© 2013 crain communications inc. may 20, 2013 isolating selective perception effects hypothetical...

13

Upload: mitchel-bakehouse

Post on 01-Apr-2015

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference
Page 2: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

Pre-Campaign Post-Campaign0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ra

tin

g (

%)

ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTSHypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test

difference is from those with prior selectivity

NOADS

ANYADS

SelectivePerception

Page 3: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

Pre-Campaign Post-Campaign0

10

20

30

40

50

Ra

tin

g (

%)

ISOLATED ADVERTISING IMPACT EFFECTSHypothetical example of Brand X with significant impact. Post-test differences are

from the campaign and not the result of selective perception.

ANYADS

NOADS

Page 4: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS BY MEDIA TYPEDollars in thousands.

Television Traditional Online Social Media

Se

lec

tiv

e P

erc

ep

tio

n

Page 5: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

DIFFERENCES IN SELECTIVE PERCEPTION BY MEDIA TYPE AND BRAND CATEGORY

Consumers who engage with CPG brands in social media are highly likely to be brand fans, more so than beverage or snack brands

Beverages Snacks CPG

Se

lec

tiv

e P

erc

ep

tio

n

Television

TraditionalDigital

SocialMedia

Page 6: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND TELEVISION ON BRAND ATTRIBUTE DIMENSIONS

TasteAttribute A

TasteAttribute B

Television

SocialMedia

TV was more effective changing perceptions of a snack brand’s taste than social media.

Page 7: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND TELEVISION ON BRAND AFFINITY DIMENSIONS

Social media was more effective at generating awareness for new flavors and line extensions%

Imp

ac

t

AffinityAttribute A

AffinityAttribute B

AffinityAttribute C

Television

SocialMedia

Page 8: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

Television Print Traditional Online

Bra

nd

ed

En

ga

ge

me

nt

AD AWARENESS BY MEDIA TYPETV still dwarves other channels for brand awareness

SnacksBeverages

ConsumerPackaged

Goods

Page 9: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

Snack Brand Beverage Brand

Bra

nd

ed

En

ga

ge

me

nt

(%)

SOCIAL MEDIA AND TELEVISION ENGAGEMENT INTERACTIONS

Social media effect stronger when used with TV

WithTelevision

WithoutTelevision

Page 10: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

THE FUNNEL MODEL OF ADVERTISINGHarness the strengths of each channel

BrandNeutral

Broad

LoyalistCore

TargetNarrow

Page 11: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

CONTROLLING FOR SELECTIVE PERCEPTIONCampaign impact on brand favorability

0

25

50

75

100

Saw Ads

Did Not See Ads

PRE POST

Page 12: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

CONTROLLING FOR SELECTIVE PERCEPTIONCampaign impact on brand favorability

SOURCE: DIGITAS

0

25

50

75

100

Saw Ads

Did Not See Ads

BENCHMARK REINTERVIEW

Page 13: © 2013 Crain Communications Inc. May 20, 2013 ISOLATING SELECTIVE PERCEPTION EFFECTS Hypothetical example of Brand X selective perception. Post-test difference

© 2013 Crain Communications Inc.

May 20, 2013

LIKING AND SEEINGPositive statements about a brand and probability of seeing an ad.