THE MULTI-SCREEN ADVERTISING PLAYBOOK - Association of National ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE MULTI-SCREEN ADVERTISING PLAYBOOK
NO MARKETER WILL ARGUE WITH THE
STATEMENT:
“I WANT MY ADVERTISING TO BE ELEGANTLY
CHOREOGRAPHED ACROSS ALL CHANNELS"
FOREWORD
No marketer will argue with the statement: “I want my advertising
to be elegantly choreographed across all channels.” It had been a
truism of the industry that reaching the consumer with a spectrum of
communications tactics works best—and the more you can deliberately
get them to work together, the better.
The problem is that, until recently, the technology has not been present
to give the marketer much control. Perhaps just as importantly, the
technology has not been present to measure the effect of these tactics
with much sophistication.
This is a pity, particularly in the area of advertising on screens. In the
last three to four years, consumer use of new screens has exploded.
And while television remains the mainstay for any marketing campaign,
the opportunity for marketers to use multiple screens to extend and
enrich TV-centric marketing has never been greater.
I have been watching with interest the work Collective has been
doing in this area. They have taken their position as an ad-targeting
platform as a jumping-off point to develop technology in multi-screen
advertising through the use of set-top-box data. Additionally, they
have worked creatively with the available assets in multi-screen
measurement (especially single-source TV/PC panels) to quantify the
impact of these tactics.
While the industry is surely just at the beginning of a longer journey,
the learnings Collective has gathered are worth the attention of
those who care about the future of multi-screen advertising, and the
substantial business impact these new tactics can have for marketers.
Keith Camoosa
EVP, North American Head of Research
Universal McCannOVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS
CMOs and their agencies are facing an • Foreword
unprecedented dilemma.
• Overview
Technological change in the form of an expanding range of new
screen devices; consumers’ hungry adoption of these devices; and • The Multi-Screen Imperative
the resulting splintering of consumers’ attention are making effective
advertising more complex to execute and difficult to measure. The • What Does a Multi-Screen Advertising Solution Look Like?
stakes are nothing short of the billions of dollars of advertising
delivered via screens by CMOs and their agencies every year—even • Multi-Screen Playbook
as these same advertisers are under increasing pressure to make their
budgets work harder and to show proof of success. • Case Studies:
New technologies, however, in the form of digital advertising linked Incremental Reach
to robust TV-viewing data, afford CMOs and their agencies the
opportunity to harness the power of multi-screen advertising—turning Multi-Screen Frequency / Optimal Media Mix “Conquesting”
a technology problem into a technology advantage.
Competitive Conquesting
These new tools allow advertisers to control their reach and frequency
across screens, and the business benefits are powerful. Using A/B tests
to measure the impact of multi-screen campaigns, advertisers may
quantify their ability to:
• Reach millions of customers not reached by television
• Reduce the costs of video reach by over 70%
• Achieve lift in consideration activities while reducing costs by up to 17x
• Create hundreds of thousands of prospects from audiences watching their
competitors’ TV ads
What follows is an exploration of the consumer trends at work, the
requirements for multi-screen advertising, a framework for using the
new tools, and case studies about proven results.THE MULTI-SCREEN
IMPERATIVE
The last three years have witnessed a victory by screens over consumer
"TV remains the single most
media time. Use of non-screen media has decreased by 22% since
2008, while television, computer internet, and mobile use have
efficient way to create critical mass
increased by 1:20 hours per day over that same period. Viewed over
the course of a year, this increased viewing time means US audiences
among consumers with the
are spending an additional 12 days per year using these devices—
an entire vacation not spent on the beach, but on a screen.
emotion of sight, sound and
As far as both advertisers and consumers are concerned, television
motion that only video can
remains the undisputed primary screen, commanding the greatest
share of consumer attention and advertiser spend. “TV remains the deliver."
single most efficient way to create critical mass among consumers
with the emotional power of sight, sound and motion that only video Kal Liebowitz, Chairman of KSL
can deliver,” according to Kal Liebowitz, Chairman of KSL, one of the
largest independent media agencies. In the US, the top 10 advertisers
in major ad categories spent between 62% and 83% of their media
budgets on television.
