Evaluating the role of banner advertising in strengthening brand relationships A paper by Kartikeya Kompella ESOMAR/ARF Conference, Athens June 2001
The Online Advertising Scenario Advertisers have been hesitant to spend money on online advertising possibly because they do not know what objectives to set for online advertising This has led to many advertisers looking at online advertising only as an experiment  While the online advertising industry has been growing, its size is only a fraction of its potential ADVERTISERS NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GETTING FROM ONLINE ADVERTISING
Advertisers’ Operating Environment Higher sales targets Intense competition Finite budgets - often inadequate for the task Spiraling media inflation High opportunity cost involved when choosing one medium over another Decision to use online advertising- not an easy one
Questions That Advertisers Ask What are the advertising objectives that can  be achieved through online advertising ? What is the effectiveness of online  advertising in meeting these objectives ? What is the unique advantage that the  Internet provides advertisers ? Online advertising needs to provide answers - convincingly and quickly   !
Examining the bias against banners
What’s The Problem With Banners ?  Banners - the most popular form of online advertising However, banner sizes are considered to be small when compared to conventional print advertising sizes
Banners And Ad Effectiveness  Advertisers often associate advertising effectiveness with noticeability Noticeability is associated with ad size  Online advertising therefore perceived to be not conducive to advertising effectiveness because of the small size of the ads
This Project A first step in understanding the nature of advertising objectives that can be set for online advertising. Understanding the effectiveness of online advertising in meeting advertising objectives.
Hypothesis 1  Meaningful values are critical to any relationship Communicating brand values is critical in the brand building process Therefore if banners are able to communicate brand values then banners can be said to be helping in the branding process
Hypothesis 2 Relevance and differentiation - two key determinants of the strength of a brand relationship If banners can help in increasing brand relevance and differentiation, banners can be seen as helping in strengthening brand relationships
Hypothesis 3  If interactivity can help in communicating brand values or in enhancing brand relevance/ differentiation, then interactivity can be said to be helping in the brand building process or in strengthening brand relationships. Interactivity here is defined as the ability to summon a new web page by clicking a banner/link on a website
Methodology An online quantitative study was undertaken to study brand perceptions. Experimental design Comprising three matched samples
Testing The Hypotheses Hypothesis testing through three different levels of stimuli  -  no stimuli - banner as a stimuli  - microsite as a stimuli
The Brand In Question The brand selected was Timex watches which in India was attempting a repositioning exercise and depicting new values. Moving from a low cost functional watch to a high tech gadget
Creatives Used Banner ad which stated ‘Download your schedule off your PC onto your watch’ Mentioned that Timex is America’s No 1 watch Featured the Timex baseline ‘technology that keeps you ticking’ Microsite - one page microsite that reinforces the banner message
Brand Values  The Timex values that were sought to be communicated were : Youthfulness Aesthetics Technology Innovativeness Leadership Modernity International brand
Administering The Questionnaire -1 Stage 1 - a pop up questionnaire was served and respondents perceptions of Timex were solicited Stage 2 - a Timex banner was shown for 40 seconds following which the banner was removed and a pop up questionnaire was served
Administering The Questionnaire - 2 Stage 3 - people who clicked on the Timex banner were taken to the Timex microsite; on closing the microsite, a pop up questionnaire  was served Cookies were used to ensure that respondents who were administered the questionnaire once would not be served the questionnaire again
Questionnaire Design Radio button oriented questionnaires All questionnaires were similar  Provided for some form of homogeneity across respondents either through response or behaviour
Questionnaire Design Respondents could not progress from one question to the next without completing the earlier questions Tested scales were used to measure the brand values as well as the brand’s perceived relevance and differentiation
Sites Advertised On  Indiainfo.com Indya.com Newindpress.com / indiavartha.com Hungama.com Zdnetindia.com Sify.com Approximately 380000 impressions were used for this project
Sample Definition Age 20-29 years Socio economic classification A/B Homogeneity was ensured in each of the samples through response or behaviour Only respondents who qualified on recruitment criteria and consistent responses were retained All respondents were residents of India
Samples After Data Clean Up  Stage1 - Sample1 - 378 Stage 2 - Total 1088  - Sample 2 (people who were shown the banner but do not recall having seen it) - 539 - Sample 3 (people who were shown the banner and recall having seen it)- 549 Stage 3 (people who clicked on the banner) Sample 4 - 40
Tests Run One way ANOVA - established that each of the samples were different from the others 2 sample t test - used to examine the difference in the mean across the samples
Findings - 1 The difference in brand value perceptions between respondents in sample 1 and sample 3 were significantly different The mean of sample 3 was significantly higher than the mean of sample 1. This indicated that the stimuli of the banner had induced a change in perceptions
Findings - 2 Sample 1 (respondents who were not shown the banner) and Sample 2 (respondents who were shown the banner but did not notice it) were found to be similar Vis a vis brand values, the mean of Sample 3 was found to be higher than that of Sample 2
Findings - 3  The mean of sample 3 was higher than that of sample 1 on the parameters of relevance and differentiation This indicates that the relevance and differentiation scores were enhanced by the banner
Findings - 4 The difference in brand value perceptions between respondents in sample 3 and sample 4 were not significantly different The mean of sample 4 was not significantly higher than the mean of sample 3. This indicated that the stimuli of the microsite did not induce a significant change in perceptions.  Interactivity did not make a difference !
