Transcript TV and In-Store Again Found Additive

TV and In-Store
Again Found Additive
Jay Leon
VP/Turner Sports
Research
Turner Broadcasting
Bill Harvey
CEO
Bill Harvey
Consulting
@billharveymedia
Brian Katz
SVP/Advertiser &
Purchaser
Insights
TiVo Research
@briank703
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Longstanding Industry Belief
Methodology
Study 1
Study 2 (6 brands)
Study 3
Implications
The Future
Longstanding Industry Belief Reduces
Profit
• The unvalidated belief that “Advertising and Promotion Work
Against Each Other” helped cause flighting of TV between
promotions
• Advertising flighting shown by Erwin Ephron/John Phillip Jones to be
less cost effective than continuity, due to Recency effect
• 8 studies find that advertising and promotion can work
together synergistically, rather than cancel each other out
• ROI studies must encompass advertising and promotion in order to
ensure optimal activation
Methodology: direct match to purchase + web,
set-top-box data from multiple partners
TRA’s Set-Top-Box Data Source
3 Million Households
Achieving the right composition for nationally representative sample*
Charter/
Fourth Wall
*all data weighted and projected to the US TV pop
Single-source match with key category
purchase data
CPG
Automotive
Healthcare
Spend Behavior
40 Million
Households
30 chains, including
115 Million
Households
of auto registrations
1.6 Billion
de-identified
healthcare claims at
the person level*
30 Million
Households
of purchases
Introducing Ninth Decimal: Location based, out of home ROI
*HIPAA-compliant matching and analysis performed by IMS
Single-source direct 1:1 match with digital
No fusion – No inference
700K+ Households
TV and Online Overlap
Provides core
infrastructure for data
driven marketing
450K Households
TV and Online Overlap
Global leader in digital
measurement and
analytics
Onboarding of digital
based datasets for
targeting, measurement
and ROI
What makes us unique?
The largest cross-media single-source sample in the industry 45X or 70X the size of the second largest
TV Data
Purchaser
Data
CPG + Cross-Media
Match: 700,000
Datalogix
450,000 comScore
Online Data
Synergy Among TV, Price, and Display
Study #1:
PERCENT LIFT IN SALES OF DIET SOFT DRINK BRAND
COMPARED TO AVERAGE SALES RATE IN ALL HOMES
All permutations
studied show
positive synergy
between advertising
and promotion
Condition
Percent
sales lift
Any TV ad exposure + price cut
+21.9%
3+ TV ad exposures + price cut
+68.7%
Any TV ad exposure + in-store feature + display
+34.9%
3+ TV ad exposures + in-store feature + display
+95.8%
Source: TRA National Single-source 12/2008-6/2009
Sample size: Total Static Brand Purchasers (7 months): Diet Soft Drink X – 22,714 HH Weeks
Multivariate Model Controls for Price, Promotions, Seasonality and Trend
Note doubling of sales without price cut,
using other forms of in-store promotion
for most profitable ROI
Study #2
Using All Stimuli Together Maximizes Sales
6 Brand Average Sales Lift per Household per Week
TV Only
0.5%
1.8%
TV + TPR
TV + Feature
0.7%
Effects are
enhanced
when ALL
stimuli are
combined
TV + TPR/ Feature/
Display
5.7%
Average Percent Sales Lift
Study #2
Using All Stimuli Together Maximizes Sales
6 Brand Average Sales Lift (Relative Index)
Again, all
permutations
studied show
positive synergy
between
advertising and
promotion
100
TV Only
112
TV + TPR
5
Feature Additional Lift
117
TV + TPR + Feature
Effects are
enhanced when
ALL stimuli are
combined
40
Additional Lift
157
TV + TPR/ Feature/ Display
0
Source: TRA National Single-source 10/2010-11/2011
Matched Sample size: ~500,000 households
Multivariate Model Controls for Price, Promotions, Seasonality and Trend
50
100
150
200
Current Study
Study #3
Objective: To understand the impact of advertising
a male-oriented CPG brand during the NCAA
tournament on TBS, TNT, TruTV, & CBS
BRAND
CAMPAIGN FOCUS
X
CAMPAIGN TIMING
3/16/2014 – 4/5/2014
Business questions for
the BRAND X campaign
EXPOSED HOUSEHOLDS
27.5K
SALES UPLIFT FOR
BRAND X
BY:
New category; new
brand; and existing
brand buyers
TEST
Frequency of exposure
distribution
48.8K
Heavy; Medium; and
Light Buyers
CONTROL
TV + In-Store campaign
Brand X Methodology/Overview
Linking shopping behavior to TV viewing data
for a single-source view of the consumer
TV Exposure
5 MM Households
Shopping Behavior
56 MM Households
Demographics
Cross platform with scale
Granular measurement can answer specific
business questions
Which consumers did you reach?
Which were most responsive?
LIFESTYLES
DEMOGRAPHICS
PRICE
SENSITIVITY
Which media levers were most effective?
What changes did we see in consumer
purchase behavior? (uplift and ROAS)
NEW TRIAL
$ / HHD
SOR
Which consumer group resonated the
BRAND BUYERS
strongest?
