At the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) 2011 annual re:think convention, a key issues forum presentation was held entitled, Identifying Maximum Impact Media Placement Strategies II: When Money Moves to Digital, Where Should it Go? Research done on the effectiveness of digital marketing along with key findings was presented by Anne Hunter-VP, Advertising Effectiveness at comScore.

2. Identifying Maximum Impact
Media Placement Strategies II
When Money Moves to
Digital, Where Should it Go?
Anne Hunter
VP, Advertising Effectiveness
comScore

3. Background
Continuing on a successful ARF paper
• Last year comScore and ValueClick presented a paper
to the ARF on the impact of various media placement
strategies in digital media
• The goal of the research was to help marketers
understand how to allocate the money they were
moving to digital and potentially provide a basis for a
Market Mix Model for digital
• The response to the paper was overwhelming
– Over 1,500 people downloaded it from the comScore site
– Presented at the MIXX conference and IAB site

4. What We Learned
Using behavioral search and site visitation lifts
using AdEffx™ Action Lift™
• Different strategies drove very different results
• The best performing strategies changed from the
short-term to long-term
• Retargeting drove both organic search and site
visitations better than all other online display buying
strategies
• When multiple strategies were used in
concert, results were often higher than when a single
strategy was used alone

5. Site Visitation Lifts by Media Placement
Strategy Over 4 Weeks
Highest % Lift in Highest % Lift in
Visitation within 1 week Visitation within 4 weeks
1. Retargeting* 1. Retargeting*
2. Audience 2. Audience
3. Efficiency* 3. Contextual
4. RON* 4. Premium
5. Contextual 5. RON*
6. Premium 6. Efficiency*
*Indicates strategy that is based on optimizing to site visitation

6. Insights Lead to Questions
Clients asked us to continue the research
• Do placement strategies work the same way when
measured by attitudinal data?
• What are the effects outside of a single ad network?
• How are different strategies affected by frequency?
• Could frequency be the cause of the
multiplier effect?
• What is the cost per lift by strategy?

7. Methods
Meta data by strategy
• To understand the relative costs of achieving the attitudinal
lifts and coverage we evaluated prices paid for each strategy
across a wide variety of industries. In order reflect current
pricing and buying methods, 6,362 individual placements
which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used
in the cost evaluation.
• All costs were normalized to a CPM basis
• Reach was determined using census tags placed on all ads in
combination with comScore’s 2 million worldwide person
panel to create a unified person based reach calculation.
4,454 of the above placements were used to calculate the
reach and frequency estimates using AdEffx™ Campaign
Essentials™.

8. Methods
Attitudinal analysis, massive scale
• 256 campaigns which included 4,454 individual placements
which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used
in the attitudinal analysis with AdEffx™ Brand Survey Lift™
• All campaigns had a brand focused objective and at least
15 distinct campaigns per strategy with most strategies
averaging 62 studies per strategy. There were an average
of 36,500 survey respondents per strategy.
• Altitudinal lift was calculated from in-flight survey responses
based on exposure to a census tagged ad campaign. On scaled
questions top two boxes out of seven were considered
positive. comScore’s Smart Control™ methodology was used
to calculate lifts of exposure based on the difference between
the base lifts and incremental lifts generated by exposure.

9. Placement Strategies Evaluated
• Audience Targeted – Ads placed run of site or run of network which were
additionally targeted to a specific demographic or behavior usually by
cookie targeting
• Context – Ads which were placed in content relevant to the brand
• High Impact* – Ads which took over a high percentage of the viewers
screen usually involving sight, sound and motion such as home page
takeover units
• Retargeting – Ads where were shown to people who had previously
visited the marketer’s site
• ROS and RON – Ads placed either run of site or run of network which did
not have any additional targeting. They are often auto optimized via an
ad server to the high converting audiences.
• Sponsorship* – Ads which surrounded premium content, usually in a
permanent position and implied support of the content
*New to wave 2

10. Measures Evaluated
Awareness Measures Impact Measures
• Ad Recall • Brand Favorability
Did they remember seeing Did they think highly of the
the measured brand ads measured brand
• Aided Awareness • Intent to Recommend
Were they aware of the Would they recommend the
measured brand when measured brand to a friend
prompted
• Intent to Purchase
• Top of Mind Recall Did they intend to buy the
When asked for the first measured brand
brand they thought of,
did they mention the
measured brand

11. Strategies Vary in Cost and Reach
Each has a different level of scarcity and value in
the market – site placements have highest costs
$14 250
$12
200
$10
Reach Index
150
Average CPM
$8
$6 100 Reach Index
$4 Average CPM
50
$2
$0 0

