5 Tracking Best Practices

January 5th, 2017 Comments off

Late last year we wrote a few pieces about tracking best practices.  These pieces really struck a nerve.  As 2017 gets rolling and many of you are probably thinking about and evaluating your research needs and objectives for the year we thought it would be helpful to revisit and expand on the theme.

As a company that’s very involved in the tracking space we have a lot of opportunity to hear directly from clients and prospects what’s working for them and what’s not.  What we hear repeatedly is a lot of dissatisfaction in the research community with trackers.  We hear things like;

“too big”

“bloated”

“measuring too much”

“too expensive”

“not actionable”

etc.

None of this is new but it seems to be at a fever pitch recently.  As such we’ve been fielding a lot of questions about what we recommend as best practices.

We have 5 best practices that we consistently offer up to our clients, that we have proven to represent a best in class approach to tracking – a sentiment shared by many thought leaders in our industry.  Most of these can be found in a paper that our own Frank Findley, EVP of Research presented at the ARF Re!Think Conference last year.  (contact us for the full paper)

1. Utilize One Primary Aggregate Measure

Utilize one primary aggregate measure.   The best in class choice for this measure is our Brand Preference.  This is supported by many independently validated research projects, most recently the MASB work presented in this paper.  The three most important features of this measure are its ability to capture the impact of all other ‘equity’ measures, take into account competitors and data collection at the individual respondent level.  Brand Preference is the cornerstone measure of our Brand Strength Monitor service.

tbsm

2. Supplement This With The 7 Other Measures We Have Proven Work Across All Other Categories

Once you’ve established this, then you should use the other 7 measure that we typically see work across all categories to help explain the data. They are:

  1. Awareness Unaided
  2. Brand Loyalty
  3. Value
  4. Purchase Intent
  5. Brand Relevance
  6. Awareness Aided and
  7. Advocacy

3.Customize For Your Specific Category

Then what we do for clients is customize their trackers to address specific category needs.  For example; convenience might be an important measure for one category but not another.  To gauge this, each element can be analytically compared vs the aggregate measure to calculate a derived importance.  The strengths and opportunities for the brand can then be easily found by crossing derived importance vs. brand performance on the attributes (see matrix example below).  This type of analytics is usually done once per year or every two years as category drivers tend to be steady in the absence of disruptive changes in the category.

prefmatrix

4. Track Continuously or Less Often Supplemented With “Deep Dives”

Collectively; the brand preference, the seven cross-category measures, and the category specific measures can be arranged into a score card and tracked over time.  Currently 70% of our clients collect this data continuously while 30% do waves (typically two per year).  For those that collect it continuously, the data itself is typically rolled up monthly with ‘deep dive’ reports going to management quarterly.

 

5. Harness The Data To Run Segmentation Analyses

Along with the scorecard, there are also generally segmentation type analyses where performance on KPIs is used to find and qualify consumer clusters or to monitor trends on quickly growing consumer groups.  For example, monitoring millennials has become standard.  This chart from the MASB, Brand Investment & Valuation Project demonstrates this point:

sensitivysubgroups

 

So, if you’re like many that we’re hearing from recently, and that with whom we’ve already shared this thinking with, this may be a revelation.  If you’d like to read more about this, please contact us – we’re happy to share a full white paper with you and we can discuss your particular needs.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
Categories: The Brand Strength Monitor Tags:

Samsung’s Exploding Battery Problem and What it Means for Their Brand

September 21st, 2016 Comments off

Recently, Samsung encountered a problem with some of their lithium ion batteries – they’re exploding!  Particularly those in their Galaxy Note 7 smartphones.  The causes have been determined1, but there is still a lot to be remedied as many airlines have recently warned passengers not to use them on planes2 and they’ve been forced to issue a recall3.

A question you may have regarding this developing situation is: What, if any, impact will this have on the strength of the Samsung brand?

Even though they have been receiving a lot of press regarding this issue, Samsung is not the only company to utilize these types of batteries4.  Also, Samsung is a very large company with a breadth of quality product offerings that go beyond just battery-powered devices.  So it is theoretically possible that that the overall brand will not suffer at all.  Another possibility is that there will be brand erosion but that it will be confined only to smartphones or, perhaps, to just battery-powered devices.  Finally, it could be that the issues will foster a general distrust of the brand that will umbrella over Samsung’s offerings in all categories.

By using The Brand Strength Monitor we can directly answer this question.  TBSM provides continuous collection of the MSW•ARS brand preference metric, the only independently validated measure of brand value.  Through its trend we can quantify what, if any, impact the battery problem is having on the Samsung brand.  As shown in the below table, currently seven categories in which Samsung competes are being tracked in this manner.

The first observation is that brand preference for Samsung is eroding quickly in the smartphone category.  In August alone it dropped over three percentage points versus the prior four months.  This erosion does not include the more recent developments regarding the device recall and airline warnings.  Once September data (and beyond) is available we will be able to gauge the full extent of this decline.

samsung-no-1-fig-001

The second observation is that this erosion is spilling over into all categories where battery safety and performance are important product features.  Even though there haven’t been reports of battery issues for smartwatches, tablets, and laptops none-the-less Samsung is experiencing substantial (over half a share point) preference declines in these categories.

samsung-no-1-fig-002

On a positive note, brand preference in the non-battery dependent categories is holding relatively steady.  This suggests that overall Samsung corporate equity has not yet faltered (at least through August).

