-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
1/36
MTS BIT CampaignC R O S S M E D I A C A M PA I G N E VA L U A T I O N
1
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
2/36
Contents
2
Methodology Media Strategy
Reach Frequency Brand Optimisation
Background
Results
Summary
Take outs
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
3/36
CrossMedia Research
3
Over 100 European studies across more than 20 different brands
Corporate
Food & drink
Household
Leisure
Personal careTechnology
Telecommunications
Utilities
Information services
UK
France
Spain
Norway
Italy
Poland
Germany
Czech Republic
Russia
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
4/36
Methodology and Sample
4
Best-in-class Multimedia Evaluation
Based on potential exposure to campaign Using responses from consumers as to their exact media
consumption across multiple channels it is possible to build upindividual media consumption profiles. This profile is thenmatched with the booked media plan (provided by the mediaagency), OTS (opportunity to see) scores are generated for eachrespondent in the respondent base.
Continuous recruitment throughout campaign We look at weekly data throughout the period of the campaign in
order to pick up campaign build over the course of activity. Wealso continue the study for short period of time after the campaignhas ended to asses any decay in impact which may occur after thecampaign has ended.
Respondent level statistical modelling From collecting digital and traditional media exposure we create a
single source respondent base from which it is possible to deriveincremental reach and other cross media analysis.
1,600 (400 Predisposition, 1,200 Campaign)
14-24 year olds
Mobile Phone Users
Internet Users
With panel quotas on gender (50/50 split)
*Note: all figures in this deck are based on the above online sample.
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
5/36
Campaign
5
Campaign dates
October-November 2011
Geography
Russia
Media used
TV, Outdoor, Internet Video, Internet Display
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
6/36
73.3%
3.8%3.9%
19.0%
Campaign Spend by Media Channel (% of total spend)
Investment
6
TV accounted for over 70% of campaign spend
Online Video
Online Display
Outdoor
TV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
7/36
The campaign achieved high reach with TV andOutdoor contributing strongly and Online Videoextending the reach of the TV ad incrementally.
There was a strong impact on BIT metrics andrelevant MTS impressions though more generalMTS measures were not impacted strongly.
Online Video was the most efficient media.Reallocating spend from TV to Online Video wouldresult in increased impact and efficiency.
Overall Summary
7
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
8/36
Reach & Frequency
8
Who was exposed to the campaign and how often?
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
9/36
71%
9%
54%
72%
Reach
Reach by Media (% of sample exposed to each channel)
Reach
9
Outdoor and TV had the highest reach.
Online Video Online Display OutdoorTV
*Note: all figures in this deck are based on the 14-24 y.o. online sample
Sample:14-24 year olds
Mobile Phone Users
Internet Users
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
10/36
69%1.7%
1.7%
28%
% of Online Video exposure contributed by each site
How much of Online Video is YouTube?
10
YouTube accounts for the vast majority of Online Video exposure.
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
11/36
Reach Overlaps
11
65%
3%
6%
YouTube delivered 4% incremental reach to the campaignA third of Online Video reach brought the TV ad to a new audience.
Online VideoTV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
12/36
19.45
3.50
24.52
13.1Frequ
ency
Frequency (Avg. # of times each person was exposed)
Frequency
12
There was a 3.50 frequency cap used in Online Video with the help ofsuch settings you can get frequency most efficient for your product andaudience.
Online Video Online Display OutdoorTV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
13/36
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
14/36
Brand Impact
14
What was the effect of campaign on peoples perceptions of MTS?
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
15/36
12.8%
4.5%
3.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on BIT Related Metrics
Base Campaign Contribution
Impact on BIT perceptions
15
There were strong impacts on the most relevant metrics, especially BIT awareness.
BIT
Awareness
BIT
Consideration
Campaign
Image Average
Asked of
MTS overall
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
16/36
BIT Awareness
16
BIT Awareness increased by almost half due to mainly Outdoor and TV.
27.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
BIT Awareness
1. What was the level ofBIT Awareness?
Baseline and Campaign Contribution
57%
3%
40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Individual Media Contribution
3.And which media wasresponsible?
53%47%
2. How much did the campaign drive this 27%?
Baseline
Media Uplift
24.5222.34
9.07
RUR 0
RUR 20
RUR 40
RUR 60
RUR 80
RUR 100
TV Online Video Outdoor
4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?
Lower is Better
Online Video
Outdoor
TV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
17/36
BIT Consideration (T2B)
17
Consideration of the BIT tariff also grew, driven by the same 3 media.
10.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
BIT Consideration (Top 2 Box)
1. What was the level ofBIT Consideration?
Baseline and Campaign Contribution
46%
4%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Individual Media Contribution
3.And which media wasresponsible?
59%
41%
2. How much did the campaign drive this 11%?
Baseline
Media Uplift Online Video
Outdoor
TV
86.09
50.63
20.58
RUR 0
RUR 20
RUR 40
RUR 60
RUR 80
RUR 100
TV Online Video Outdoor
4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?
Lower is Better
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
18/36
Campaign Image Average
18
All media contributed to the campaign specific image statements.
34.9%
39.9%
50.1%
45.4%
58.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Understands my needs
Has the best tariff and product
Has good service quality
Has user-friendly services
ProductImages
1. What were the levels of the Product Images?
Baseline and Campaign Contribution
42.2%
17.0%
4.5%
36.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Individual Media Contribution
3.And which media wasresponsible?
