48 Admap • April 2008 © World Advertising Research Center 2008

interactivemedia

D IGITAL TECHNOLOGY IS chang-ing media communications.There is a fundamental shift in

content distribution from analogue plat-forms to new digital and interactiveplatforms. As brands embrace these tech-nologies, increasing their use of andinvestment in them as advertising plat-forms, the strategic importance of digitalas a way of marketing and the effect of digital touchpoints are growing for marketers, their brands and agencies.

The challenge facing our industry ishow to evaluate the communicationseffect of these new digital platforms andto establish what value they add aboveand beyond traditional communications.

Since 2005, Weapon 7 and 2CV havebeen conducting studies for clients to estab-lish the advertising effects of interactivemedia and entertainment. This article out-lines the strengths, weaknesses andchallenges of these media. From this we candraw conclusions about how digital mediaare changing the way communicationswork and how this will develop as new digital platforms become viable foradvertising.

What did digital ever do for us?Before illustrating our findings, it is worthnoting the structural changes that resultfrom the new digital age and how webelieve these will affect communications.

There are more digital devices. So thereare more consumer touch-points than ever.

Many devices are networked. Thisallows applications to be downloadedonto them and sometimes the presence ofa return path. Both allow interactionbetween the owner and a network.

Image compression and device capabil-ities mean that richer content can becommunicated effectively to these touch-points. These technologies will improve.

Digital devices allow users to interactwith and manipulate content, puttingthem in control.

New human–computer interfacesusing sensory inputs, like touchscreens,will make interaction easier and universal.

As a result of these factors, digital con-sumer touchpoints are becoming viablecommunications channels for brand own-ers. Outside the dramatic increase inadvertising spend going online, recentyears have seen the rise of interactive TV,mobile advertising and iPTV (internet pro-tocol TV) rolling out across the UK. Each ofthese conforms to the principles of all dig-ital networks, but most interesting from acommunications perspective is how thesedevices and platforms will change theimpact and effect of advertising.

The benefit of digital in direct responseis well documented. Leads can be countedand clickthrough rates monitored. Lesswell explored is the effect that physical orconsidered interaction has on consumers.We believe that the process of interactionchanges the state of the user, creating a sig-nificant impact on communication effect.

This paper focuses on two key points.We will identify the impact of a consumerinteraction with a brand’s advertising;and the value it adds above establishedbroadcast advertising platforms.

Interaction and communication:a theoryA number of different sources suggest thatinteraction aids both communication andlearning. The process of thinking can beconceived of as a network of neurons firingin a specific pattern in the brain. As neu-rons are used, they become thicker andmore permanent. It follows that thestronger the stimulation, and the morecommon, the more likely the stimulus is tobe remembered. This is the leap from stim-ulation to memory. Memories are formedmore effectively when multiple parts ofthe brain (hearing, seeing, smelling, motorskills, touch) are stimulated.

From a communications perspective,this supports the hypothesis that incorpo-rating interaction into a traditionalmedium should aid both communicationand subsequent effect.

To test this, we hypothesise that:increased interaction with advertisinggenerates more effective communication.

To prove or disprove this hypothesisrequires an experimental framework.This should comprise:

a real-life contextan appropriate methodologyan idea of the most relevant samplean understanding of the nature of the

effect.

A real-life contextThe most important component of this‘experiment’ is a real-life example of inter-action with media, and a control. While

How interactivity can add significantly to conventional ad effects: Doug Edmonds,2CV, and Mark Brown and Steven Hess, Weapon 7, examine the evidence

Interactive media: desk,armchair, anywhere …

All able to interact with given adBUT not all fit ad’s target demographics

All fit with ad target demographics BUTwould they interact in real life?

Likely to interact outside the research environment

The ideal sample BUT how do we isolate them?

Are those who go so far as to register details a representative sample or do they have a stronger affinity

with the brand? More experience of interacting? Lower barriers to additional costs for competition entries, etc.?