If Samsung continues to lose brand preference across its battery-powered device categories, it undoubtedly will take time to rebuild what it once had.  However, it will be far from impossible.  Brands like Samsung, with strong legacies and established equity, can weather quite a storm.  Brands have staged comebacks after much worse incidents – such as Tylenol a few decades ago.

samsung-no-1-fig-003

Brand preference plummeted 32 points during the Tylenol tampering incident, as the nation watched several people die from the poisoning.  The Tylenol brand could no longer be trusted.  As Brand preference dropped, Tylenol’s market share fell 33 points.  As Johnson & Johnson addressed the situation responsibly, the strength of the brand’s previous contract (trust) in the minds of consumers was rebuilt, although a bit more slowly than it was damaged.

To be fair, smartphones and tablets (and consequently Samsung’s offerings in those categories) have only existed for a fraction of the amount of time Tylenol had been around during the aforementioned incident.  So, while the overall Samsung name may be relatively unscathed by recent developments, its specific lines in battery-powered device categories may not be so fortunate.

How Samsung continues to handle this brand crisis will go a long way in determining how low their brand preference will drop – as well as how long their recovery takes.  We at MSW●ARS Research will be paying close attention.

 

1 – http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-why-those-samsung-batteries-exploded-wp-bsi-20160912-story.html

2 – http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/technology/samsung-galaxy-note-7-airlines-battery-fires

3 – http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/samsung-stops-selling-galaxy-note-7-after-battery-explosions-n641891

4 – http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-battery-fire-risk-samsung-galaxy-note-7

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
Categories: The Brand Strength Monitor Tags:

Why won’t TV advertising just die already?

September 9th, 2016 Comments off

The answer…  Synergy – the compelling reason why television advertising is as relevant as ever.

For the last two decades it has been fashionable to prognosticate the death of television advertising whether delivered by broadcast, cable, satellite, or stream.  The general storyline has been that emerging digital channels will displace television advertising through a combination of lower costs per exposure and better ability to target specific audiences both demographically and by exhibited category interest.  But while digital advertising has seen explosive growth it has not yet toppled television from the top of the media spend hill.  Television still maintains a one percent edge over digital with 2016 U.S. ad spending for traditional, non-digital television projected to be $70.6 billion versus combined digital at $68.8 billion.

 

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-001

Source: www.emarketer.com

Given the above cited advantages of digital how can this be?  Part of the answer lies in the richness of the television exposure.  Television provides a ‘lean back’ experience that combines smooth full motion video with high quality sound.  The typical digital display ‘lean forward’ experience with smaller screens and less dynamic speakers doesn’t provide the same level of emergence.  Another part is the interruptive nature of television advertising which occurs in stream with the programming and seamlessly takes over the whole experience.  In many digital forms the advertising exposure occurs simultaneously with the content, effectively having to compete for attention with that content.  And digital also has a significant viewability problem with served ads appearing off-screen, being blocked, or viewed by non-human bots.  According to the latest comScore benchmark study in the U.S., only 48% of desktop display and 41% of desktop video are non-fraud, viewable impressions.  And this is not confined to the U.S.; according to comScore similar rates are occurring worldwide as shown in their infographic.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-002

In aggregate this means that television still typically delivers the highest sales return on a per reach basis.  A recent single-source meta-analysis by Nielsen Catalina Solutions dramatically illustrates this point.  Spanning fourteen hundred campaigns conducted by four hundred fifty CPG brands over eleven years, the analysis calculated incremental sales per household reached.  Compared to three common digital formats, television campaigns returned approximately 40% more incremental sales per reached household.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-003

However, when looked at on a per-cost basis the results are much closer.  Essentially the lower cost for digital (except for digital video) and its ability to better target brings it into parity with television on average.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-004

But this should not be interpreted to mean that spend can be moved from one channel to another without implications.  One thing we know for certain is that media channels are not an “either this or that” proposition.  In fact, confining advertising to just one channel can have a substantial, negative impact on advertising returns.   A new quantification of this synergy was included in the How Advertising Works study sponsored by the Advertising Research Foundation.  A meta-analysis of 3,200 campaigns whose sales impact was modeled by Analytic Partners showed a substantial increase in incremental return-on-investment for campaigns using more than one platform.  The additional lift over the single platform ROI ranged from +19% for campaigns using two up to +35% for campaigns using five.  Especially synergistic was the combination of TV and digital.  When digital was layered with TV the average increase in ROI was +60%!

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-005

But this just begs the questions: From where does this synergy arise? and Why is TV advertising so synergistic with other forms of advertising?  Surprisingly, four distinct sources of synergy have been identified and all are in play for television advertising.