1 TOP 10 ADVERTISERS’ MEDIA SPEND ON TV
And TV’s share of total media budget
83%
$6B $6.1B 80%
TV SPEND AS % OF TOTAL MEDIA BUDGET
68% 68% TOTAL TV SPEND
$5B 70%
66%
$4.6B
62%
$4B 60%
$3B 50%
$3B
$2B 40%
$1.7B
$1.5B
$1B 30%
0 0THE MULTI-SCREEN IMPERATIVE 5
2 GROWTH IN TIME SPENT
Dec. 2008 - Dec. 2011
100% 103%
80%
60%
40%
22%
20%
8%
0%
-20%
-22%
MOBILE COMPUTER TELEVISION NON-SCREENS
3 US. HOUSEHOLDS USING DEVICES
(Millions) 2009 - 2012
2009
2012
114M
113M
107M
95M
53M
26M
25M
0
TELEVISION PENETRATION COMPUTER PENETRATION SMART PHONE PENETRATION TABLET PENETRATION4
CONSUMER SCREEN TIME,
HOURS : MINUTES
Per day with simultaneous media usage between devices
TOTAL:
7 HOURS
of screen media;
1 HOUR
of multitasking
0:54
TV/ COMPUTER
MULTITASKING
2:48
0:48
COMPUTER
SMARTPHONE
INTERNET
4:36 TV
0:12 0:06
TV/ SMARTPHONE TV/ TABLET
MULTITASKING MULTITASKING
0:18
TABLET
Additional complexity also enters the picture when audiences’ use of The resulting dilemma for the CMO is an old one (delivering the right
the new devices is considered. Devices are used for different purposes message to the right person at the right time) but with unprecedented
by consumers, and these uses are evolving. For the first time, for new complications. How to find a way to connect with TV viewing
instance, more than half of all TV audiences are also watching video audiences as they navigate content (especially video) across devices
online. Consumers increasingly do not differentiate between live/ throughout their day and night?
linear, time-shifted, device-shifted, place-shifted, or even simultaneous
(multi-tasked) engagement with all forms of media. The average US Historically, the consumer has remained ahead of the marketer by
consumer now spends 7 hours per day consuming screen media—with many years—witness the gap between share of time spent, and share
over 1 hour of that time multi-tasking. The result is a patchwork of of ad spend, for TV, Internet, and Mobile. Television’s gap between
overlapping device experiences that creates challenges for a CMO to time spent and monetization is virtually zero, while the gap between
command consumer attention. Mobile’s share of time and share of monetization is 90%. This is more
evidence that for advertisers TV is the primary screen, and in the past
valuing “supplemental” screens has been a challenge.THE MULTI-SCREEN IMPERATIVE 7
5
GAP BETWEEN SHARE-OF-CONSUMER-TIME
AND SHARE-OF-ADVERTISER-SPEND:
Television, Computer, Smartphone
TELEVISION COMPUTER SMARTPHONE
50%
CONSUMER
TIME 43%
40%
1%
SHARE % (TIME AND AD SPEND)
GAP
ADVERTISERS’
SPEND 42%
30% CONSUMER
TIME 26%
14%
20% GAP
ADVERTISERS’ CONSUMER
SPEND 22% TIME 10%
10%
90%
GAP
0
ADVERTISERS’
SPEND 1%
6 THEN AND NOW
Changes in media technology
2002 2012
• MEDIA MEASUREMENT DATA • LINKED CONSUMER DATABASES
• MEDIA PLANNING • ADDRESSABILITY AT SCALE SMARTPHONE
• COORDINATION BY SCHEDULING TELEVISION NEWS PAPER • COORDINATION VIA 1:1
AUDIENCE INFORMATION
COMPUTER TELEVISION
DATA
COMPUTER RADIO
TABLET
This time, however, something is different. The same rapid evolution through addressable media, allows CMOs to shift and combine
in technology that creates new media devices for consumers is budgets more flexibly—even in real time. Campaign-level effectiveness
creating new tools for marketers to manage that media complexity. measurement, using A/B tests, allows the CMO to identify the most
Ten years ago, media buyers’ toolkit for coordinating multiple media effective combinations of TV and digital.
channels were generally limited to audience data (information about
the composition of audience groups within a whole media property); In such an environment, CMOs and their agencies have a career-
and planning, which allowed them to buy properties in advance and defining opportunity to embrace change—not for its own sake or
coordinate the deployment through scheduling of flights. merely to keep up with consumer trends, but for the very real business
benefit of achieving more consumer impact for the same spend. This
Now, consistent, anonymized consumer data across platforms (e.g. breakthrough is achieved by understanding the dynamics of controlled
indicating the presence of persons 18-49), delivered on a 1:1 basis multi-screen campaigns and optimizing to the desired results.WHAT DOES A MULTI-SCREEN
ADVERTISING SOLUTION LOOK LIKE?
