Historically share of voice has driven share of market

Transcription

1 Historically share of voice has driven share of market 12% 10% 8% SOV > SOM: Brands tend to grow Share of Voice 6% 4% 2% SOV < SOM: Brands tend to shrink 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Share of Market Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 07)

2 The 60:40 split delivers maximum effectiveness Number of very large effects % Activation share of budget Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figure 38)

3 The broader the reach, the broader the effects Average number of very large effects reported For campaigns targeting: Existing customers New customers Whole market 0.6 Business effects Total effects Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figure 18)

4 The broader the reach, the greater the efficiency 2.6 Annualised ESOV EFFICIENCY 0.2 Target existing customers 0.3 Total new customers Target whole market Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figure 21)

5 Penetration is the main driver of very large business effects 25% 20% Very large effect observed on: 22% % cases 15% 10% 5% 7% 7% 0% Loyalty only Penetration only Both Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Eff Week 2016, Marketing in the Digital Age, IPA

6 A long-term outward focus brings broader and bigger effects Broad but slower effects, big paybacks Long term Long-term prospects Brand Building Immediate prospects Existing customers Short term Narrower but earlier effects, smaller paybacks Sales Activation Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figure 22)

7 Brand-building and sales activation work over different timescales Sales activation Short-term sales uplifts Brand building Long-term sales growth Sales uplift over base Short term effects dominate - 6 months Time Sales activation / Short-term sales uplifts Brand-building / Long-term sales growth Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 02)

8 The differences between brand building and sales activation Brand Building Creates mental brand equity Influences future sales Broad reach Long term Emotional priming Sales Activation Exploits mental brand equity Generates sales now Tightly targeted Short term Persuasive messages Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 01)

9 The trade-off between brand and activation effects across channels 85% 75% DRTV 65% Paid search % Reporting very large activation effects 55% 45% 35% 25% 1.1 Inserts SMS Online Non-video National newspapers Regional newspapers Social media Radio Magazines DM TV DOH Promos Cinema Online video PR Sponsorship Average number of very large brand effects reported Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 27)

10 Emotional campaigns are more effective on almost all business metrics especially long-term Emotional campaigns yield stronger long-term business effects % reporting very large effects on business metrics 55% For campaigns that are: Rational Emotional The longer the time rame the more emotions drive profit % reporting very large profit growth For campaigns targeting: 43% 46% 28% 31% 27% 27% Rational Combined 13% 27% 21% 23% 23% 2% 5% 5% 11% Emotional Sales Market share Price sensitivity Loyalty New Customers 1-2 years Campaign duration 3+ years Emotional campaigns are more profitable 29% 25% % reporting very large profit growth 16% Rational Combined Emotional Communications model Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figures 44, 53, 54)

11 Fame-driving campaigns out-perform others on all business metrics % reporting very large improvements in each metric For campaigns that are: 55% Fame 47% Other 32% 29% 34% 28% 35% 21% 8% 3% 14% 9% Sales Market share Price sensitivity Loyalty Penetration Profit Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It, IPA, (Figure 60)

12 Creatively awarded campaigns are 11 times as effecient at driving Share of Market growth Comparison of the efficiency of creatively-awarded and non-awarded campaigns 60 % SOM Growth ESOV % Creatively-awarded Not creatively-awarded -40 Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, The Link Between Creativity and Effectiveness, Thinkbox/IPA, (Figure 06)

13 Very highly creatively awarded campaigns are the most efficient of all ( ) SOV EFFICIENCY Highly creatively awarded (4+) Less Creatively awarded (1-3) Not creatively awarded Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Selling Creativity Short, IPA, (Figure 44)

14 TV has become more effective, % 40% 40% 35% % increase in ang. no. VL business effects from adding TV 30% 25% 20% 27% 15% 12% 10% 5% 0% Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 36)

15 Short-termism boosts ROMI but not profit growth 600% Very large profit growth Ave. ROMI 30% 500% 25% 400% 20% Ave ROMI 300% 15% Very large profit growth 200% 10% 100% 5% 0% Short-term Long-term 0% Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figure 62)

16 Some emerging and destructive trends in effectiveness Campaign effectiveness has fallen Budgets (ESOV) have been falling across the board % % ESOV all ESOV long cases % % Number of very large business effects % 6% 4% 2% 1.2 0% years ending 10 years ending Short-termism has been rising Even long-term cases have lost efficiency 30% % % 0.8 % cases short term 15% 10% SOV efficiency (cases > 6m) % 0.2 0% years ending 10 years ending Source: Les Binet and Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA, (Figures 47, 51, 65, 68)