Advertising Wearout and Refreshment

As media spend is placed behind an ad its ability to generate sales diminishes.  This wearout has been proven to occur at an individual execution level.  Within a single media channel this is typically managed by identifying the strongest ad from the available pool (via pretesting) and then refreshing it with new versions after it has worn out.  In this way media dollars are not wasted by being placed behind ineffective ads.  The below example shows how this refreshment approach can be successfully used to drive share higher and higher within one channel, in this case television.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-006

Source: www.emarketer.com

This effect is inherently built into cross-media campaigns.  Because different platforms typically use a different ad format there is a natural tendency for this diversity to minimize wearout.  There are, however, two caveats to this.  First is that television and online video need to be managed collectively if the same executions are used.  The second, less obvious issue is that highly targeted campaigns can increase wearout by concentrating spend on a smaller number of consumers.  For example, a brand which heavy ups on digital may find itself over saturating a specific target at the expense of reach among a broader audience.  As cited in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Procter and Gamble company recently faced this issue and will now “move away from ads on Facebook that target specific consumers, concluding that the practice has limited effectiveness.”  As explained by P&G CMO Marc Pritchard: “We targeted too much, and we went too narrow, and now we’re looking at: What is the best way to get the most reach but also the right precision?”  This reportedly includes ramping up spending on multiple digital sites and traditional media channels.

Recency of Exposure to Purchase Occasion

Another dimension of media plan effectiveness is recency – the time between exposure to advertising and the shopping occasion.  While numerous single-source studies have verified this effect, the classic examination of Nielsen data by Colin McDonald perhaps still best illustrates it.  In it the impact of advertising on share was shown to steadily decline as the time following potential ad exposure increased.  This includes a drop of 16% from the first day following exposure to the second day.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-007

This decline can be partially explained by a rapid decay in advertising memories.  An MSW●ARS study showed that proven ad recall after incidental advertising exposure faded by nearly fifty percent in the first three days after exposure.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-008

Since each channel exhibits a different pattern of engagement time in terms of both days and hours, the use of multiple channels can increase the probability of reaching the consumer close to a buying period.  In particular, prime-time television viewing coincides with peak online shopping times for many categories.  And even more compelling, online brand search volume has been directly linked to television exposure.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-009

In fact, in one attribution analysis conducted by MSW•ARS eighty-two percent of one brand’s online search conversions were first set in motion from a television exposure.  This is the primary reason some brands have experienced substantial, unexpected drop-offs in search ROI when television spending is reduced; their attribution models did not take into account that television advertising was driving substantial portions of their search activity.

Priming

The increased use of neuroscience techniques has driven a greater appreciation for the effect of cross-media priming.  In a recent interview Gayle Fuguitt, President of the ARF, summarized many of the learnings from the How Advertising Works initiatives.  In it she touches on the subject of priming effects:

“…if you see the same advertisement on a mobile phone and then on television it will have even more effectiveness. It resonates better.  We know brands are built in the brain.  That work was done using neuroscience.  And so it’s really unlocking consumers’ emotional connection, literal emotional connection, right?  Their heart and their pulse in their heads not just their feet, their behavior…buying behavior, to understand how advertising interactions can help build brand loyalty.”

Television advertising has been proven to be especially sensitive to these types of priming effects.  The more familiar people are with a brand, the more attentive they are to television advertising.  Even prior product use leads to greater attentiveness to, and recall of, the advertising.  Illustrating this point the below graph compares proven brand recall levels of brand users and non-brand users for ninety-seven television ads.  Across the ads, on average forty-two percent of non-brand users recalled both the ad and featured brand.  The corresponding number for brand users was fifty-one percent.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-010

Given this sensitivity to priming and its ability to reach broad audiences, television plays an especially important role in the retention of existing customers.  Laying down a consistent brand dialogue via television facilitates all other media channels in effectively contributing to this retention.

Message Ratcheting

One of the most interesting forms of synergies arises from the internalization of brand messaging across multiple advertising exposures. When consumers become exposed to the first ad of a new campaign they tend to take away specific “lower level” messages.  But as the consumer is exposed to new ad executions they tend to generalize to “higher level” messages.  As an example, the below blinded “green” campaign included three ads each focused on an environmental initiative; ‘Waste Reduction’, ‘Energy Efficiency’, and ‘Reduction in Emissions’.  Viewers of individual ads primarily took away only messaging related to the specific environmental initiative whereas those exposed to the entire campaign took away broader message of a “sustainability-focused company”.

why-wont-tv-ads-die-fig-011

This “ratcheting” of messaging can be used to great effect in conveying difficult and vague concepts or in tying the brand to aspirational sentiments.  But it requires that consumers be exposed to multiple, effective ad versions.  One of the most cost effective ways to do this is to use television’s reach to introduce the campaign and then use other, less expensive channels to activate the message synergy.

The net of this discussion is that while television advertising is effective on its own, its synergies with other media channels make it a sine qua non – an essential tool for brand building.  For this reason the future of television looks as bright as ever.

Please contact your MSW●ARS representative to learn more about how our cross-media suite of tools can help your brand grow.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks