Monday
Elusive Reach Part I
Through the introduction of the Web as a viable incremental medium, we’re finally witnessing an efficiency-effectiveness one-two punch through the ability to reach elusive segments of consumers more cost efficiently.
By Joseph Jaffe
At every given point in a media plan, there exists a point at which the marginal cost of adding incremental reach exceeds the value of doing so.
This line should be tattooed on every media professional’s forehead or pinned up above their computer monitors to remind them that their primary directive is to help their client’s maximize their investment in media communications. Or to put it differently, optimize efficiency and effectiveness through the optimal allocation of media resources.
Unfortunately for most clients, this is found sadly wanting.
I first heard the melancholy tones of integrated optimization from the goateed lips of Rex Briggs – Principal of Marketing Evolution and co-author of the cross-media research studies – on the MSN-Dove road show.
The two takeaways I gained from this presentation were simple and straightforward:
1. There are optimization efficiencies to be gained from optimizing integrated media mixes
2. These efficiencies can be identified and harnessed by including online into the planning process early on.
In other words, weed out the least efficient line-items on the traditional media plan for reallocation in favor of interactive. The findings demonstrated how a budget shift would result in increased overall brand lift.
And so it was fitting when he and I shared a working session, in which we co-developed some of the best practices in this very series, and I presented to him my concept of elusive reach.
A sparkle ignited in his eyes as he nodded in approval at the idea. He shared my belief that this concept would stick.
We’ve all heard the philosophical question, muses Briggs. “If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound?” Well here is a more practical question: “If a marketer runs a TV ad that doesn’t reach a consumer, does it have an impact? Certainly your TV campaign has no impact if the consumer never sees it. And, almost every TV campaign fails to reach or adequately cover a significant portion of the target audience.“
John Wanamaker‘s famous quote is obsolete. For one thing, the figure attributed to wastage is not 50%, it’s probably much higher; for another thing, we’ll soon be able to find out exactly how much was well spent and how much was well….wasted.
“A TV campaign with 75% reach is by definition not reaching 25% of target consumers,” adds Briggs, “And, if one looks at the TV campaign closely, one will see that the campaign does not deliver the advertising impressions evenly. Some people see many more TV ads than others.
“Media planners typically perform a ‘quintile analysis’ to illustrate the point. They divide the population into five equal segments (or quintiles) based on the number of TV ads that have been seen. The lightest quintile may have only seen the advertisement once over the course of the campaign. Yes, these people are reached by TV, but not with a frequency level that a marketer was aiming for. Add the 25% that are not reached and those that fall in the lightest quintile (who are not adequately covered by TV advertising because they see only one or two ads when the goal is four ads over four weeks) and the total not reached can often exceed 40% of all consumers in the target.”
This of course assumes that the reachable 60% are in fact reached and we all know that it is downright folly to suggest that potential GRPs and actual GRPs are even remotely similar.
Ah, but if only this could be proved. Worry not, as the findings from the recent wave of cross-media research changed everything.
Kleenex was achieving an impressive predominantly TV-based 75% reach over an eight week campaign, however subsequent quintile analysis reflected that in reality, this was more like 58%, excluding those reached on average 1.5 times throughout the eight weeks.
Findings showed that a meaningful online campaign could help complement TV’s reach by helping to deliver over half of these consumers (26%).
Colgate Total had elusive reach figures and results that were almost identical to Kleenex.
In both cases, results showed that online could help deliver over half of the consumers that are not adequately covered by TV.
McDonalds highlighted not only the point of diminishing returns, but also identified the elusive reach, which online was able to capitalize on.
“20% of McDonalds’ TV budget hit a point of diminishing returns, explains Briggs. “We were able to suggest that 13.6% go to online, which freed up the additional dollars to be invested in other marketing options.”
By scaling back TV by 20%, and allocating13% of this to online, online’s reach expanded from 3% to 60% of the 18-49 media target. More importantly, with the new mix, overall awareness in McDonald’s target market grew by three points over and above the previous media mix. This translated into a brand effectiveness lift of 8.3%, or six more million people added in the process.
I think it is significant to point out that not all dollars were recommended against online. In the past, this kind of research was poo-poo’d based on its perceived subjectivity. These findings suggest otherwise. They also net out at a number similar to that of Dove’s optimal online allocation ~15%.
I would suggest we all go out and buy ourselves and our teams a delicious McDonalds Flatbread Sandwich. If this landmark research isn’t the silver bullet we’ve been looking for, it’s pretty close. McDonalds’ supersized contribution to the industry should not go unnoticed or unrecognized.
If there’s one thing that rings true among all marketers – and I mean all marketers – it’s the universal desire to get more for less. Through the introduction of the Web as a viable incremental medium, we’re finally witnessing an efficiency-effectiveness one-two punch through the ability to reach elusive segments of consumers more efficiently, as well as the capability to boost key brand metrics without requiring additional ad spend in the process.
Budget shifts aside, the conclusions underpin the symbiotic relationship between TV and the Web. The Internet is not a replacement, but a complement. However, these synergistic effects of online as part of an integrated media mix, together with the ability to reach the prime elusive segments, are not going to happen if budgets are not allocated efficiently.
“The problem is that most marketers are just dipping their toes in the water,” surmises Briggs. “Their campaigns are not fully leveraging online advertising. They buy twenty or thirty million impressions and think that is enough. It isn’t. As a result, one quarter of the target consumers hear nothing from the brand when they could be getting the message through online advertising. Surely, reaching your consumers with online advertising is better than silence.”
