TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study

TRA Confidential | 1
TRA Confidential Copyright 2012 TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc. 1
TRA Confidential
TRA ROI Case Studies
Measuring the Impact of TV & Digital

Answering the big questions
The TRA/dunnhumby
partnership is uniquely
positioned to answer
these questions
Can TV’s actual
IMPACT ON SALES
be quantified?
What is the
SALES LIFT IMPACT
of TV and digital?
Can local targeted TV
DRIVE BETTER RESULTS
than network TV alone?

80%
TiVo, 20%
4.4 Million Households
Achieving the right composition for nationally
representative sample*
*all data weighted and projected to the US TV population
Charter/
Fourth Wall
TRA’s Set Top Box Data Sources

Matched with Best-of-Breed Purchase
Data Sources
TRA is the ONLY company that effectively analyzes and optimizes TV
advertising using a massive sample of naturally occurring data
CPG BRANDS RX Brands
CRM Brands
Networks Agencies
TRA Customers

TRA Cross Media Solutions
Digital
Buying
TTI2
Measuring
TRA Cross Media
Measurement
Use TRA TV and purchaser
indices to plan/buy
digital media:
• Reinforce messaging
• Reach digitally those missed on TV
Purchaser indices used to weight
cookies that can be used by any ad
serving network to reach the right online
audience
Privacy: No household level matching of
TV tuning or purchase data
Using the Right Data for
Digital Planning/Buying
Measure the results of your
TV and digital campaigns
Use results to inform/optimize the plan
Single-source cross
media solution for:
• Measuring the sales impact
of TV and Digital
• Understanding attribution to
maximize ROI
Over 100,000 Households
Matched
• Auto 100K
• CPG 70K
Privacy: No surfing or PII data
collected. Consumer can opt-
out using ad choices

Case Studies: TRA is Market Tested &
Proven to be Actionable
 Greater CPG sales from smarter TV allocations led to 4% sales lift across portfolio,
including 9% lift for P&G
 Increased ROI by 25% and 35% for two product categories, with data-driven
planning for Mars
 Measured a 31% ROI and 126% sales lift from a product placement in a popular TV
program, compared to exposure to TV ads only, for Garnier Fructis
 Proved the impact of Sunovion’s TV advertising and helped to plan for a media
buy that maximized exposure at 30% less the cost
 Understanding what programs are of greater value to specific auto advertisers by
clustering auto owners around program tune-in to help A&E find better selling
opportunities
 Gauging the impact of TV and digital on sales to help a CPG brand understand
that TV drives new customer purchase and digital drives repeat purchase
 Matching customer lists to TV Tuning to help a major online retailer understand
which advertising creative had the largest effect on sales lift

Introducing dunnhumby
we help companies put the
customer at the center of every
decision.
all our work starts with data
we personalize the experience in
communications and the retail
environment
we work with clients to change the
organization to put the customer at
the center through new strategies,
tactics, and KPIs
customers repay that loyalty by
buying one more product, one more
time; this increases sales and profit
margin and grows measurable
value for our clients

400+ Major brand owners as clients too

ROI Cases Studies: The power of TRA &
dunnhumby combined
TV &
Online
Exposure
22MM Households
40MM
Households
Shopping
Behavior
What is seen, matched
with what is purchased.
4 MM
Households

Historic Food Product ROI Study:
One of the largest ever single source TV sales lift studies
on ~735,000 Households
3.4MM households matched between Comcast
subscribers and Kroger shoppers
2.1MM Comcast households in the
targeted ad zones
735K Comcast HH in the
Kroger continuous panel
AnalysisSample

Campaign Methodology
Precision purchased-based zone targeting
with in-store results
 88 zones with high number of category
purchasing households and penetration were
selected, with a reach of 5 MM households
 Category includes food brand and its
competitors
 Based on a direct household level match
between Comcast subscribers and Kroger
shoppers.
Selected local
zones and
networks to target
based on
historical
purchases
Comcast served the
TV and digital ads
in the zones and
networks selected
for the campaign
TRA/ dunnhumby
measures impact
back to point-of-
sale
(test vs. control /
unexposed)
TARGETING HISTORICAL PURCHASES