The question, then, is: what should a multi-screen advertising solution However, the overall solution is incomplete without a means of
look like? validating the accuracy and impact of multi-screen tools through
measurement. As a result, Collective has worked with leading
The solution should allow an advertiser to understand whom they media measurement companies Nielsen and comScore to create a
are reaching with their (mainly) non-addressable primary screen— new framework for measuring the interplay between multi-screen
television—while strategically controlling reach and frequency with advertising and consumer behavior. Marketed by Collective as Multi-
addressable digital media. Screen Impact Reports, this research seeks to answer fundamental
questions—previously unanswered—about how TV and digital
Such a strategy is possible in today’s technology environment due to advertising work together.
the availability of several technology and data assets. The most critical
of these is digital set-top-box (STB) data. STB data are robust enough
to link second-by-second TV viewing data to groups of US households
at sufficient scale (millions of televisions contributing data) to create
predictive consumer targets. These data represent the overall US TV
audience, as they may be weighted to US Census population counts. DIGITAL TARGETING
Without the scale of the STB data, targets developed using small ENHANCES A TV PLAN BY ZEROING
samples are likely to have weak (or “flat”) predictive qualities. IN ON THE CONSUMER WITH THE
MOST SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to STB data, a multi-screen advertising solution requires:
• Anonymized digital consumer targeting databases reaching a national
audience (e.g. 200 million profiles or more)
• Digital advertising technology to reach video audiences (with repurposed
TV or other creative) at national scale
7
• Machine-learning algorithms that identify and optimize reach to consumer
targets in real-time
TVA SEGMENT PROFILE:
Collective has developed, tested, and scaled such a solution, marketed Single TV program
as TVAccelerator. The solution achieves very high levels of accuracy
yet uses no personally identifiable information (PII). For example, the
people in the highest demi-decile (top 5%) of a typical target group for
a single TV program are over 17x more likely to watch the desired TV 1
HIGHEST HIGHEST 5% OF PROFILES
program than the general population; while the bottom deciles have TV WATCHERS 17X MORE LIKELY TO WATCH
virtually no chance of seeing the desired programs. In other words, THAN AVERAGE
targeting that uses this method will have a 1,700% greater chance
of reaching the viewer of a particular TV program than a random
UNIQUE AUDIENCE
sample of TV watchers. Conversely, the targeting affords an advertiser
the chance to reach audiences likely to miss a particular program, or
schedule of programs.
In addition, the TV targeting may be combined with an extensive
targeting database of consumer attributes—such as Collective’s
Audience Cloud™ of 30,000 segments—including demographic,
purchase, or in-market characteristics. This allows an advertiser to
LOWEST 65% OF PROFILES
reach audiences who are “unlikely to see my TV ads and are Adults LOWEST
HAVE VIRTUALLY NO
TV WATCHERS
18-49,” a valuable means of linking a digital video plan to a broader, 230 CHANCE TO WATCH
demo-targeted TV plan. The digital targeting may also enhance a TV LOW HIGH
plan by zeroing in on the consumer with the most salient characteristics PROPENSITY SCORE
(“buys diapers”).WHAT DOES A MULTI-SCREEN ADVERTISING SOLUTION LOOK LIKE 9
8 SET-TOP-BOX-BASED TARGETING : NOW
Scale in television data using “census” and observed (set-top-box) methods
9 PANEL-BASED TARGETING : THEN
Scale in television data using panel and self-reported (diary) methodsTHE MULTI-SCREEN
ADVERTISING PLAYBOOK
In the past year, Collective has worked with over forty brands INCREMENTAL REACH
across the CPG, Automotive, Retail, Financial, Travel, and For many advertisers, keeping their message in front of the widest
Telecommunications sectors to achieve their multi-screen objectives. audience is critical. For them, missed reach opportunities mean
From this experience, three key applications of multi-screen targeting missed sales opportunities. These advertisers use digital to find the
have emerged: achieving incremental reach; creating multi-screen audiences they are missing with TV.
frequency (and optimizing that frequency, or media mix); and
conquesting competitors’ TV ads. TARGETING GOALS:
Lowest/no likelihood to see advertiser TV schedule
What follows is a description of each of these applications, and
case studies quantifying their business impact using research. BUSINESS GOALS:
[Note: a description and case study of the application of these tools More customers / more sales
for TV networks has been previously published by Collective as Achieve reach more efficiently
“Accelerating TV Tune-In: Using Digital Set-Top-Box Data to Target
and Convert Online Audiences.”]
