the study, respondents watched a filmed journey of the sites and ads within the study. The brain data from this phase has not been used in the results reporting at this stage.
- The sites included within the study. Respondents were given a number of options for the sites they could browse. Each respondent had a bespoke set of sites they could select based upon sites they had visited in the past month.
- The five advertisers who provided creative content for the study. The ads were from current campaigns and were a mixture of creative types – including video.
- The two key metrics calculated within the study are: Long-term Memory Encoding (LTME). This is the key metric and is a measure of how much activity is happening in the parts of the brain where memories are stored. The Neuro-Insight technology measures both left brain (detail and language) and right brain (more global aspects of processing) LTME. LTME measures what’s being encoded into long-term memory as people are exposed to a stimulus. It does not record what is already in memory, but what is being stored, or laid down, on a second by second basis. “Long-term” means effectively anything that is stored for more than a few minutes. LTME is proven to correlate with decision making a purchase behaviour. Support evidence includes: Evidence for this has been published in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Advertising – focussing on an Australian jam brand and brand switching behaviour following high levels of LTME. Using econometric analysis of 20 FMCG executions it was found that a 0.86 correlation existed between LTME and market effectiveness A study in association with Mars Foods looking at a range of performance measures found that the greatest correlation with actual sales performance was LTME. More conventional measures such as recall, recognition and likability achieved much lower levels of correlation. Attention. Measures visual attention, recorded in both the left brain (detail) and the right brain (holistic or emotional aspects). It’s important to stress that visual attention doesn’t correlate with much else – you can have very high levels of visual attention, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the information will be encoded/stored into long-term memory. (The study results seem to suggest that this is what is happening with social media – good attention but weaker LTME.) (Also, to note that visual attention and time spent on a site are independent of one another. Visual attention is often associated with fast-moving, visually stimulating material. When someone is scrolling quickly through something, as they often do on social media, visual attention is therefore high, but the time they spend on any specific material is low.) See Neuro-Insight Q&A document for responses to most of the questions people normally raise about the methodology and measures.
- The study also collects data on secondary metrics. Interesting in their own right but, most importantly, shown to impact on LTME brain activity: Engagement. An indicator of how involved people are with the content - generally triggered by material that is of personal relevance Emotional Intensity. Relates to the strength of emotion being experienced. Approach / Withdrawal. The “direction” of the emotion being experienced – whether it is positive (approach) or negative (withdrawal). Wider advertising research analysis has shown that achieving an emotional response is key to performance of communications. However, the response does not have to be positive – in some situations producing a negative emotion is the objective of the communications. See Neuro-Insight Q&A document for responses to most of the questions people normally raise about the methodology and measures.
- Map showing where in the brain medical science has shown the various key measures happen. The SST and skullcap methodology know these areas are being activated by measuring both the location and amount of electrical activity happening at the moment respondents are being exposed to (test) content.
- A key validation for the study was how the test/placed ads performed on the Neuro-Insight metrics vs all the other ads the respondents saw during the experiment. (The other – non-placed – ads were either in the first free browsing phase or naturally occurred during the second phase where we had placed the test ads.) On all key metrics no significant difference was measured. The test ads were no better or worse at delivering against the Neuro-Insight metrics than naturally occurring ads seen in the same context. In other words, the test creative could not be ‘accused’ of being high (or low) performing.
- Sites visited in the free browsing task were quite varied – and included a number of ‘long tail’ sites. The main genres visited were: BBC (where, of course, there are no ads!!!) E-mail General topic search Social Media (inc. YouTube) Sky Sports Retail (inc. Amazon) Sports websites Savings websites Review websites
- Ads on social (YouTube and Facebook) performed better on most metrics than ads seen in the general free browsing Performance was especially good on attention. The one area where social performed less well was left brain memory encoding – i.e. despite the good attention levels less detail was being stored in the memory.
- Premium sites outperformed general free browsing on all metrics Premium sites outperformed social on all metrics except attention – i.e. despite less attention than social media more was being stored in the memory; possibly as a result of higher relevance and emotional intensity.
- It’s clear that both premium and social environments deliver better on key metrics than ‘run of internet’ (long tail); suggesting that agencies should give consideration to the implications of not selecting these environments. However, what can the study help us understand about the differences between social and premium/editorial environments?
- Comparing the five placed/test ads when shown in social media vs premium sites, on average consumers spent 17% longer viewing the ads when they were seen in a premium editorial environment
- Engagement (a measure of the sense of personal relevance) with the ads was 29% higher when they were seen in a premium editorial environment compared to when the same ads were seen in a social media environment.
- Whilst the project is really designed to focus on social media; this chart shows direct performance of premium vs general browsing in case the question is asked… Engagement (a measure of the sense of personal relevance) levels were even more pronounced (50% higher) when comparing the placed ads seen in a premium environment vs ads seen when free browsing. Premium sites also prompt higher levels of engagement (+25%) vs ads encountered in a free browsing context. Since social media sites are also outperforming general browsing; the combination of social media and premium editorial sites will drive much higher brain responses on emotional measures than the same people experience when seeing the same ads in a “run of internet” (or long tail) browsing environment. Strategies that simply target the individual, without taking context into account will miss out on the power of context to optimise response. Tracking that only measures views and clicks will also fail to differentiate – meaning that advertisers will potentially miss out of powerful brand building effects.
- YES!!! Memory encoding – crucial because of its proven correlation with subsequent decision making behaviour – was significantly stronger for ads on premium sites than on social media. Left brain encoding (words and details) was found to be particularly (42%) higher when the ads were seen on premium editorial sites. Left brain memory encoding was stronger than right brain for each of the five study ads – i.e. across different categories and creative types.
- Again – this chart is included to show performance vs. general browsing in case people ask… Premium sites also deliver better memory encoding than sites encountered when the same people are free browsing. The left brain uplifts are not as much as those vs social media – suggesting that social media may be relatively weak vs. all other environments for helping laydown in memory words and details. The gap is less for right brain encoding suggesting that social is relatively better at helping get across the overall general picture (rather than detail). This suggests that, for longer term effectiveness, original content publishers, provide a more fertile environment for brands (and backs up empirical data from IPA Databank analysis and newsbrand case studies).
- So in a nutshell…