FIGURE 1

Identifying consumers who interact

Registerdetails

Go on tointeract

Temptedto interact

All Sky households

Sample(fit recruitment criteria)

Message association

Awareness

Brand favourability

Purchase intent

FIGURE 2

Communication effects

April 2008 • Admap 49© World Advertising Research Center 2008

there are many interactive media avail-able, many are fledgling (for example,mobile and much web-based advertising);and they have no static counterpart to actas a control, where we require a non-inter-active platform capable of delivering abase message. Over time, these new channels will become established andoffer the opportunity for similar research,but at present only interactive TV has therequisite attributes of scale and a non-interactive counterpart to provide acontrol (the classic TV ad).

While we have focused on this nascentmedium, the broad findings should applyto all interactive platforms.

The rise of interactive TV provides theopportunity to test theories in real-lifemarket conditions where we can useresearch to identify what interaction addsto communications. By comparing aknown medium with a known mediumplus interaction we can identify theimpact of interaction on the effect of tra-ditional TV advertising.

An appropriate methodologyOur next step is to identify a methodology.The Interactive Communications Effec-tiveness (ICE) approach was born out of aneed to demonstrate to clients the effect oftheir interactive investment. Weapon 7understood the medium and 2CV waseager to measure. Using our pooled knowl-edge, we devised a cost-effective, robustapproach that seemed appropriate.

In essence, our approach comparesresponses to a set of brand and advertisingquestions among a sample of respondentsexposed to a standard TV commercial(TVC) against a sample who have beenexposed to the standard TV commercialand have also experienced an interactivead. To avoid any research effects, we con-duct the research in respondents’ homes.

Defining the sampleOur start-point for defining the sample isSky households, as this is the dominantinteractive TV platform used by UKadvertisers. To design a watertightapproach, we need to avoid sampling bias.This is a challenge: we need to speak topeople who have interacted with this type

of advertising, to see what interactionadds to communication; yet interactionrates are low enough to make them hardto find – and those that are self-declaring(leaving their contact details in an ad) areprobably too predisposed to the brand.

For analysis, we take sample definition astep further. For results to be valid, we mustavoid polarising respondents by askingthem to do something that they have notdone before – interact with advertising. It istherefore important to compile a sample ofthose who have interacted with the adver-tising but are not predisposed to the brand.

Our core sample is people tempted tointeract with a specific ad, as they are clos-est to real-life interactors. Since pastbehaviour is the strongest predictor offuture behaviour, it is unsurprising thatthey are significantly more likely to haveinteracted (‘pressed red’) in the past thanthose not tempted to interact.

Figure 1 shows that identifying con-sumers who actually interact with an ad will be costly, and we believe thosewho interact and register their details will betoo predisposed to the brand to be a reliable,representative audience. By identifyingthose who are tempted to interact with theadvertising after watching the TVC, we canestablish a real-life sample of interactors.

Understanding the effectFor our theory to be useful and relevant to marketers, we need to put it into a marketing context: we need a standardisedframework for evaluating our results. Toidentify the additional effect of interactionwe must analyse the hierarchy of commu-nications and identify where interactionshould improve communications.

Figure 2 outlines four simple levels ofcommunication effects – from awarenessbuilding to purchase intent. While aware-ness and message association can beeffects of an interactive campaign, thismedium has other strengths. We believeits power is to drive brand favourabilityand purchase intent.

Brand favourability is a broad, complexmeasure, so difficult to measure. Webelieve brand favourability comprisesthose attributes of a brand that positivelydifferentiate it from its competitors: acombination of appeal, knowledge andrelevance. These factors all help to reducethe ‘risk’ and the ‘unknown’ associatedwith a brand. Reducing ‘risk’ leads toincreased purchase intent.

In addition, interaction can help overcome other barriers associated with communications per se, such as comprehension and enjoyment. By reduc-

Enjoyment examples Difference between test Difference between those (enjoy a lot/quite enjoy) and control (+/–) tempted to interact and control

Alcohol +5% +21%Mobile operator +15% +23%Soft drink +14% +26%Public health +5% +13%NRT +8% +32%

Enjoyment levels

TABLE 1

New information Difference between test Difference between those examples (a lot/some) and control (+/–) tempted to interact and control

Mobile phone +8% +16%Mobile operator +10% +4%Soft drink +11% +25%Gaming +6% +7%Energy +11% Low baseAutomotive +12% +19%Mobile operator +16% +23%NRT +19% +31%

Enhanced brand knowledge

TABLE 2

interactivemedia

50 Admap • April 2008 © World Advertising Research Center 2008

ing or removing these barriers, the powerof communications can be enhanced.