MULTI-SCREEN FREQUENCY /
OPTIMAL MEDIA MIX
Ads seen on multiple screens often prove more memorable, and
therefore more effective. By advertising to the audience reached by
their TV ads, the advertiser creates multi-screen frequency, resulting
in greater impact. And by quantifying the impact of different
combinations of TV and digital video, advertisers can make informed
decisions about their multi-screen media mix.
TARGETING GOALS:
Highest likelihood to see advertiser TV schedule
BUSINESS GOALS:
Higher effectiveness (frequency)
Same impact for less spend (optimization)
COMPETITIVE CONQUESTING
Syndicated sources such as Kantar allow advertisers to understand
the details of competitive advertising schedules. By targeting
audiences digitally who have received a competitor’s TV message,
the advertiser “neutralizes” competitive messaging and conquests
those prospective customers.
TARGETING GOALS:
Highest likelihood to see competitor TV schedule
BUSINESS GOALS:
Win market share
Neutralize competitive ad spendTHE MULTI-SCREEN ADVERTISING PLAYBOOK 11
TV AUDIENCE DIGITAL AUDIENCE
TV AUDIENCE DIGITAL AUDIENCE
COMPETITOR
DIGITAL AUDIENCE
TV AUDIENCECASE STUDY:
INCREMENTAL REACH
CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVE
A Fortune 100 brand who is the #1 player in its category was
relaunching its flagship product to a mass audience, adults 18-49. The
advertiser invested heavily in television advertising for the campaign—
achieving 70% reach. However, even with this level of commitment, the
advertiser was likely to miss over 30 million potential US customers.
The advertiser wished to use digital to reach the customers it was
missing with TV.
APPROACH
The advertiser gave Collective its upcoming TV schedule, and
Collective created a custom TVAccelerator segment designed to
reach adults 18-49 who, based on actual TV-viewing behaviors, would
be least likely to watch the TV programs, networks and dayparts the
advertiser was running on. Collective served the client’s video and rich
media creative across the web, targeting audiences likely to miss the
TV campaign and to be A18-49. Collective measured how successfully
the advertiser was able to control its multi-screen reach / frequency,
and the impact of the digital campaign on consumer awareness.
RESULTS
Extended Reach:
74% of the uniques reached by the TVAccelerator campaign were not
exposed, or exposed lightly, to the TV campaign. The client was able
10 TVA SEGMENT PROFILE
Incremental reach with demo
to reliably extend and control their reach using digital. In addition,
76% of the in-demo uniques reached by Collective were not-or-lightly-
exposed TV audiences. The greater concentration of in-demo reach 1
HIGHEST
indicates the combined TV/demographic targeting was highly effective. TV AD WATCHERS
How effective? The advertiser was 3.9x more likely to reach their target
(”audiences likely to miss the TV campaign and to be A18-49”) using
TVAccelerator targeting than using demographic targeting
UNIQUE AUDIENCE
(58% / 15%).
