Source: Nielsen Catalina Solutions, Copyright 2016 Nielsen Catalina Solutions

Transcription

1 Yes Advertising works! We are going to address - how different is it across media platforms? 1

2 We are awash with questions about advertising response and differences between media. 2

3 So we pulled together an august team of industry experts to help us find answers in our norms database. Jim Spaeth and Alice Sylvester from Sequent Partners; David Poltrack from CBS; Britta Cleveland from Meredith and Tony Marlow from Yahoo!. Jasper Snyder from the ARF was also an advisor. Once we had our team, we dug into the data and boy did we dig! I know this team was surprised to launch this several months ago with literally hundreds and hundreds of graphs. We wanted, in fact needed, to understand what was required to make comparisons across media possible! 3

4 We started with 2500 studies and culled them down to 1400 that had complete, CPG only data where we were measuring the incremental sales for the same brand advertised. The media costs also had to be actual media costs. This is very important since we are reporting ROAS which reflects the costs of the media. There are 11 years of data across 450 CPG brands. All numbers reported are for groups of campaigns with at least 10 studies. Those with between studies are shown with faded color. 4

5 Linear TV since 2009 TV networks & cable networks Linear TV since 2009 This is broadcast TV: TV networks & cable networks Magazines since 2012 Major publishing companies; only very large schedules Online Display 2004/Video 2008 Major publishers & portals; typically premium inventory with virtually no programmatic campaigns. Mobile since 2013 In-App measurement. Very small campaigns Cross Media 2013 studies with multiple media. 5

6 Objective: The key objective was to figure out how to make sure that the values we are reporting actually reflect the differences between the media. 6

7 This has been a challenge! Different mix of media over the years. A large part of those years were recessionary (I will share what we see across years it turns out it isn t a discriminator and more often reflects the mix of studies included.) Most importantly how we classify media is changing. In this presentation we have tried to keep them clean, but they aren t clean and the boundaries are getting more and more blurred. (Magazine campaigns commonly include the digital content we put those into cross-media, TV is often delivered across screens. We have worked hard to try and keep these clean, but the world is changing.) Many of the drivers of the differences between media couldn t be controlled for like creative. 7

8 8

9 Measuring Lift starts with data. NCS connects exposure both big data and currency quality small data to CPG buy data at the household level to create true single source data. That means, we have ongoing transactional data to understand the commercials that are seen and how that changes what consumers buy across most major media. We use both big data and small, currency quality data together to make smart data. Using the small data to inform the biases and holes in the big, convenient data. This is true for purchase as well as exposure data. Please get the presentation to understand more about our data 9

10 10

11 11

12 ROAS Return on Ad Spend it is the incremental dollars due to spending each dollar in advertising. (this is not ROI since it doesn t include the brand s margins.) Incremental sales per exposed HH removes the variable of cost and focuses on reached HHs Incremental sales per thousand impressions removes the media costs and the reach and just looks at the value of each impression. 12

13 These three slides share the key findings for this study. Notice how close most of the media are to each other. The two standouts are: Digital Video what we are seeing here is the impact of supply and demand. Digital video is hot and there is very little inventory. That drives the price up and the ROAS down. The opposite is true for magazines. Magazine reading is engaging, provides context but is not currently seen as being as sexy as other media. The supply is also flexible, so supply and demand are not the driving forces. The total audience may also not be given as much credit as it deserves. You might wonder how digital does as well as the other media. Remember, this is predominantly premium inventory with virtually no programmatic included. These are return on ad spend, so the budget matters. The average spend for linear TV was almost $10 million. Magazines average: almost $2 million; Cross-media just over $1million; Digital video just over $500K; Display almost $500K, Mobile - $300K. These values are at very different scales. 13

14 When we remove the cost of the media and only look at the incremental sales per reached HH, the pattern changes. Linear TV delivers the highest return. This is interesting because the average reach for these linear TV campaigns is 57%, while most of the other media deliver one-tenth as much - between 3-8% reach. Magazines, being all large campaigns have an average reach of 25%. This isn t surprising TV has sight, sound, motion and delivers the highest return. It is expensive because reach is always expensive. The display is for our partners and doesn t include any of the larger walled gardens larger campaigns. 14

15 When we remove reach and look at the return for each impression Mobile does very well. The mobile campaigns are small sharing the lowest reach with digital video and the lowest frequency a 12 vs. an average of between average frequency for the other media. Call out the importance of reach. Average frequency: Mobile the lowest with 12. Digital Video 18; Display 15; TV 16; Cross Media 16 15

16 Each measure paints a different picture across media. We will return to these at the end for discussion. 16

17 NCS has traditionally reported a brand s ROAS as compared to brands in the same category. Brands with shorter purchase cycles and higher weekly sales consistently show higher return. Baby and Pet products are purchased more often and cost quite a bit. It is easier to drive higher ROI than for brands that are smaller and have longer purchase cycles. 17

18 This isn t as clear across media. 18

19 And certainly not when we look at incremental sales per reached HH. 19

20 Or impressions. 20

21 Based on the work we have shared around the NCS- Neuro project, it is clear that incremental sales are influenced by the size, penetration and purchase cycle of the brand. Here we clustered brands into 3 groups. The Marquee brands are much larger brands. Mid-size speaks for itself and Infrequent Use are brands that have long purchase cycles and much more consistent levels of purchasing. 21

22 The clusters have very different performance across all measures. Marquee is substantially higher than Mid-Size which is substantially higher than infrequent use. This is one finding that will improve NCS s work. We now know that brands should be compared to their clusters rather or in addition to comparing them to their category. 22

23 Unlike category we see this same pattern when we look inside brands. (faded cells reflect smaller cells.) 23

24 And this continues for reach. 24

25 And impressions. 25

26 As promised, we looked across time. There is no consistent pattern. This is much more reflective of the mix of campaigns measured than the marketplace. We dug deeply into this variable and didn t see a consistent pattern either across years or across years and media. 26

27 27

28 28

29 Slide up during the panel discussion: Ok Apologies for the speed but now we get to the interesting part with our panel. Jasper, would you handle questions? Key questions raised: Why are cross-media plans not higher? NCS consistently finds that there is great value in synergy. Households exposed to both media have higher incremental sales. However, mostly the overlap between media households exposed to both media are small. Therefore, the impact of that synergy tends to be small when we look at the total campaign. 29

30 30

31 31

32 One way to explore the norms across media is to look at individual brands and compare the results 32

33 This is a single brand during the same 8 weeks. There are three portals and nine different tactics. While none achieve an ROAS above $1.20, you can see how different the return can be. 33

34 On the other hand, this brand has consistently high ROAS above $2.00 and as high as $3.40 across years and media. They are doing something right! 34

35 35