Key Findings: Targeting works
 Sales lift is highest among households exposed to both TV and
digital ads
 Zone targeting, coupled with purchaser category index, is the key
driver for sales lift
 The campaign produced a 10% uplift in sales, which is on the
high-end of prior studies
 TV brings in new customers - 67% of the purchasing household
uplift came from new customers (new to brand, new to category)
 Digital secures more sales from existing customers
 The sweet spot of advertising exposure is 7-10 frequency - sales lift
plateaus thereafter

Media Delivery (Analysis Population)
On average, each household was exposed to 12.8 impressions (TV
+ Digital) over the duration of the campaign. This included 8.4 TV
impressions and 16.4 digital impressions per exposed household.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
12-Nov-12
14-Nov-12
16-Nov-12
18-Nov-12
20-Nov-12
22-Nov-12
24-Nov-12
26-Nov-12
28-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
2-Dec-12
4-Dec-12
6-Dec-12
8-Dec-12
10-Dec-12
12-Dec-12
14-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
435k Unique
Households (TV + Digital)
„000s
Thanksgiving
break in
campaign
379k Unique
Households (TV)
146K Unique
Households (Digital)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
12-Nov-12
14-Nov-12
16-Nov-12
18-Nov-12
20-Nov-12
22-Nov-12
24-Nov-12
26-Nov-12
28-Nov-12
30-Nov-12
2-Dec-12
4-Dec-12
6-Dec-12
8-Dec-12
10-Dec-12
12-Dec-12
14-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
„000s
5.6 MM Impressions
(TV + Digital)
Thanksgiving
break in
campaign
3.2 MM TV
Impressions
2.4 MM Digital
Impressions
Impressions Unique Households

Advertising Exposure
Media Composition
Exposure Group # Households # TV Impressions
# Digital
Impressions
Not exposed to any ads 299 K
Exposed to TV ads only 290 K 2,419 K
Exposed to Digital ads only 57 K 920 K
Exposed to both TV and Digital ads 89 K 745 K 1,474 K
TV ads
only, 6…Digital ads
only, 1…
TV and
Digital
Ads, 20%Analysis
Population
(Exposed to Ads)

Digital Supplements TV
TV + Digital
, 38%Light
TV, 23%
Digital
Only, 39
%Exposed to
DIGITAL ADS
 Nearly two-thirds of those reached by the digital ads had little or no
exposure to the TV campaign
 Those lightly exposed to the TV campaign (1-3 impressions),
represents only 2% of total TV campaign impressions but 24% of the
total digital campaign impressions

Campaign Results:
Measurement Methodology
 Sales impact is measured during campaign and post-campaign
measurement period, for exposed vs. control/unexposed HHs
 Control group (matched, not exposed) is selected to “mirror” the
exposed group on pre-campaign period sales, volume
purchased, trips, demographics, and geography
 Sales, penetration, and volume in the campaign and post-period
are then compared for exposed and control/unexposed groups
 The times periods are dynamically chosen for each exposed HH
based on their first exposure, last exposure and a four-week
post-campaign period following the final exposure
 Continuous Panel: HHs used in the analysis are part of the Kroger
Continuous Panel (consistent over time, high level of spend and
visits) for the entire pre-campaign, campaign and post-period

Note: Penetration calculated based on buyers / total group (including non-buyers) and is reported at the brand-level
Households exposed to both TV and
Digital have the highest sales lift
Sales Lift – by Media Type
1.6%
2.6%
10.6%
7.7%
3.5%
12.4%
9.1%
3.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Sales Uplift (All Exposed
HHs)
Penetration Sales Uplift (Buying HHs)
Digital Only (54k
HHs)
TV Only (274k
HHs)
Both TV & Digital
(84k HHs)

TV brings in new customers
Digital secures more sales from existing customers
38% 33%
48% 50%
31%
32%
15%
30%
31% 35% 36%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall TV Only Digital Only Both TV &
Digital
New to Category
New to Brand
Existing Brand Buyer
100%= 7.4% 7.7% 2.6% 9.1%
Buyer Flow – sources of Penetration Increase