LOWEST
TV AD WATCHERS + AGE
18-49
230 M
LOW PROPENSITY SCORE HIGHCASE STUDY: INCREMENTAL REACH 13
11 REACH ANALYSIS
TVAccelerator reached 74% of users not, or lightly exposed to TV Collective
TV
LIGHT TV EXPOSURE FREQ =16
60%
56%
The campaign
50%
reached 1.6M
people in the
demo target who
40% had missed the
TV ad
30%
30%
20% 22%
14%
10%
13%
4%
0
NO TV LIGHT TV MEDIUM TV HEAVY TV
12 REACH ANALYSIS
Collective
TVA reached 76% of users not, or lightly, exposed to TV within demo TV
LIGHT TV EXPOSURE FREQ =16
58%
TVAccelerator
50% was 3.9X more
likely to reach the
advertisers target
40% 43%
30%
30%
20%
21%
18%
15%
10%
12%
0
0 3%
NO TV LIGHT TV MEDIUM TV HEAVY TVCOST PER REACH POINT
13
Cost per Reach Point, or “cost per 1,000 people reached,” is
calculated by dividing the media cost of the campaign by the total US
COST PER REACH POINT
population reached by the campaign. Collective reached incremental
The Collective campaign reached 2.4 M net new
viewers at an $83 cost-per-incremental Reach Point, compared to $260
viewers, at a campaign cost of $83 per 1k people
per-reach-point for television—a cost reduction of 74%. reached, compared with $260 per 1k people reached
CONTROL
BRAND LIFT TEST
While the advertiser’s product already had very high awareness (79%),
the Collective campaign lifted the Awareness level by 9 points, or 12%,
using an A/B test. This is key: since the digital campaign was reaching
incremental audiences, its effectiveness needs to be validated as a TV
substitute for TV advertising.
0 $20 $40
14 BRAND LIFT
Aided brand awareness was lifted beyond the high
pre-existing baseline level by exposure to the
Collective campaign
CONTROL
TEST
TV
0 10% 20%CASE STUDY: INCREMENTAL REACH 15
$260
Collective reached
incremental viewers
at 68% less cost
$83
$60 $80 $100 $150 $200 $250
12%
Increase in
79% brand lift
87%
% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%CASE STUDY:
MULTI-SCREEN 15 TVA SEGMENT PROFILE
FREQUENCY / Multi-screen frequency
OPTIMAL MEDIA MIX 1
HIGHEST
TV AD WATCHERS + AGE
18-34
CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVE
UNIQUE AUDIENCE
A Fortune 100 advertiser was entering its busiest season, in a highly
competitive, media-intensive category, where the TV ad spend
reached billions per quarter. The advertiser had two goals: first, to
“cut-through” with its advertising by showing TV and digital ads to the
same audiences. Second, to understand how TV and digital advertising
work together, to understand how they might optimize their TV/digital
media mix going forward.
APPROACH LOWEST
TV AD WATCHERS + AGE
18-49
230 M
The advertiser gave Collective its upcoming TV schedule, and LOW HIGH
Collective created a custom TVAccelerator segment designed to PROPENSITY SCORE
reach the audience most likely to see the TV ad campaign at a high
frequency. Collective then served the client’s display creative across the
web, targeting audiences most likely to see the TV campaign.
The advertiser measured success based on A/B test measuring lift in
consideration metrics such as online search and research activity into
the brand on the company and third-party websites, and searches for
information about the brand and product. Multiplying the campaign
reach by the consideration lift, the client could even identify the
number of “brand prospects” (incremental people considering the
brand) yielded by the campaign.
A single-source panel was able to associate exposure to both TV and
online ads with lift in these consideration behaviors. First the lift in
consideration behaviors was measured, at different levels of media
exposure, to determine effectiveness. Then that lift in consideration
activity was linked to media cost, and to actual numbers of people
engaging in consideration behaviors, in order to determine a “cost per
ESTIMATED
prospect” at each combination of TV and online frequency.
CAMPAIGN REACH
17,590,19
RESULTS
CONSIDERATION LIFT: ONLINE ONLY:
The TVAccelerator campaign drove a 32% lift in consideration activity
for the online-only portion of the campaign. This resulted in over
90,000 new prospects for the brand.
CAMPAIGN REACHCASE STUDY: MULTI-SCREEN FREQUENCY / MEDIA MIX 17
16 CONSIDERATION LIFT : ONLINE ONLY
The Collective campaign drove 32% lift in consideration activity for the online -only portion of the campaign
NOT EXPOSED TO Collective
EXPOSED TO Collective
POINT DIFFERENCE :+.52
PERCENT DIFFERENCE : +32%
0 .5% 1% 1.5% 2% 2.5%
TV
1.6%
+32% lift
2.1%
POINT GAIN IN TOTAL INCREMENTAL
BRAND PROSPECTS BRAND PROSPECTS FROM CAMPAIGN
91 +0.52 = +91,469
MULTIPLIED BY GAIN IN PROSPECTS EQUALS TOTAL INCREMENTAL BRAND PROSPECTS17
CONSIDERATION LIFT:
CONSIDERATION LIFT: TV + ONLINE: TV + ONLINE
TV and Collective combined to drive 78% lift in
The TV-only portion of the campaign drove a 60% lift in consideration brand research penetration – a higher
activity. When combined with TVAccelerator, the lift reached 78%— percentage than TV alone
showing that the two media worked together effectively, with digital
increasing the performance of the massive TV campaign by nearly
one third.
