Upload
paul-van-veenendaal-
View
2.416
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Google Confidential and Proprietary 2
Main content
Summary (slides 3-‐4)
Set-‐up and Objec;ves (slides 5-‐10) • Campaign objec;ves • Study objec;ves • ROI Model • Set-‐up research
Analysis (slides 11-‐23) • Cost • Targe;ng • Impact • Cost/Effect
Outcomes & implica;ons (slide 24-‐26)
Back-‐up (slides 27-‐28) • Monthly efficiency indices
Google Confidential and Proprietary
ROI Model
Summary
3
1 TV most effecDve, Masthead most efficient Due to high reach TV affects most people, however when you correct for investment YouTube Masthead is more efficient due to larger impact per contact. Masthead: 15% of the effect with 9% of the budget. TV: 85% of the effect with 91% of the budget.
2 Highest impact occurs when TV and Masthead are combined For almost all KPIs the combined impact of TV and Masthead is higher than the impact of the individual medium. So there is a clear impact synergy between the two media.
3 Masthead works most efficiently for target groups Men 20-‐34 and 20-‐34. Masthead is limited in reach, therefore TV is s;ll required.
Main conclusions
Background
Industry Beer Heineken
Target audience Beer drinkers (m/v) 18-49
ObjecDve The objective of this report is to show the effects of contacts with the TV campaign, Masthead campaign, and the synergistic effect of both campaigns on KPIs. Most relevant KPIs for Heineken are: Top of mind brand awareness and sales.
Research Type YouTube Masthead in Cross Media Campaigns
Cost
TargeDng
Impact
Cost/Effect
Google Confidential and Proprietary
TV is more effec;ve in driving TOMA and sales, while Masthead is more efficient in doing so
4
Significance measured against no contacts. Reduce of 20% TV contacts.
Impact Effec;veness Cost/effect
KPI score on exposed group
KPI score on unexposed group
Impact x Reach Impact x Reach
Budget -
115 118
100 100 102 102 102 110
Top of Mind Brand Awareness Sales
100 100
17 17
Top of Mind Brand Awareness
Sales
100 100
165 172
Top of Mind Brand Awareness
Sales
Significant increase (95%)
Significant decrease (95%)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Campaign objec;ves & crea;ve materials
6
• Drive top of mind awareness and sales for Heineken brand and products Campaign objecDves
TV YouTube Masthead
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Study objec;ves
7
Main Research quesDons
Research QuesDons TV & YouTube Masthead
• How do cost per GRP/Impressions for TV and YouTube Masthead compare?
• How do reach and (effec;ve) frequency compare?
• How much of the Masthead reach is unique?
• How does targeDng of Masthead compare to TV?
• What is the impact of TV and Masthead on brand funnel and store purchases?
• How do cost/effect (ROI) scores for TV and Masthead compare?
• What is the synergy between TV and Masthead?
1 Online and off-‐line have different “languages”: how do we integrate towards one currency?
2 Online and off-‐line have different impact and cost: how do we compare them?
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Set-‐up Research
9
This research is conducted in two different panels. Within one panel where we measure Brand statements, the other panel scans purchases. Media consump;on is being measured on both panels.
Day Augustus September October Week 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Monday 2 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 Tuesday 3 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 Wednesday 4 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 Thursday 5 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 Friday 6 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 Saturday 7 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 Sunday 8 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31
0 -‐ Measure Cross Media Campaign Buizenpost TV Flight
= Youtube Masthead Post
Measure Out of Home Correc;on
Media Efficiency Panel Con;nuous Registra;on of Purchases and Media
= Awareness Measurements within the FMCG Scan Panel
Measure of brand metrics, demographics and media consump;on: Awareness of Brand and Adver;sing, Image, Purchase behavior and inten;on, etc
50% random media target group 50% YouTube Masthead exposed group for detailed analysis
0-‐Measure N = 373
Post Measure N = 1.511
M/V 18-‐49 beer drinkers
N = 2.800
Samples have been sent out representa;vely based on age and gender. Samples are weighted on frequency of visi;ng the YouTube website.
Purchase XM
OS
Brand XMOS
Brand XM
OS
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Media Efficiency Panel: Single Source Media Research
Single Source Rela;on
Effect Metrics
Media Contacts
TV
(OTS Calcula;on)
YouTube Masthead
(Tagging)
Purchases
Brand Funnel
10
“Single Source” measurement means that from each member of the panel we know the media consump;on (TV and online)
as well as the purchase behavior and the brand percep;on. This allows for calcula;on of media impact on both metrics.