The campaign drove an increase in trial and repeat
rates among new brand buyers; leading to higher
continuing sales
4.7%
5.4%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
Control Exposed
Trial
9.1%
8.1%
1.0%
9.7%
8.5%
1.2%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Overall 2X > 2X
Control Exposed
Repeat
Note: Based on 279k HHs that did not purchase Food brand in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign

Higher TV ad frequency Drives Sales Lift
Sweet spot is 7-10 frequency, sales lift
plateaus above 10 exposures
Note: Sales uplift was not significant for >60 exposures. For “Digital Only” households,
the only significant level was 7-10 exposures, with a sales lift of 9%
Sales Lift
by Exposure
Frequency
100% = 273k HHs15% 22% 21% 16% 11% 9% 3% 1%%HHs =
4%
5%
10%
15%
14%
15% 16% 15%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
1 2-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-25 26-40 41-60
TV Only
~26% HHs
had a
frequency
of 11+ TV
ads

Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 77k HHs
 Consistently purchase products below the average
price point
 Front Page of ad is very important to this segment
 Heaviest users of coupons
 Total price point AND price per volume are
important
Price Sensitive (PS), 176k HHs
 Consistently purchase products around the
average price point
Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 106k HHs
 Consistently purchase products above the average
price point
 Generally less restricted by a budget
Splurge & Save (SS), 52k HHs
 Behave differently in different parts of the store; for
example, a household might “splurge” in Produce
and “save” in Soft Drinks
 Households look “Price Sensitive” on average
Most Price
Sensitive
Least Price
Sensitive
Food brand is a special treat worth buying for
“Splurge & Save” shoppers
10%
16%
11%
9%
Sales Lift

Convenience at Home (37k HHs)
Watching the Waistline (40k HHs)
Finest (101k HHs)
Grab & Go Shoppers (26k HHs)
Shoppers on a Budget (32k HHs)
Family Focused (60k HHs)
Traditional Homes (113k HHs)
Sales lift highest Among Segments:
“Grab & Go”, “Watching the Waistline”, and “Shoppers on a Budget”
19%
10%
12%
18%
4%
10%
7%
SALES LIFT
by Segment

Zone sales lift: Category index is the
key driver of sales increase
9%
12%
10%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Light BDI (<95) Medium BDI
(95-105)
Heavy BDI
(>105)
124k HHs 123k HHs 164k HHs
6%
10%
11%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Light CDI
(<=95.5)
Medium CDI
(95.5-107)
Heavy CDI
(>107)
101k HHs 170k HHs 140k HHs
Note: CDI = average of (Category Penetration Index , Category Spend Index)
Category penetration index = % HHs in the ZONE that purchased the Category / % HHs overall that purchased the Category
Category spend index = Category spend per HH in the ZONE / Category spend per HH overall
Overall = average penetration or spend per HH across ALL zones
BDI was calculated in a similar manner to CDI above
Food Brand Lift – by Zone Class
Zones are divided into low/ medium/high BDI and CDI

 Sales lift is highest among households exposed to both TV and
digital ads
 Zone targeting, coupled with purchaser category index, is the
key driver for sales lift
 The campaign produced a 10% uplift in sales, which is on the
high-end of prior studies
 TV brings in new customers - 67% of the purchasing household
uplift came from new customers (new to brand, new to
category)
 Digital secures more sales from existing customers
 The sweet spot of advertising exposure is 7-10 frequency - sales
lift plateaus thereafter

Recommendations to Optimize Future
Campaigns
 Zone Selection
 Select zones by setting a minimum category sales threshold. Zones with
medium/high CDI have highest sales lift
 TV Schedule
 Reformulate TV schedule to emphasize 7-10 frequency level reach (more
networks with less weight per network or more diverse networks)
 Network Selection
 Select networks by utilizing purchaser targets - set a minimum competitive set
rating index.
 Shopper Segments
 Use shopper segments (“Splurge & Save”, “Grab & Go”, “Watching the
Waistline”, “Shoppers on a Budget”) as an additional filter for zone and
network selection
 Media Type
 Seek strategies to expand digital reach as the combination of television and
Digital generates the highest sales lift