MEDIA MIX OPTIMIZATION - EFFECTIVENESS:
Across every level of TV exposure, a few exposures of digital display 60% Digital increased the
increased the effectiveness of TV by 30% (Light Online / TV). At heavier performance of the
levels of online display exposure, the effectiveness of TV increased by TV campaign by 30%
1.9x (Heavy Online / TV).
50%
MEDIA MIX OPTIMIZATION - EFFICIENCY:
When cost was overlaid on this analysis, the virtue of combining
media was magnified. With digital added, TV’s efficiency increased
40%
+78%
by 2-5x across all frequency levels. When the most efficient media +60%
mix (Medium TV / Heavy Online) was compared to the least efficient .37%
.36%
media mix (Heavy TV/ No Online), the efficiency lift was over 17x. And
while online alone showed the best performance from an efficiency
30%
standpoint, the advertiser would never consider an advertising
campaign without television—highlighting that these metrics do not
.23%
provide an “answer” to the media mix question, but rather guidance .21%
20%
and insight.
10%
0
TV ONLY TV + Collective
CONTROL TEST CONTROL TEST
POINT DIFFERENCE : + .14 POINT DIFFERENCE : + .16
PERCENT DIFFERENCE : +60% PERCENT DIFFERENCE : +78%
CONTROL GROUP : NOT EXPOSED TO TV ADS ; NOT EXPOSED TO Collective
TEST GROUP : EXPOSED TO TV ADS ; EXPOSED TO Collective
CONTROL GROUP : NOT EXPOSED TO TV ADS ; NOT EXPOSED TO Collective
TEST GROUP : EXPOSED TO TV ADS ; EXPOSED TO CollectiveCASE STUDY : MULTI-SCREEN FREQUENCY / MEDIA MIX 19
18 MEDIA MIX OPTIMIZATION : EFFECTIVENESS
Across every level of TV exposure, a few exposures of digital display increased the effectiveness of TV by 30% (Light
Online / TV). At heavier levels of online display exposure, the effectiveness of TV increased by 1.9x (Heavy Online / TV).
ONLINE FREQUENCY
NONE LIGHT MEDIUM HEAVY
Digital increased the
performance of TV
NONE 1.28% 0.23% .87% by 1.9x
TV FREQUENCY
LIGHT .24% .32% .30% .46%
MEDIUM .89% .1.17% 1.12% 1.70%
HEAVY .87% 1.15% 1.10% 1.67%
19 MEDIA MIX OPTIMIZATION : EFFICIENCY
When cost was overlaid on this analysis, the virtue of combining media was magnified. With digital added, TV’s efficiency
increased by 2-5x across all frequency levels. When the most efficient media mix (Medium TV / Heavy Online) was
compared to the least efficient media mix (Heavy TV/ No Online), the efficiency lift was over 17x.
ONLINE FREQUENCY
NONE LIGHT MEDIUM HEAVY
NONE $0.97 $14.62 $17.64
The increase in
TV FREQUENCY
efficiency between
LIGHT $79.74 $16.33 $23.41 $26.21 the least and most
efficient media mix
was 17x
MEDIUM $66.17 $17.33 $15.38 $11.63
HEAVY $203.80 $45.28 $46.82 $39.71CASE STUDY:
COMPETITIVE CONQUESTING
CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVE
Some brands and categories are wrapped in tight contests for market
share. This advertiser was constantly fighting to gain advantage
against a narrowly defined set of competitors, especially in their key
season. The advertiser wished to reach audiences in digital who had
been exposed to their competitors’ TV advertising. Their goal was to
conquest these audiences and get them to engage in consideration
activities for their brand, measured by online search and
research actions.
APPROACH
The advertiser named two of its key competitors. Collective accessed
Kantar data on those companies’ recent TV advertising schedules
and created a custom TVAccelerator segment designed to reach the
audience most likely to see the competitors’ TV advertising at a high
frequency, who were also A25-54. Collective then served the client’s
video creative across the web targeted to the TVA /
demographic targets.