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Reach & Average contact frequencies
12
Source: Kobalt, Google & GfK – Target market M 18-‐49years old (n=749). 16% of the target group is reached by YouTube Masthead. YouTube Masthead reach is corrected for both O.o.H. internet usage and cookie dele;on.
Increase in reach of the Masthead campaign diminishes as you increase the number of Mastheads.
TV 91%
YouTube 9%
Budget allocaDon
8.14 790
2.7 46 GRP’s
Average frequency
Reach of the TV campaign is 5.7 ;mes higher than the reach of the Masthead campaign.
The target group is 8.14 ;mes reached by the TV campaign and 2.7 ;mes by the Masthead.
Increase in reach of the Masthead campaign diminishes as you increase the number of Mastheads.
Net cost/GRP
100 173
25%
37%
Reach 1+ 97%
17% 8% 7% 9%
TV Youtube Totaal
Masthead 1 Masthead 2 Masthead 3
8%
6%
3%
Reach
Masthead 3
Masthead 2
Masthead 1
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Masthead reach largely overlaps with TV campaign (1+ reach)
13
1+ reach
97% Total 1+ Reach
17% Overlap Reach
80% Unique TV Reach
Based on control group N=855 Source: Gp Media Efficiency Panel, cross media analysis for Heineken campaign
0% Unique Masthead Reach
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Analysis 2: TargeDng
14
Cost
TargeDng
Impact
Cost/Effect
Cost
Targe;ng
Google Confidential and Proprietary
The Masthead reaches more young men than TV does
15
100 122
TV Online
100 91
TV Online
100 117
TV Online
100 102
TV Online
Based on control group N=749 Due to large differences between non exposed / TV exposed and YouTube exposed and large differences in image and awareness amongst these groups, cell weighing is being applied in following media-‐analyses.
Index Low EducaDon Index AB1
Category Buyers (MEP Panel, N=15.000)
Index Young Men (18-‐35)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Analysis 3: Impact
16
Cost
TargeDng
Impact
Cost/Effect Targe;ng
Impact
Google Confidential and Proprietary
All KPIs are posi;vely influenced by the combined campaign
17
100 100 100 100
108 107
120
103
Spontaneous Ad Awareness Image Preference Sales
Pre Measure Post measure Flight 3
*) Base post measure = control + contact group (weighed in to have same distribu;on of YouTube Masthead reach as control group) Base: all, except image, most osen, regular, preference 1) Image = average of “Heineken is groots”, ”bier is goed”, “posi;eve energie”, “Inven;ef’, “preug mee voelen”, “deel ik mijn interesses”)
100
113
Top Of Mind Brand Awareness
Significant increase (95%)
Significant decrease (95%)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Combina;on of both TV and Masthead has the strongest impact on all KPIs
18
Impact
N = 135 No Contact
Only TV
Mainly MH
Both
N = 499
N = 275
N = 537
Explana;on; shown is the effect of each contact group.
Sample Size 32%
23% 30% 24%
25%
None YouTube TV
Campaign Contacts TV & YT
Source GfK Daphne Significance measured against no contacts | Groups are weighed on age*gender | TOMA is derived from GfK-‐Daphne research Due to high TV reach lowest TV contacts have been added to the no TV contact group
133
115
136
121 118
100 100 100 100 100
122
102
131 118
102
117
102 108
119 110
Spontaneous Ad Awareness Top of Mind Brand Awareness Image Preference Sales
Significant increase (95%)
Significant decrease (95%)
In yellow: Measurement GfK Panel Services Scores are indexed N = 6000
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Op;mal contact frequency for TV is between 5 and 6 Op;mal contact frequency for Masthead is between 2 and 3
19
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+
→ Total Contacts
Sales uplii
2.7 8.14 Avg. Avg.
Top of Mind Awareness uplii
Source: Panel GfK Daphne – Target market (M/V 18-‐49 years old). * Based on total sample, aware of Heineken; YouTube and TV group are weighed on same distribu;on age*gender groups
→ Total Contacts
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Analysis 4: Cost/Effect
20
Cost
TargeDng
Impact
Cost/Effect
Impact
Cost/Effect
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Calcula;on of effec;veness and efficiency
Vision & Mission Impact =
Effec;veness =
Cost/effect =
KPI score on exposed group
KPI score on unexposed group -‐
Impact x Reach
Impact x Reach ____________ Budget
Source: Gp Media Efficiency Panel, cross media analysis for Aviko Frideaal campaign
21
Google Confidential and Proprietary
TV is more effec;ve in driving TOMA and sales, while Masthead is more efficient in doing so
22
Significance measured against no contacts. Reduce of 20% TV contacts.