Answering The Big Questions
Yes! A spot cable heavy-up in high CDI
areas makes sense. This Comcast 360
campaign occurred at the same time that
a national flight was running. Sales lift was
10% higher with consumers targeted by
Comcast 360
Can TV’s actual
impact on sales be
QUANTIFIED?
What is the sales lift
impact of
TV AND DIGITAL?
Can local targeted
TV drive better results
THAN NETWORK TV alone?
Yes! This is one of the largest TV &
Digital sales lift studies ever
conducted, most likely the largest ever
in local TV
TV and digital combined, cause the
highest sales lift. Each media plays a
different role. TV brings in new
customers. Digital gets more sales from
existing customers

TRA Confidential
Measuring the In-Store Impact of TV for
Brand A and B Wines in Summer 2012
TRA |dunnhumby

Measurement universe for each brand made up of around
60K households with continuous shopping behavior and TV
viewing data throughout measurement period
717K - households matched
between TRA TV panel and
Kroger shoppers
150K – limit to households in
62K – limit to
households with
continuous TV viewing
data availability
717K - households matched
between TRA TV panel and
Kroger shoppers
150K – limit to households in
60K – limit to
households with
continuous TV viewing
data availability
Brand A Brand B
Analysis
Sample

Key Findings: TV drives sales
 Significant sales uplifts were observed for households exposed to each TV
campaign
 The results validate the decision to use purchaser targets comprised of
brand and competitor brand products to target 2013 advertising
 Although there are opportunities to refine this in the future to include
particular segments based on price sensitivity and shopper, behavior
 Brand A:
 43% sales uplift for exposed households (total sales impact of
$1.37MM), driven almost entirely by increase in household penetration
 Significant sales uplift was also observed across the entire wine
category, particularly Premium wine
 Campaign appeared to drive customers into Brand A from outside of
the named competitors
 Campaign successfully drove trial of the brand, but repeat rate was
lower than the control

Key Findings: TV drives sales
 Brand B:
 38% sales uplift for exposed households (total sales impact of
$395M), driven by a mix of household penetration and $ per
household
 The campaign drove incremental sales for competitor brands, but
not total wine category
 The campaign successfully drove trial and repeat of the Brand B
brand

While the brand saw the majority of the uplift there
was also observable impact across the
category, particularly for Premium Wine
Sales Lift for HHs exposed to Brand A ad – by Wine Type
43.0%
38.0%
3.2%
5.8%
8.6%9.4%
10.7%
1.6%
5.0%
6.8%
2.2%
4.6%
6.6%
2.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
$ Sales Uplift (All Exposed HHs) Penetration $ per Household
Brand A Competitors Premium Wine Bottled Wine Total Wine
>90% for all 66% 72%Significance >90% for all 84% 83%

Majority of Brand A customers are active competitor
buyers, however the ad was able to bring in customers
from outside of this universe
11% 8%
48%
62%
15%
8%
17%
15%
9% 6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Exposed Control/ Unexposed
New to Wine
Existing Bottled Wine Buyer
Existing Premium Wine Buyer
Existing Competitor Buyer
Existing Brand A buyer
Buyer Flow – Post-period Woodbridge
purchasers split by pre-period behavior
Note: These results are based on a small
sample of Brand A buyers and therefore
should only be used directionally.
This validates the decision to target 2013 TV campaign based on purchaser
targets of Brand A & competitor brand buyers

The campaign drove an increase in trial rates among new
buyers, but not in repeat rates
0.4%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
Control Exposed
Trial Rate
13.1%
10.8%
2.3%
10.9%
6.3%
4.6%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Overall 2X > 2X
Control Exposed
Repeat Rate
Note: Based on 34k HHs that did not purchase Brand A in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign

Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 19% HHs
price point
important
Price Sensitive (PS), 41% HHs
average price point
Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 27% HHs
price point
Splurge & Save (SS), 13% HHs
Most Price
Sensitive
Least Price
Sensitive
Brand A creative appears to have resonated with
households who are “Price Sensitive” or “Splurge & Save”
shoppers in terms of their attitude to price
62%
59%
Sales Lift
Note: Data is only shown where results are
statistically significant (>90% significance)
Note: Based on 34k HHs in analysis population
exposed to ads