The resultsWe focus on four key questions:1. Does interactivity lead to greater enjoyment?2. Does interaction allow people to learnmore about brands?3. Does interactivity lead to greater comprehension?4. Does interaction change appeal andconsideration?

Using data from 15 studies conductedin the past year, we can provide someanswers to these questions. All commonmeasures have been included, to provide arobust view of the performance of interac-tive TV vs standard TV.

1. Does interactivity lead togreater enjoyment?The questions specifically ask respon-dents how much they liked and enjoyedthe interactive experience, and abouttheir ease of understanding. We foundthat in 13 of 15 cases (87%) the ‘tempted’cell dramatically outperforms the test andcontrol cells on this measure (see Table 1).

In particular there are some strongexamples of a ‘deepening’ of consumerinvolvement as a result of interacting. In

the five cases shown, differences averagearound +23%.

2. Does interaction allow peopleto learn more about brands?A key ambition of interactive advertisingis to provide more information about abrand. Delivering new news, whether tac-tical information about a new offer, or anew way of thinking about a brand, can bean aim for traditional TV advertising. Itcan influence purchase intent, brand perception or both. An interactive compo-nent can help to build this further forconsumers, as shown Table 2. In 75% of cases the ‘tempted’ cell dramaticallyoutperforms the test and/or control cells.

Table 3 shows examples where inter-acting with extra content has built ordeveloped brand perceptions.

These examples show how interactivecan deliver both short-term tactical andlong-term ‘brand-building’ messages.

3. Does interactivity lead togreater comprehension?In 9 out of 15 cases the ‘tempted’ cell dra-matically outperforms the test and/orcontrol cells on finding the interactive advery easy to understand. In addition, thereare some strong shifts on this between thetest and control cells. This suggests that

comprehension is enhanced by interac-tion (see Table 4).

4. Does interaction changeappeal and consideration?The acid test for interactivity is whether itincreases consideration scores. All adver-tising aims to generate some form ofresponse. Responses might be a strongerconsumer–brand relationship, ensuringthat the brand features higher up a con-sumer’s consideration list (appeal); or animmediate sales response (purchaseintent). There is clear evidence that inter-acting bolsters responses on thesemetrics. In 8/9 cases (88%) the temptedcell dramatically outperforms the testand/or control cells (see Table 5).

Driving interaction – the trigger adWhile not our main research focus, wehave identified that the ‘trigger ad’ (inaddition to the interactive call to action)can profoundly affect the numbers ofrespondents interacting, and their mind-set once there. When most respondentsmerely expect more information aboutthe product, or a longer ad, their motiva-tion to interact may be low.

Designing communication-rich interac-tive content that fits seamlessly with thetrigger TVC can make the most of the widereach presented by broadcast platforms.More promotionally orientated contentdrives interaction among the most com-mitted viewers, which undermines thepower of interaction relying on a formulaoften seen in DRTV campaigns. The truepower of interactive media is to exploitbroad-reach media, like TV. Here the triggerad and the interactive experience draw in awide group, irrespective of how far they aredown the purchase-decision process.

Interactive effect – a summary It is clear that an interactive addition hasa positive, measurable effect on how abrand is perceived. More importantly, itdrives consideration, showing: that pur-chase intent is affected, as well as imagery.

People are avoiding commercial mes-sages more and more. This makes itincreasingly difficult for brands to engagewith audiences. We know most people

interactivemedia

Understanding examples Difference between Difference between those (very easy) test and control (+/–) tempted to interact and control

Entertainment +8% +10%Mobile phone +10% +14%Soft drink +12% +21%Public health +10% +17%Energy +11% Low base

Improved understandingTABLE 4

Difference between How much do you think the advert suggests (strongly suggests) test and control (+/–)

Alcohol brand is a consistently high-quality product +12%Mobile brand is always coming up with relevant products +11%Mobile brand offers simple, straightforward products +15%Soft drink brand is a brand that is instantly recognisable +20%Soft drink brand contains real fruit +7%Soft drink brand offers healthier alternatives than other drinks +12%

Enhanced brand perceptions

TABLE 3

April 2008 • Admap 51© World Advertising Research Center 2008

are conservative and risk-averse: pastbehaviour is a strong predictor of futurebehaviour. So, for a brand to achieveengagement beyond simple awarenessand straightforward message associationwill become ever more difficult.

