auditing multimedia campaigns -asi 2008 european conference - furlanetto
DESCRIPTION
. 3 reasons why A+ worked on Multimedia Audit . A Media Audit case history, including: - "old style" mono media assessment - "uptodate" multimedia assessmentTRANSCRIPT
Auditing Multimedia Campaigns Opportunities and Threats
Paola Furlanetto Managing Director & Founding Partner A+ Advertising Audit
Copyright A+ Ad Audit 2008
Multi-media surveys. A reminder
Multi media surveys were (probably) born in 1970 in UK. 250 HW were writing on a diary products consumption together with TV and Magazines exposure
Since then, MM where conceived more as part of a bigger picture (single source, where media and products consumption were linked together ) than as a specific objective.
In brief the aim was ….
Making a Quantum Leap
MonoMedia Exposure
Multimedia Exposure and Product Consumption
Multi Media Exposure
Instead of climbing each step of the ladder
MonoMedia Exposure
Multimedia Exposure and Product Consumption
Multi Media Exposure
….”Similar leap was attempted by media auditors.”…
5
Traditional Media Auditing on Single Media (5/6 KPI’s, evaluate campaigns vs pool benchmark)
Econometric models based on multimedia campaigns
Making a Quantum Leap
Traditional Media Auditing on multi media performance
In both cases….
The aim was perfect
..but there was so much information to be gathered and consequently resources to invest
..that, at the end, the objective was seldom reached
It is therefore not unusual to…
….Find out that sometimes we are still living in the Jurassic period….
Mono-media Survey Single Media Auditing
Assessment
Reasons why
A+ is working on Media Auditing & Multimedia
3
10
Target Media Consumption
“More and more fragmented every day”
1.
11
Advertisers
“more and more interested in reaching their target
through different media/channels”
2.
12
A multimedia Survey
now available in Italy
3.
13
The GFK Eurisko Media Monitor
As those of you who have followed last Nov ASI Conference are familiar with
GFK Eurisko in Italy has been conducting since Oct 2006 a multimedia survey, called EMM –Eurisko Media Monitor-
The survey is now at its second year of test
Scientific Commettee
Advertisers Media Agencies
The Key Question is:
Q: ”Will multimedia research change Media Auditors
campaign assessment?...
15
Today’s presentation
1. Media Auditing in brief 2. EMM in brief 3. A case history :
how media audits assessment may change moving from single media to multimedia
4. Opportunities and Threats
1. Media Auditing in brief
Media Auditing in Brief
What is it A systematic, constant control activity of media costs & communication results Peculiarity Conducted by third party Institutes, having specific know how in the media planning business When it is done ex-post (at the end of FY or every quarter/six months)
Company Compared to Pool’s
Average
How Auditing Works
Pool = All campaigns addressed towards the same target
Not as expectation but in reality
Methodology
The comparison is based on parameters: - frequently used in media planning/buying
- consolidated in international auditing methodologies
4 Qualitative Parameters (media panning)
1. Effective Reach Percentage of people reached a minimum number of times (e.g. 3, 6,) 2. Position in break / in the book Percentage of pressure in qualitative positions
(e.g. first position in break or stand-alone position) 3. Affinity Concentration of target audience among overall contacts 4. Peak Time Share of advertising pressure developed by the highest audience
time bands (time bands definitions may vary according to target: late morning HWS, afternoon teens, drive time for adults ..etc)
Cost Parameter (Media Buying)
5. Net CPP
Cost of a unit of advertising pressure
The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
Key performance Indicators
23
The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
The Performance Scale
24
The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
25
2. GFK EURISKO Media Monitor in brief
The Sample
December)
Media with Passive Measurement
TV RADIO
+ Retailer
Media w/o Passive Measurement
PRINT WEB CINEMA MAIL
Gfk Multimedia - Meter
Microphone
Bar-code Scanner” button
“Voice” button
Red Led: “you have a message!”
Barcode Scanner
Bleu Led: meter works properly
“OK” button: show messages on display and
confirm selections
GPRS for data-transfer and to ask question in
real time
Recognizement of delayed listening
WEB CINEMA
TV RADIO
EMM – METHODOLOGY
Passive measurement (TV, Radio)
Push button + CAPI
(Press, Internet, Cinema)
CAPI (GDO, Direct Mail, Outdoor)
Media Exposure
Individual CAPI Interview
CAPI Interview
Consumptions
Gfk Eurisko Multimedia – Product List
The Analysis: Software and Database
Strengths
Weaknesses
34
EMM
Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
Do not allow detailed analysis on: - segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns -Low exposure vehicles
35
EMM
Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on: - segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns -Low exposure vehicles
36
EMM
Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on: - segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns -Low exposure vehicles
37
EMM
Therefore A+ conducted an experimental study
aimed at identifying possible changes in media auditing perspective. 37
Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on: - segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns -Low exposure vehicles
38
EMM
Therefore A+ conducted an experimental study
aimed at identifying possible changes in media auditing perspective.