Convenience at Home (11% HHs)
Watching the Waistline (11% HHs)
Finest (16% HHs)
Grab & Go Shoppers (7% HHs)
Shoppers on a Budget (12% HHs)
Family Focused (16% HHs)
Traditional Homes (28% HHs)
In terms of behavior, the creative resonated with
households driven by convenience, family or finest
products
94%
95%
245%
SALES LIFT
by Segment
statistically significant (>90%
significance)
exposed to ads

Brand B: Largest observable sales uplift was for Brand
B, however the ad drove overall segment wine volume as
well as penetration of competitor brands
Sales Lift for HHs exposed to Brand B ad – by Wine Type
38.4%
25.0%
10.7%
12.7%
18.1%
15.9% 15.5%
3.4%
0.4%
6.9%
0.6%
6.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
$ Sales Uplift (All Exposed HHs) Penetration $ per Household
Brand B Boxed Wine Competitors Bottled Wine Total Wine
74% 99%Significance 85%89% 100% 58% 63%89% >80% >90% >90% >90%

The TV campaign appeared to pull in a larger proportion of
bottled wine buyers who were new to boxed wine
10%
3%
38% 55%
50% 35%
2% 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Exposed Control/ Unexposed
New to Wine
Category
Existing Bottled Wine
Buyers
Existing Competitor
Buyers
Existing Boxed Wine
Buyers
Note: These results are based on a small
sample of Brand B buyers and therefore
should only be used directionally.
Buyer Flow – Post-period Black Box purchasers
split by pre-period behavior
The vast majority of households that try the Brand B brand appear to be
existing competitor or bottled wine buyers, validating the purchaser targets
selected for the 2013 campaign

The campaign was able to encourage trial of the brand as
well as repeat purchase as customers moved into the
Brand B wine format
0.10%
0.12%
0.00%
0.02%
0.04%
0.06%
0.08%
0.10%
0.12%
0.14%
Control Exposed
Trial Rate
12.5% 12.5%
0.0%
20.0%
18.0%
2.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Overall 2X > 2X
Control Exposed
Repeat Rate
Note: Based on 41k HHs that did not purchase Brand B in the 52 week pre-period prior to the campaign

Brand B Sales uplift was observed across a wide range of
exposure frequencies with no clear pattern for optimal
exposure
Note: Data is only shown where results are statistically significant (>90% significance)
Brand B Sales Lift
by Exposure Frequency
100% = 41k HHs22% 16% 11%%HHs =
140%
154%
117%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
2-3 7-10 11-15
Similarly to Brand A, the focus going forward should be on reaching the right
customers effectively rather than driving frequency against a wider audience

Very Price Sensitive (VPS), 19% HHs
price point
important
Price Sensitive (PS), 41% HHs
average price point
Least Price Sensitive (LPS), 27% HHs
price point
Splurge & Save (SS), 13% HHs
Most Price
Sensitive
Least Price
Sensitive
The Brand B creative appealed to two polar groups in terms of price
sensitivity, reflecting the message of great quality at a big discount over
comparable wines when purchased in volume
160%
211%
Sales Lift
statistically significant (>85% significance)
exposed to ads

 Both campaigns were able to drive significant sales uplifts for their
respective brands
 This sets a solid benchmark from which to measure performance of
the 2013 campaigns
 The results add weight to the decision to base the 2013 buy on brand and
competitor purchaser targets
 TV is able to bring in new customers to both the brand and category, however
existing brand and competitor purchasers are the strongest group from which
to build targeting
 This is the third study that proves TV brings in new customers from "outside a
brand's immediate competitive waters"
 The creative for each campaign appeared to resonate with the intended
target groups
 The challenge going forward is to reach these targets efficiently and
effectively

TRA Confidential
Q&A
|dunnhumby | TRA

Appendix
A. Measurement Methodology
B. Additional Campaign Results

A. Introducing TRA: TRA Matches TV Tuning, CPG
Purchase Data, Rx Prescriptions and Auto
Registrations
TRA directly matches purchases and the TV tuning of the
exact same household (HH) with huge samples.
 Auto: TRA matches 115 Million HH automotive registrations
to HH TV tuning via 85% Cable/15% TiVo set-top-boxes
(4.2MM total)
 Household Demographics: Via Experian by HH (115MM)
 CPG: TRA matches supermarket purchase by HH (50MM) to
HH TV tuning via set-top-box data
 Pharma: TRA matches IMS 70 Million HH Rx prescriptions
filled to HH TV tuning
 CRM: TRA matches tuning data with proprietary purchaser
databases from advertisers