93%
7%
2. How much did the campaign drive this?
Baseline
Media Uplift
Is providing new and innovative
services
Online VideoOnline Display
Outdoor
TV
132.14
16.76
66.68
39.99
RUR 0
RUR 50
RUR 100
RUR 150
TV OnlineVideo
OnlineDisplay
Outdoor
4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?
Lower is Better
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
19/36
3.2% 1.4%
0.4%
1.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on General MTS Metrics
Base Campaign Contribution
Impact on broader MTS perceptions
19
There were smaller effects on general MTS metrics, though emotionalconnection was one area that the campaign impacted.
Background
Image Average
Consideration
T2B
Emotional
Proximity
Recommendation
(8+)
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
20/36
Emotional Proximity (T2B)
20
Emotional Proximity had a good uplift driven by online video and TV.
35.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Emotional Proximity
1. What was the level ofEmotional Proximity?
Baseline and Campaign Contribution
63%
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Individual Media Contribution
3.And which media wasresponsible?
91%
9%
2. How much did the campaign drive this 35%?
Baseline
Media Uplift
Online Video
TV
87.32
8.08
RUR 0
RUR 20
RUR 40
RUR 60
RUR 80
RUR 100
TV Online Video
4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?
Lower is Better
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
21/36
12.8%
4.5%
3.2%
3.2%1.4%
0.4%
1.5% 3.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on KPI Metrics
Base Campaign Contribution
Brand Impact
21
Looking across all metrics we can create an overall summary score.
BIT
Awareness
BIT
Consideration
Campaign
Image Average
Background
Image Average
KPI AverageConsideration
T2B
Emotional
Proximity
Recommendation
(8+)
BIT Metrics MTS Metrics
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
22/36
KPI Average
22
All media contributed to impacting this KPI average.
35.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
KPI Average
1. What was the level of KPIAverage?
Baseline and Campaign Contribution
49%
11%5%
34%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Individual Media Contribution
3.And which media wasresponsible?
89%
11%
2. How much did the campaign drive this 53%?
Baseline
Media Uplift Online video
Online Display
Outdoor
93.90
20.66
46.43
35.68
RUR 0
RUR 20
RUR 40
RUR 60
RUR 80
RUR 100
TV OnlineVideo
OnlineDisplay
Outdoor
4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?
Lower is Better
*KPI Average includes: BIT Awareness, BIT Consideration, Campaign Image Average, Emotional Proximity,Recommendation 8+, Consideration T2B and Background Image Average.
TV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
23/36
The campaign contributed strongly to awarenessand consideration of the BIT tariff as well asimpacting relevant image perceptions of MTS.
The campaign have a more muted impact on widerMTS metrics although did boost emotionalconnection between the brand and consumers.
All media contribute to the overall KPI average.
Brand Impact Summary
23
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
24/36
Efficiency
24
Which channel was most efficient in delivering its effects?
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
25/36
100
40
7
25
Cost(indexedtoTVcost)
Cost per 1% of Reach (indexed)
Cost Efficiency of Reach
Cost per Percentage of Reach (Spend divided by Reach)25
Online Display is the most cost effective in delivering reach.
Lower is Better
Online Video Online Display OutdoorTV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
26/36
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
27/36
100
22
4938
Cost(indexedtoTVcost)
Cost per 1% of Impact (KPI Average; indexed)
Cost Efficiency of Brand Effect
Cost per Percentage of Impact on KPI average (Spend divided by Impact)27
Online Video is the most efficient channel in delivering brand effects.
Lower is Better
Online Video Online Display OutdoorTV
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
28/36
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
29/36
Optimisation
29
How could we have allocated the budget differently to achieve more?
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
30/36
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
KP
IImpact
Simulation %
KPI Simulation by Investment
TVOnlineVideo
KPI Simulation by Investment
30
Both Online Video and TV have potential for greater impact withincreased investment
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
31/36
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
32/36
Double spend on Online Video
Funded by reducingtotal spend on TV by only 5%
Spend
200%
spend
95%
Scenario
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
33/36
Brand Impact of Scenario
33
The incremental impact of reallocating the budget would have required aproportional increase in investment through the original lay down.
+4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%110%
Original Campaign New InvestmentAllocation
Brand
Impact
To deliver thisadditional 4% brandimpact through the
original budget
allocation would havemeant increasing themedia spend by the
same amount.
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
34/36
Online Display is the most efficient medium atdelivering reach.
Online Video delivers the most cost effective brandimpacts and it would not be feasible to replicatethese effects through increased investment in TV.
Shifting spend from TV to Online Video results in asubstantial increase in campaign impact.
Efficiency Summary
34
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
35/36
The campaign achieved high reach with TV andOutdoor contributing strongly and Online Videoextending the reach of the TV ad incrementally.
There was a strong impact on BIT metrics andrelevant MTS impressions though more generalMTS measures were not impacted strongly.
Online Video was the most efficient media.Reallocating spend from TV to this channel wouldresult in increased impact and efficiency.
Overall Summary
35
-
8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf
36/36
MTS BIT CampaignC R O S S M E D I A C A M PA I G N E VA L U A T I O N