A 2° step will take place next year Based on a wider sample and analysis base. 38
The Case History
Key Findings
The assessment of an advertiser campaign performance may shift from below the average to above the average
By switching from single media to multimedia analysis.
Our case, in a snapshot
The Advertiser must be: Active during the EMM period (Ott7 - Nov 07) On air in Radio e TV Test on Brand X, characteristics: FMCG product Target 15-34yo Investment share (90,2% tv, 9,8% radio)
The Brand “X” Campaign – Flight Overview Oct/Nov
MEDIANET NET
INVESTMENT % INV Target GRP Sales Houses
TV € 926.043 90,2% 410 RAI, MEDIASET
RADIO € 101.150 9,8% 412MANZONI, MONDADORI, NOVE NOVE, OPENSPACE,
RADIO E RETI, RDS
TOTAL € 1.027.193 100%
ADULTS 15-34yo
Media Strategy: Weights
QUALITY COST
30% 70%
NB Same Strategic weight 4 both Tv and Radio
COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT
50% 0% 10% 10%
COST
30% 70%
QUALITY COST
30% 70%
QUALITY COST QUALITY COST
30% 70%
QUALITY COST
30% 70%
QUALITY COST
30% 70%
QUALITY COST
TV: KPI versus Benchmark
44
TV: KPI versus Benchmark
- - - Average + + +
CGRP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Tv 90%
+13,9%
-2,4%
-21,3%
-30,0%
-1,4%
-2,2%
45
Radio: KPI versus Benchmark
- - - Average + + +
CGRP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
Radio10%
+4%
+12,6%
+45,9%
-30,8%
+0,3%
+9,0%
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 7,00-10,00 – Preferred Position: First & Single in Break
46
The Old Style but “Comfortable” Assessment
Total Advertising KPI: based on MONO MEDIA
Total KPI
Investment Share
Weighted Results
TOTAL MM KPI -1,1%
- 2,2%
90,2%
-2,0%
TV
+9,0%
9,8%
+0,9%
RADIO
48
Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
Overall Performance – With Multimedia
49
Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
MEDIACOST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI WITHOUT MULTIMEDIA
12,9% -0,9% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% -1,1% 100%
50
An up to date approach, based on MM (to be validated)
51
Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
Overall Performance – With Multimedia
MEDIACOST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI WITH MULTIMEDIA
12,9% 2,1% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% 0,4% 100%
MEDIACOST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI WITHOUT MULTIMEDIA
12,9% -0,9% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% -1,1% 100%
52
In brief
Only thanks to multimedia surveys media auditing can assess the ability of improving overall net reach using different media.
.. As many of you who are familiar with media planning know … Good performance in overall reach may come from low coverage commercial, with high exclusivity level ….Which is similar to our case where A multimedia reach above the average, may results from 2 single media reach below the average.
Process
Source: Individua Media Surveys (Softwares: AGB Arianna / Mediasoft Theresold. Surveys: Auditel for TV and Audiradio for Radio) 1. Choice of the campaign to be tested
(Brand X, active in Oct/Nov 07, planning both Radio and TV) 2. Selection of reference pools for Radio and TV ( 15-34 yo) 3. Within the pools, Identification of Radio and TV reach benchmark for given # of grps
(average level for grps cluster)
4. Pinpoint, within Radio and TV pools, of benchmark’s representative flights (3.)
Source: Multimedia (Software Memis/Supernova on EMM Survey) 5. Upload of both Brand X campaign and representative flight media plans in EMM 6. Check of flights’ performance in the EMM database 7. Application of "correction factors" to EMM (in order to reduce different methodology bias
and maintain coherence between Brand X performance and TV and Radio benchmarks). 8. Validation of grps and reach results on single media (only TV, only Radio) 9. Analysis of Multimedia reach performance on both Brand X and benchmark flights 10. Comparison between brand X and benchmark flights overall net reach 11. Overall reach performance index is exported in the BRAND X KPI assessment
Traditional approach
Present Test
Q: ”Will multimedia research change Media Auditors
campaign assessment?...
A: Yes. The ability in obtaining
high level of overall net reach can be pursued
-and assessed by media auditors- only through multimedia surveys.
This ability seems to be more and more requested by major advertisers
57
Opportunities Multimedia researches
are in line with target and advertising evolution.
Threats Political barriers
and need for vehicles detailed information
(to fit the fragmented exposure within specific media)
slow down MM development.
58
Opportunities Multimedia researches
are in line with target and advertising evolution.
Threats Political barriers
and need for vehicles detailed information
(to fit the fragmented exposure within specific media)
slow down MM development.
59
The pursuit of perfection is sometimes risky…..
We think in “Matrix” terms..
60
... but we behave in the Flinstone’s way
61
Future Scenarios
Advertisers are moving towards . Total advertising expenditure control/audit . Consistent and measurable Innovation . Optimization on a multi-media level
Media Auditors should be prepared for it
Multimedia solutions are expected to: . feed advertisers need for overall optimization . match with existing in-depth single media surveys
62
Albert Einstein
…. I Never think of the future It comes soon enough”
63