X
DAY PART
FREQUENCY
AD LENGTH
REPEAT RATE
HEAVY
Y
COMPETITIVE
NEW
Uplift measurement methodology
Exposed HHs
Unexposed HHs
$ Sales Per HH in Analysis Period
(Illustrative Example)
BEHAVIOR
GEOGRAPHY
DEMOGRAPHICS
UnExposed HHs
(Control)
Test Group
Control Group
Control group (matched, not exposed) selected
to “mirror” the exposed group on pre-campaign
period sales, demographics, and geography
Exposed HHs (Test)
+X% lift in $ Sales per exposed HH, with 99% significance
Advertising impact is determined by
comparing sales of Exposed hhs to the
Control hhs (unexposed) via Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA)
Those exposed to NCAA BRAND X campaign
on Turner/CBS Properties showed a positive
sales uplift for the brand
CAMPAIGN DROVE SIGNIFICANT $UPLIFT +11% FOR BRAND X
The uplift is primarily driven by increase in penetration
NEW BUYERS TO CATEGORY SHOW HIGH INCREMENTAL $ UPLIFT
Existing heavy, medium or light buyers do not show any measureable impact
4-5 EXPOSURES SHOW POSITIVE UPLIFT
Strive to reach households with at least 4-5 exposures to obtain maximum impact
IN-STORE PROMOTIONS HELPED DRIVE $ FOR BRAND X
Exposure to TV in addition to in-store promotions produces incremental uplift
TV Reach Exceeds Promotion Reach
36% of HHs are exposed to TV ads; 15% to In-Store promotion
% HHs EXPOSED BY CHANNEL
# HHS
23,040
4,506
30%
6,666
55%
42,142
6%
76,354
9%
TV Only
Both TV and In-Store
In-Store Only
No Exposure
Trade Promotions are made up of:
•
Display – The product is on display in the aisle
•
Feature – Product is featured in a leaflet promoting the product
•
TPR – Temporary Price Reduction, a drop in price made by the manufacturer/retailer
Total exposures over Campaign Period: 03/16/14-04/5/14 plus 4 weeks post campaign
27,500 Test vs. 48,800 Control households
TiVo Research, Turner
Total
TV Additive to Promotion Effect
Exposure to TV added an additional 11% uplift to $ over and
above the 55% in-store trade $ response.
$ Sales Uplift
11%
Considerable
Brand impact
from trade
promotion
55%
In-Store
Significance: >99%
Campaign + Post Purchase Period: 03/16/14-05/09/14
TV
Significance: 91%
Incremental
Uplift of TV
above and
beyond In-Store
Campaign was able to drive +11% sales lift
driven primarily by increased buying HHs
(penetration +7.7%)
UPLIFT Source:
Based on All Exposed Households
Significant (90%)
Based on All Exposed BUYING Households
Directional (Penetration: 87%; $/HH: 81%)
# Buyers
Buying Rate
+7.7%
+4.5%
Adv increased
the number hhs
buying by
7.7%
… and the
amount a HH
purchased
increased by
4.5%
Which was driven by New Category Buyers showing
the most incremental $s for BRAND X post campaign
Source of Buying Rate Increase
New category
buyers drawn in
by the
advertising
spent more than
expected
+23%
$1.05
+11%
$0.95
New Category Buyers
Total Pop
Significance
86%
95%
% HHS
17%
100%
**Note: Data are only shown where results are statistically significant or directional (>80% significance)
(Brand Switchers and Existing Buyer groups excluded due to <80% statistical significance)
Campaign + Post Purchase Period: 03/16/14-05/09/14
60% of exposed HHs were exposed to
BRAND X 1-3 times during the campaign
# Exposed
HHS
% OF FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
2%
8%
8,252
31%
15%
7,694
4,083
4,158
15%
2,179
561
29%
1
Campaign + Post Purchase Period: 03/16/14-05/09/14
2-3
4-5
6-9
10-15
16+
HHs with 4-5 exposures showed the highest
uplift for BRAND X
UNITS/HH % UPLIFT BY
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
$/HH % UPLIFT BY
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
+66%
+71%
+58%
Significant
Significant
+42%
Directional
Directional
Sign.
**
0%
1
2-3
4-5
-
99%
-
Frequency Bands
# All Exposed HHs
**
**
6-9
10-15
-
-
16+
86%
Sign.
**
0%
1
2-3
-
-
**
**
4-5
6-9
10-15
16+
98%
-
-
80%
1
2-3
4-5
6-9
10-15
16+
8,252
7,694
4,083
4,158
2,179
561
**Note: Data are only shown where results are statistically significant or directional (>80% significance)
Campaign + Post Purchase Period: 03/16/14-05/09/14
Implications
• Brands should use continuous advertising carefully coordinated with
in-store promotion
• Experiment with Display+Feature with little or no price reduction
• ROI measurement by all-real-data* singlesource should also be
continuous to allow results-based optimization
• In-Store should always be included in ROI studies (its short-term
top-line effects are larger than advertising’s)
• Proper inclusion of In-Store means 100% weekly store audits
(currently only done by TiVo Research partners)
* Fusion used with ROI is dangerous; could lead to reducing sales by actions taken
The Future
• Implement frequent buyer rewards programs in place of
price discounting
• Coordinate feature copy with advertising copy
• In-store, display life-size cardboard cutouts of characters
from TV series in which brand is using branded
integration
Thank You