As above, the advertiser measured success based on A/B test
measuring lift in consideration metrics such as online search and
research activity into the brand on the company and third-party
websites, and searches for information about the brand and product.
Multiplying the campaign reach by the consideration lift, the client ESTIMATED
could even identify the number of “brand prospects” (incremental CAMPAIGN REACH
people considering the brand) yielded by the campaign.
5,934,434
RESULTS
CONSIDERATION LIFT:
The TVAccelerator campaign drove a 138% lift in consideration activity,
yielding over 200,000 new prospects for the brand.
CAMPAIGN REACH
CONSIDERATION ACTIVITIES
The consideration activities consisted of 475,000 new page visits that
included brand-specific research. Of the page visits, 304,000 or 64%
were on the brand’s own domains, and 170,000 were searches about
the brand. ESTIMATED
CAMPAIGN REACH
5,934,434
CAMPAIGN REACHCASE STUDY: COMPETITIVE CONQUESTING 21
20 TVA SEGMENT PROFILE: 21 CONSIDERATION LIFT
Competitive conquesting The Collective campaign drove a 138% lift in
consideration activity for the online-only portion
of the campaign
EXPOSED TO Collective
1
HIGHEST
+
NOT EXPOSED TO Collective
TV AD WATCHERS AGE POINT DIFFERENCE :+3.99
25-34 By conquesting their
rival’s TV audience, the
8% brand gained 200,000
new prospects
+138%
UNIQUE AUDIENCE
6% 6.88%
4%
2.89%
2%
LOWEST
TV AD WATCHERS 0
230 M
LOW HIGH TOTAL PENETRATION OF BRAND EXPLORERS
PROPENSITY SCORE
POINT GAIN IN TOTAL INCREMENTAL
BRAND PROSPECTS BRAND PROSPECTS FROM CAMPAIGN
3.99% = +236,784
MULTIPLIED BY GAIN IN PROSPECTS EQUALS TOTAL INCREMENTAL BRAND PROSPECTS
POINT GAIN IN RESEARCH ACTIONS TOTAL INCREMENTAL RESEARCH ACTIONS
0.08% = +474,755
MULTIPLIED BY GAIN IN PROSPECTS EQUALS TOTAL INCREMENTAL BRAND PROSPECTSLOOKING AHEAD HOWEVER, MANY QUESTIONS REMAIN:
Multi-screen advertising has proven to be so effective that it is certain HOW INTERCHANGEABLE WILL TV AND OTHER VIDEO FORMATS BE?
to persist for a long time. The industry is at the beginning of that Video advertisers are beginning to adopt TV metrics across all their
journey. As the use of STB data, data science, and scalable ad targeting video buys (GRPs, TRPs, audience guarantees). How quickly can digital
technologies develop, so too will the “playbook” for companies adapt to these new—or is that old—rules?
multi-screen advertisers.
HOW IMPORTANT TO ADVERTISERS ARE THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN
In leading this market, one key insight for Collective—a digital REACH AND FREQUENCY?
company—has been that TV and digital media are not natural rivals With most campaigns brokered based on impressions, the underlying
for advertiser budgets, but natural partners. As consumer media dimensions are hidden. If various levels of reach and frequency
and technology behaviors evolve, this will only be more true. CMOs (whether on one screen or many) create dramatically differentiated
and their agencies will need sophisticated tools to catch up with the results, will advertisers measure this? Will they manage it?
consumer’s constantly morphing attention.
WHEN WILL MOBILE CAMPAIGNS BE MEASURABLE, FOR REACH/
In the meantime, the research Collective has constructed is clear: FREQUENCY AND AD EFFECTIVENESS, SO THAT THEY MAY BE
there are significant business advantages to companies who embrace INCLUDED IN THESE ANALYSES?
multi-screen advertising. The extraordinary effects afforded by tools When will advertisers orchestrate ad experiences across space and
such as TVAccelerator can dramatically change the economics of time? For instance, showing ads simultaneously on multiple screens?
advertising—perhaps even the economics of selling products and Or spreading ad exposures across multiple screens, strategically, as a
services themselves. consumer moves through their day—navigating the physical space of
home, work, leisure?
In the dynamic, innovative ad environment we work in, the answers to
these questions may be years away—or just weeks. One question, we
hope, is now closer to a definitive answer: that multi-screen advertising
works, and it may be controlled to achieve a business outcome.