12. Frequency Varies by Strategy
Remarketing and sponsorship have very high
variance between mean and median frequencies
9
8
7
6
Frequency
5
4
3 Average frequency
2
1 Median frequency
- Variance

13. Example: Sponsorship Frequency
Distribution Variance
Most people see ads 1-2x while most impressions
are served to 20% of the viewers
Average
70%
frequency
60% is
50% 6.67, media
n is 2.96
40%
Impressions
30%
Viewers
20%
10%
0%
f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+

14. The More You Show Ads, the More
People are Aware of Them
Average point lift across all strategies and
industries for awareness measures
8
7
6
5
4
Average Point Lift
3
2
1
-
f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+
Results significant at 90% confidence

15. But Not All Ad Strategies Generate the
Same Awareness
High Impact ads and ROS and RON generated the
highest lifts in awareness, from lowest bases
40% 2
1.8
% of Viewers Already Aware
35%
1.6
30%
1.4
25% 1.2
Average
Point Lift
20% 1
Point Lift
15% 0.8
0.6
10% Base Line
0.4
5% Awareness
0.2
0% 0

16. The More You Show Ads, the More They
Influence People
Average point lift across all strategies and
industries for impact measures
0.9 But generating
0.8 lift in impact
0.7 is much
0.6 harder than
0.5 generating lift
0.4 in awareness
0.3
0.2 Average Point Lift
0.1
0
f 1-2 f 3-4 f 5-6 f 7-8 f 9+

17. Not All Ad Strategies Generate the
Same Impact
Remarketing and High Impact ads greatly increase
perceptions of a brand
50% 2.5
% Already Impacted by Brand
45%
40% 2
35% Average
30% 1.5
Point Lift
Point Lift
25%
20% 1 Base Line
15% Impact
10% 0.5
5%
0% 0
Audience Context High Remarketing ROS and Sponsorship
Targeted Impact RON

18. Sponsorship and High Impact Ads Work
Well But at a Cost
Audience targeting generates lift most
inexpensively
Awareness Impact Lift Cost per Cost per
Average Average Cost per Lift Points Points per Awareness Impact Lift
CPM Frequency Viewer per Viewer Viewer Lift Point Point
Audience $7.35 4.47 $0.03 0.35 0.63 $0.01 $0.02
Context $10.75 4.71 $0.05 0.15 0.68 $0.01 $0.03
High Impact $11.99 5.03 $0.06 0.83 1.75 $0.05 $0.11
Remarketing $7.75 8.03 $0.06 2.18 0.81 $0.13 $0.05
RON and ROS $8.30 3.59 $0.03 0.24 1.64 $0.01 $0.05
Sponsorship $12.82 6.67 $0.09 0.46 1.03 $0.04 $0.09

19. If Frequencies Were Better Managed to
the Median, Costs Could Go Down
Reduce costs or reinvest for greater reach
or more impact
Awareness Impact Lift Cost per Cost per
Average Median Cost per Lift Points Points per Awareness Impact Lift
CPM Frequency Viewer per Viewer Viewer Lift Point Point
Audience $7.35 1.91 $0.01 0.35 0.63 $0.00 $0.01
Context $10.75 2.04 $0.02 0.15 0.68 $0.00 $0.01
High Impact $11.99 2.58 $0.03 0.83 1.75 $0.03 $0.05
Remarketing $7.75 2.79 $0.02 2.18 0.81 $0.05 $0.02
RON and ROS $8.30 1.74 $0.01 0.24 1.64 $0.00 $0.02
Sponsorship $12.82 2.96 $0.04 0.46 1.03 $0.02 $0.04

20. Conclusions
Ideas reinforced and new learnings
• Remarketing continues to be a highly effective strategy for
awareness and impact measures which is consistent with it’s
earlier success in lifting Wave 1 behavioral measures
• RON and ROS advertising works well at generating awareness
but viewers are not persuaded by the messaging, similar
to the finding in wave 1 where effectiveness of RON
wore off quickly
• High Impact ads and Sponsorships generate awareness
but at a high cost
• Audience targeting is quite cost effective
• Better managing frequency can drive greater results for the
same dollar

21. Next Steps
Build media planning model for digital strategies
• Correlate Behavioral effects from Wave 1 with attitudinal
effects from Wave 2
• Link strategies to sales data with Wave 3
• Evaluate effects by industry
• Put input data into model to determine upstream behavioral
and attitudinal markers that predict sales based on spend
by tactic