Impact Effec;veness Cost/effect
KPI score on exposed group
KPI score on unexposed group
Impact x Reach Impact x Reach
Budget -
115 118
100 100 102 102 102 110
Top of Mind Brand Awareness Sales
100 100
17 17
Top of Mind Brand Awareness
Sales
100 100
165 172
Top of Mind Brand Awareness
Sales
Significant increase (95%)
Significant decrease (95%)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Masthead more efficient than TV on all audiences, par;cularly for Men 20-‐34 and 20-‐34
23
For mass reach TV is still required The rela;ve efficiency can vary due to the fact that TV varies prices for target groups, which is not the case for a Masthead.
Masthead is not targeted which means that Masthead works beyer for target groups that visit YouTube more osen.
Since GRP’s and therefore price/GRP, targe;ng and Impact are known, the efficiency within different target groups can be calculated.
1.8 1.6
1.5 1.4
2.1
1.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
20-‐34 20-‐49 Shoppers 20-‐49 Shoppers + Kid Men 20-‐34 Women 20-‐49
Masthead efficiency in driving sales (Indexed against TV efficiency)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Outcomes & implica;ons
25
1 TV most effecDve, Masthead most efficient Due to high reach TV affects most people, however when you correct for investment YouTube Masthead is more efficient due to larger impact per contact. Masthead: 15% of the effect with 9% of the budget. TV: 85% of the effect with 91% of the budget.
2 Highest impact with combined use of TV and Masthead For almost all KPIs the combined impact of TV and Masthead is higher than the impact of the individual medium. So there is a clear impact synergy between the two media.
3 Masthead works most efficiently for target groups Men 20-‐34 and 20-‐34. Masthead is limited in reach, therefore TV is s;ll required.
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Cost Brand Index: 0.58
Sales Index: 0.58
TargeDng Brand Index: 1.02
Sales Index: 1.02
Impact Brand Index: 2.4
Sales Index: 2.9
Cost/Effect Brand Index: 1.44
Sales Index: 1.72
Masthead higher efficiency than TV due to more impact per contact
26
Impression Efficiency = Cost/GRP of YouTube Mastheads / Cost/GRP of TV. Targe;ng Efficiency is the % of category buyers reached of YouTube Mastheads / TV Efficiency R.O.I. index = R.O.I. score of YouTube / R.O.I. score of TV. (Efficiency R.O.I. Score Index is the average score of ToMA, Image and Preference) Impression Impact = Efficiency R.O.I. / (Impression Efficiency * Targe;ng Efficiency)
Google Confidential and Proprietary
Cost/effect of Masthead indexed against TV
Index of monthly prices Jan Feb Mrt Apr Mei Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec STER 100 61 74 82 104 129 114 75 71 128 126 127 109 RTL 100 58 72 89 113 133 123 79 79 127 133 133 109 SBS 100 56 73 87 111 129 117 74 73 125 127 127 101 Avg. 100 58 73 86 109 130 118 76 74 127 129 129 106
Net cost/GRP Jan Feb Mrt Apr Mei Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec 58 73 86 109 130 118 76 74 127 129 129 106
13+ 625 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 20-‐34 795 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.4 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 20-‐49 691 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 BDS 20-‐49 633 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 BDS + Kind 625 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 M 20-‐34 925 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.2 V 20-‐49 624 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5
Heineken Case SpecificaDons Target Group 20-‐49 Cost/GRP pre-‐roll 1304 Targe;ng efficiency index Masthead 1.02 Impression impact index Masthead 2.9
Calculated for all audiences and months due to varia;on in TV pricing.
* Montly Cost for TV is derived from Carat Media Facts, the average discount of 70% has been taken into considera;on. ** Within the cell the average efficiency score is shown for the market based on the Aviko research; Cost TV within the specific month / Cost Pre-‐roll * Targe;ng Efficiency * Impression Impact
28
EsDmaDon Impact Efficiency Index Masthead (indexed against TV)