“TV and digital media
are not natural rivals
for advertiser budgets,
but natural partners.”METHODOLOGY AND NOTES ON EXHIBITS 23
METHODOLOGY AND NOTES ON EXHIBITS MULTI-SCREEN FREQUENCY / OPTIMAL MEDIA MIX
Growth in Time Spent. Source: Collective analysis. eMarketer, Consideration Lift: Online Only:
December 2011. Average Time Spent by Media by US Adults, Nielsen Online Panel. N=17,617. 99% significance level. Unexposed
2008-2011. control group selected from panel using quasi-experimental design.
Top 10 Advertisers’ Media Spend. Nielsen AdAcross, Q1 2011-Q4 Consideration Lift: TV + Online:
2011, accessed August 2012. Advertising categories represented by Nielsen Cross-Media Homes. N = 22,197. 99% significance
top 10 advertisers in each. Auto: Toyota, GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, level. Unexposed control group selected from panel using quasi-
Volkswagen, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW, Mazda, Tech: Microsoft, IBM, experimental design.
Google, Adobe, HP, Dell, Apple, Intuit, eBay, Oracle; Retail: Target,
Walmart, Walgreens, Home Depot, Costco, CVS, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Media Mix Optimization - Effectiveness:
Safeway, Rite Aid; CPG: PG, Unilever, Reckitt, ConAgra, SC Johnson, Nielsen Cross Platform Homes Campaign Analysis with TV/Internet
Mars, Nestle, Pepsi Co, Coca-Cola Co, Colgate; Pharma: J&J, Pfizer, Fusion. Point Gain = Distance in brand research penetration between
Roche, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Abbott Labs, Merck, Bayer; test group and control groups exposed to the TV and Collective media
Finance: American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan campaigns at the designated level of frequency.
Chase, Wells Fargo, Prudential, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Sovereign
Bank, Charles Schwabb Media Mix Optimization - Efficiency:
Nielsen Cross Platform Homes Campaign Analysis with TV/Internet
US Households Using Devices (millions), 2009-2012. Consumer Fusion. Cost per incremental prospect = Point Gain in Brand Research
Electronics Association, Q1 2010- Q12012; Nielsen, US Penetration of Penetration x (Percentage of Total Media Impressions against each
Gaming Devices, Q1 2012. Group x Total Media Spend)
Consumer Screen Time per Day with Simultaneous Usage. Ipsos, IAB, COMPETITIVE CONQUESTING
April 2012. Screens to the nth. eMarketer, December 2011. Average
Time Spent by Media by US Adults, 2008-2011. Consideration Lift:
Nielsen Online Panel. N = 10,812. 99% significance level. Unexposed
Gap Between Share-of-Consumer-Time and Share-of-Advertiser-Spend. control group selected from panel using quasi-experimental design.
eMarketer, Share of Average Time Spent per Day by US Adults vs US
AD Spending Share 2008-2011.
TYPICAL TVACCELERATOR PROFILE
Rentrak / Collective, profile of a 30-minute cable program.
INCREMENTAL REACH THE MULTI-SCREEN ADVERTISING PLAYBOOK
by Justin Evans, SVP Emerging Media, Collective
Reach analysis:
comScore Multi-screen Panel
Cost Per Reach Point:
Collective analysis.
TV Cost per Reach Point = (Client TV Campaign Cost) / ((Client
Campaign TV Reach % x US TV Viewers)/1000). Collective Cost Per
Reach = Collective Campaign Cost / ((Collective Campaign Online
Reach % of TV Viewers x US TV viewers)/1000).
Brand Lift:
comScore Survey using Opportunity to See, comScore SmartControl
methodology. N= 417, 90% confidence.ABOUT COLLECTIVE
Collective intelligently connects brand marketers to audiences with high impact
experiences across display, video and mobile advertising. Our technology solutions
include AMP®, our data and media management platform for publishers, and
Ensemble™, our audience buying, creative optimization and analytics platform for
advertisers. Headquartered in New York with offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago,
Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London and India, Collective has
been recognized for its rapid growth on the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 and Inc.
500/5000 lists. Collective’s investors include Accel Partners®, Greycroft Partners and
iNovia Capital. For more information, please visit www.collective.com.
PRESS
pr@collective.com
SALES
sales@collective.com
99 Park Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 888-460-9513You can also read