C. Measurement Methodology
 Time periods are dynamically chosen based on first
and last exposure to the campaign as well as the
number of weeks post final exposure
 Pre period: 52 weeks prior to the start of the campaign
 Campaign period: Weeks the campaign was executed
 Post period: 4 weeks post the campaign
Nov 12 Dec 16
= Exposure
Final Post period=Campaign Period + Post Period
Jan 13

Food Brand TV Exposure Frequency
Most impressions occur in 4-20 range
# HH # TV Impressions % HH % TV Impressions
Low (1-3 imps) 142 K 263 K 37% 8%
Medium (4-20 imps) 204 K 1,796 K 54% 57%
High (>20 imps) 34 K 1,105 K 9% 35%
Low High
%ofHouseholds
%ofTVImpressions
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41+
HHs TV Impressions

Food Brand Digital Exposure Frequency
Most impressions occur in 5-50 range
# HH # Digital Impressions % HH % Digital Impressions
Low (1-4 imps) 50 K 110 K 34% 5%
Medium (5-50 imps) 85 K 1,427 K 59% 60%
High (>50 imps) 10 K 857 K 7% 36%
Low High
%ofHouseholds
%ofDigitalimpressions
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
7…
HHs Digital Impressions

Brand sales of exposed HHs and their matched control /
unexposed HHs match closely in the pre-period, for all
exposure segments
 Sales in 4 week periods, Analysis Population
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12
TV Only
Both
Digital Only
During
and after
campaign
Pre-period

TV + Digital Exposure Frequency – 72% of homes reached in
three quadrants (Medium TV/Medium Digital)
Digital Exposures
TV
Exposures
Low Medium High
Low
11 K HHs (12%)
3% TV imps
2% Dig imps
20 K HHs (22%)
5% TV imps
23% Dig imps
2 K HHs (3%)
1% TV imps
14% Dig imps
Medium
17 K HHs (19%)
20% TV imps
2% Dig imps
28 K HHs (31%)
33% TV imps
31% Dig imps
3 K HHs (4%)
4% TV imps
19% Dig imps
High
3 K HHs (3%)
13% TV imps
0% Dig imps
5 K HHs (5%)
20% TV imps
5% Dig imps
1 K HHs (1%)
2% TV imps
3% Dig imps

Convenience at Home - 37k HHs: motivated
by foods that can be produced at a moment‟s
notice and not spoil. Their need for convenience
foods can be driven by various factors, like being
paid only once a month, hence having fewer
large shopping trips
Watching the Waistline - 40k HHs: choose their
products based on their fat/calorie content, with the
main motivator being weight loss or maintaining a
healthy weight. They look for the best quality when
making their grocery purchases, focusing on
diet/organic foods, fresh fruits and vegetables
Finest - 101k HHs: quality food is central to the
“Finest” segment. They do not tend to buy pre-
packaged foods‟ instead they will spend their
money on fresh, quality foods. They shop in the
Gourmet, Home Cooking, Organic and Vegetarian
sections
Grab & Go Shoppers - 26k HHs: motivated by the
speed at which they can get in and out of the
grocery store. They make more trips than the avg. HH
and spend less per trip. They also tend to buy items in
smaller packages.
Shoppers on a Budget - 32k HHs: governed by
one factor – price. They are careful not to impulse
buy and use shopping lists to save money
Family Focused - 60k HHs: little time to spend
shopping. They tend to buy a diverse set of
products, as they do not have the time to „cherry
pick‟ offers across stores. They buy in Healthy
Snack, Sport, Kid and Baby sections
Traditional Homes - 113k HHs: the driving force is
the ability to prepare good quality home cooked
meals. A typical meal consists of meat and
vegetables. They opt for fresh seafood and meat
rather than pre-packaged.
Dunnhumby Shopper Segments
HH‟s in Exposed To The Campaign

TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study

Similar to TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TRA and dunnhumby Cross Media Case Study