Through the introduction of the Web as a viable incremental medium, we’re finally witnessing an efficiency-effectiveness one-two punch through the ability to reach elusive segments of consumers more cost efficiently.
By Joseph Jaffe
At every given point in a media plan, there exists a point at which the marginal cost of adding incremental reach exceeds the value of doing so.
This line should be tattooed on every media professional’s forehead or pinned up above their computer monitors to remind them that their primary directive is to help their client’s maximize their investment in media communications. Or to put it differently, optimize efficiency and effectiveness through the optimal allocation of media resources.
Unfortunately for most clients, this is found sadly wanting.
I first heard the melancholy tones of integrated optimization from the goateed lips of Rex Briggs – Principal of Marketing Evolution and co-author of the cross-media research studies – on the MSN-Dove road show.
The two takeaways I gained from this presentation were simple and straightforward:
1. There are optimization efficiencies to be gained from optimizing integrated media mixes
2. These efficiencies can be identified and harnessed by including online into the planning process early on.
In other words, weed out the least efficient line-items on the traditional media plan for reallocation in favor of interactive. The findings demonstrated how a budget shift would result in increased overall brand lift.
And so it was fitting when he and I shared a working session, in which we co-developed some of the best practices in this very series, and I presented to him my concept of elusive reach.
A sparkle ignited in his eyes as he nodded in approval at the idea. He shared my belief that this concept would stick.
We’ve all heard the philosophical question, muses Briggs. “If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound?” Well here is a more practical question: “If a marketer runs a TV ad that doesn’t reach a consumer, does it have an impact? Certainly your TV campaign has no impact if the consumer never sees it. And, almost every TV campaign fails to reach or adequately cover a significant portion of the target audience.“
John Wanamaker‘s famous quote is obsolete. For one thing, the figure attributed to wastage is not 50%, it’s probably much higher; for another thing, we’ll soon be able to find out exactly how much was well spent and how much was well….wasted.
“A TV campaign with 75% reach is by definition not reaching 25% of target consumers,” adds Briggs, “And, if one looks at the TV campaign closely, one will see that the campaign does not deliver the advertising impressions evenly. Some people see many more TV ads than others.
“Media planners typically perform a ‘quintile analysis’ to illustrate the point. They divide the population into five equal segments (or quintiles) based on the number of TV ads that have been seen. The lightest quintile may have only seen the advertisement once over the course of the campaign. Yes, these people are reached by TV, but not with a frequency level that a marketer was aiming for. Add the 25% that are not reached and those that fall in the lightest quintile (who are not adequately covered by TV advertising because they see only one or two ads when the goal is four ads over four weeks) and the total not reached can often exceed 40% of all consumers in the target.”
This of course assumes that the reachable 60% are in fact reached and we all know that it is downright folly to suggest that potential GRPs and actual GRPs are even remotely similar.
Ah, but if only this could be proved. Worry not, as the findings from the recent wave of cross-media research changed everything.
Kleenex was achieving an impressive predominantly TV-based 75% reach over an eight week campaign, however subsequent quintile analysis reflected that in reality, this was more like 58%, excluding those reached on average 1.5 times throughout the eight weeks.
Findings showed that a meaningful online campaign could help complement TV’s reach by helping to deliver over half of these consumers (26%).
Colgate Total had elusive reach figures and results that were almost identical to Kleenex.
In both cases, results showed that online could help deliver over half of the consumers that are not adequately covered by TV.
McDonalds highlighted not only the point of diminishing returns, but also identified the elusive reach, which online was able to capitalize on.
“20% of McDonalds’ TV budget hit a point of diminishing returns, explains Briggs. “We were able to suggest that 13.6% go to online, which freed up the additional dollars to be invested in other marketing options.”
By scaling back TV by 20%, and allocating13% of this to online, online’s reach expanded from 3% to 60% of the 18-49 media target. More importantly, with the new mix, overall awareness in McDonald’s target market grew by three points over and above the previous media mix. This translated into a brand effectiveness lift of 8.3%, or six more million people added in the process.
I think it is significant to point out that not all dollars were recommended against online. In the past, this kind of research was poo-poo’d based on its perceived subjectivity. These findings suggest otherwise. They also net out at a number similar to that of Dove’s optimal online allocation ~15%.
I would suggest we all go out and buy ourselves and our teams a delicious McDonalds Flatbread Sandwich. If this landmark research isn’t the silver bullet we’ve been looking for, it’s pretty close. McDonalds’ supersized contribution to the industry should not go unnoticed or unrecognized.
If there’s one thing that rings true among all marketers – and I mean all marketers – it’s the universal desire to get more for less. Through the introduction of the Web as a viable incremental medium, we’re finally witnessing an efficiency-effectiveness one-two punch through the ability to reach elusive segments of consumers more efficiently, as well as the capability to boost key brand metrics without requiring additional ad spend in the process.
Budget shifts aside, the conclusions underpin the symbiotic relationship between TV and the Web. The Internet is not a replacement, but a complement. However, these synergistic effects of online as part of an integrated media mix, together with the ability to reach the prime elusive segments, are not going to happen if budgets are not allocated efficiently.
“The problem is that most marketers are just dipping their toes in the water,” surmises Briggs. “Their campaigns are not fully leveraging online advertising. They buy twenty or thirty million impressions and think that is enough. It isn’t. As a result, one quarter of the target consumers hear nothing from the brand when they could be getting the message through online advertising. Surely, reaching your consumers with online advertising is better than silence.”
Comments:
Post a Comment