Conclusions Banners can play a role in brand building Brand values can be communicated and perceptions changed through banner advertising Brand relevance and differentiation can be communicated through banner advertising Interactivity does not influence brand perceptions or communication of brand relevance/differentiation
Limitations The study was carried out across a single brand/category  The study involved the use of a single banner and  a single microsite None of the sites had neutral content; the content could have influenced respondents’ perceptions There is a possibility that the same person encountered the survey multiple times by logging in from different computers or by deleting cookies on the computer
Suggestions For Future Research Studies examining the effectiveness of banners in meeting different advertising objectives Studies examining the effectiveness of different online advertising opportunities such as sponsorships, contests etc in meeting ad objectives  Studies examining the relative effectiveness of online advertising vis a vis other media in meeting ad objectives
Thank You

Esomar Last

  • 1.
    Evaluating the roleof banner advertising in strengthening brand relationships A paper by Kartikeya Kompella ESOMAR/ARF Conference, Athens June 2001
  • 2.
    The Online AdvertisingScenario Advertisers have been hesitant to spend money on online advertising possibly because they do not know what objectives to set for online advertising This has led to many advertisers looking at online advertising only as an experiment While the online advertising industry has been growing, its size is only a fraction of its potential ADVERTISERS NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GETTING FROM ONLINE ADVERTISING
  • 3.
    Advertisers’ Operating EnvironmentHigher sales targets Intense competition Finite budgets - often inadequate for the task Spiraling media inflation High opportunity cost involved when choosing one medium over another Decision to use online advertising- not an easy one
  • 4.
    Questions That AdvertisersAsk What are the advertising objectives that can be achieved through online advertising ? What is the effectiveness of online advertising in meeting these objectives ? What is the unique advantage that the Internet provides advertisers ? Online advertising needs to provide answers - convincingly and quickly !
  • 5.
    Examining the biasagainst banners
  • 6.
    What’s The ProblemWith Banners ? Banners - the most popular form of online advertising However, banner sizes are considered to be small when compared to conventional print advertising sizes
  • 7.
    Banners And AdEffectiveness Advertisers often associate advertising effectiveness with noticeability Noticeability is associated with ad size Online advertising therefore perceived to be not conducive to advertising effectiveness because of the small size of the ads
  • 8.
    This Project Afirst step in understanding the nature of advertising objectives that can be set for online advertising. Understanding the effectiveness of online advertising in meeting advertising objectives.
  • 9.
    Hypothesis 1 Meaningful values are critical to any relationship Communicating brand values is critical in the brand building process Therefore if banners are able to communicate brand values then banners can be said to be helping in the branding process
  • 10.
    Hypothesis 2 Relevanceand differentiation - two key determinants of the strength of a brand relationship If banners can help in increasing brand relevance and differentiation, banners can be seen as helping in strengthening brand relationships
  • 11.
    Hypothesis 3 If interactivity can help in communicating brand values or in enhancing brand relevance/ differentiation, then interactivity can be said to be helping in the brand building process or in strengthening brand relationships. Interactivity here is defined as the ability to summon a new web page by clicking a banner/link on a website
  • 12.
    Methodology An onlinequantitative study was undertaken to study brand perceptions. Experimental design Comprising three matched samples
  • 13.
    Testing The HypothesesHypothesis testing through three different levels of stimuli - no stimuli - banner as a stimuli - microsite as a stimuli
  • 14.
    The Brand InQuestion The brand selected was Timex watches which in India was attempting a repositioning exercise and depicting new values. Moving from a low cost functional watch to a high tech gadget
  • 15.
    Creatives Used Bannerad which stated ‘Download your schedule off your PC onto your watch’ Mentioned that Timex is America’s No 1 watch Featured the Timex baseline ‘technology that keeps you ticking’ Microsite - one page microsite that reinforces the banner message
  • 16.
    Brand Values The Timex values that were sought to be communicated were : Youthfulness Aesthetics Technology Innovativeness Leadership Modernity International brand
  • 17.
    Administering The Questionnaire-1 Stage 1 - a pop up questionnaire was served and respondents perceptions of Timex were solicited Stage 2 - a Timex banner was shown for 40 seconds following which the banner was removed and a pop up questionnaire was served
  • 18.
    Administering The Questionnaire- 2 Stage 3 - people who clicked on the Timex banner were taken to the Timex microsite; on closing the microsite, a pop up questionnaire was served Cookies were used to ensure that respondents who were administered the questionnaire once would not be served the questionnaire again
  • 19.
    Questionnaire Design Radiobutton oriented questionnaires All questionnaires were similar Provided for some form of homogeneity across respondents either through response or behaviour
  • 20.
    Questionnaire Design Respondentscould not progress from one question to the next without completing the earlier questions Tested scales were used to measure the brand values as well as the brand’s perceived relevance and differentiation
  • 21.
    Sites Advertised On Indiainfo.com Indya.com Newindpress.com / indiavartha.com Hungama.com Zdnetindia.com Sify.com Approximately 380000 impressions were used for this project
  • 22.
    Sample Definition Age20-29 years Socio economic classification A/B Homogeneity was ensured in each of the samples through response or behaviour Only respondents who qualified on recruitment criteria and consistent responses were retained All respondents were residents of India
  • 23.
    Samples After DataClean Up Stage1 - Sample1 - 378 Stage 2 - Total 1088 - Sample 2 (people who were shown the banner but do not recall having seen it) - 539 - Sample 3 (people who were shown the banner and recall having seen it)- 549 Stage 3 (people who clicked on the banner) Sample 4 - 40
  • 24.
    Tests Run Oneway ANOVA - established that each of the samples were different from the others 2 sample t test - used to examine the difference in the mean across the samples
  • 25.
    Findings - 1The difference in brand value perceptions between respondents in sample 1 and sample 3 were significantly different The mean of sample 3 was significantly higher than the mean of sample 1. This indicated that the stimuli of the banner had induced a change in perceptions
  • 26.
    Findings - 2Sample 1 (respondents who were not shown the banner) and Sample 2 (respondents who were shown the banner but did not notice it) were found to be similar Vis a vis brand values, the mean of Sample 3 was found to be higher than that of Sample 2
  • 27.
    Findings - 3 The mean of sample 3 was higher than that of sample 1 on the parameters of relevance and differentiation This indicates that the relevance and differentiation scores were enhanced by the banner
  • 28.
    Findings - 4The difference in brand value perceptions between respondents in sample 3 and sample 4 were not significantly different The mean of sample 4 was not significantly higher than the mean of sample 3. This indicated that the stimuli of the microsite did not induce a significant change in perceptions. Interactivity did not make a difference !
  • 29.
    Conclusions Banners canplay a role in brand building Brand values can be communicated and perceptions changed through banner advertising Brand relevance and differentiation can be communicated through banner advertising Interactivity does not influence brand perceptions or communication of brand relevance/differentiation
  • 30.
    Limitations The studywas carried out across a single brand/category The study involved the use of a single banner and a single microsite None of the sites had neutral content; the content could have influenced respondents’ perceptions There is a possibility that the same person encountered the survey multiple times by logging in from different computers or by deleting cookies on the computer
  • 31.
    Suggestions For FutureResearch Studies examining the effectiveness of banners in meeting different advertising objectives Studies examining the effectiveness of different online advertising opportunities such as sponsorships, contests etc in meeting ad objectives Studies examining the relative effectiveness of online advertising vis a vis other media in meeting ad objectives
  • 32.