These studies show that interactivityoffers brand owners the chance toincrease the knowledge and experiencepeople have of the brand. Moreover, inconjunction with a broadcast mediumlike TV (however distributed), it enhancesboth reach and knowledge.

This does not mean that traditional TVadvertising will become redundant.Rather, we expect to see it redefined, froman end-point in communications towardsa facilitative role, encouraging consumersto discover a richer, more engaging experi-ence. Arguably this will lead to morefocused TV advertising, as it no longer hasto meet all the objectives in the communi-cations hierarchy, merely the first two.This strategic shift should affect the eco-nomics of commercial production and theadvertising industry’s business models.

Beyond TV: how contextchanges communicationToday, interactive TV is just one of manyinteractive media. In two studies, welooked at how the effect of interaction dif-fers across platforms and the subsequentshifts in communication effectiveness.

For example with TV, consumers mostlyinteract with their remote control, sittingin an armchair (leaning back); whereasonline they are physically closer to thescreen, (leaning forward). Respondentswho interact with the same content online(as opposed to on TV) have increasedunderstanding scores in comparison withTV. We believe this difference is driven bythe change in context, influenced by fac-tors such as device location, size of screenor the different expectations people have ofthe medium. Similarly, running the sameexecution online led to less polarising ofresponse on likeability and enjoyment;running it on TV produced a more persua-sive experience.

If we are to use video online, it may notbe appropriate to follow the conventions ofTV. When online, people feel less negative

towards rational content, as the context isone where they seek information.

This is shown by scores for delivery ofnew information; in a recent comparison,an execution run online generated doublethe agreement for ‘communicates a lotmore new information about a brand/ serv-ice’. A final piece of evidence for increasedrationality is that spontaneous messageassociation is 42% higher for online.

This suggests that, while interactiveTV reinforces brand favourability, thesame execution run online increases mes-sage association and communication.

ConclusionsTwo clear conclusions emerge from this.First, adding interactivity to a traditionallynon-interactive medium, increases brandfavourability and brand knowledge, driv-ing brand consideration.

Second, running the same executiononline, on a naturally interactive medium,increases message association and com-munication. The big question is ‘Why?’

We believe the differences are drivenpartly by the relationship between theconsumer and the media platform, andpartly by the different contexts for com-munication. The internet is a medium ‘ofthe people’; the dialogue it facilitates has astrong adult-to-adult, peer relationship.This makes it a more efficient rationalcommunications channel.

Conversely, because of the stature ofTV in people’s minds (among the majori-ty of UK consumers), its relationship withpeople is closer to parent–child. It is more

emotional, so not necessarily the mosteffective medium for rational communi-cation. Adding interactivity gives theadvertiser licence to communicate ration-ally within the emotional realm of TV.

Moving forwardAs we embrace more interactive digitalcommunications platforms, the commu-nications landscape will change. Gettingmessages in front of consumers maybecome increasingly difficult. Along withthis, we believe interactivity will becomemore relevant.

There are two clear roles for inter-activity: to extend an emotional connec-tion; and to cut through noise and deliverrational messages. These roles are very different and largely context-dependent.

This presents challenges to advertisers.Many of the new communications chan-nels are nascent. We don’t understand thecontext for their consumption, nor do wereally understand their relationship withaudiences, so it is difficult to define the rolefor interactivity for each. There clearly is arole, but how people consume video gamesor use their mobile phones will determinehow advertising, interactive or otherwise,will work on these media.

As advertisers seize these opportuni-ties, the media will define theirrelationship with the audience; only thenwill we start to understand how the chan-nel works and the role for interactivity. ■

Mark Brown is a partner at Weapon 7. He has

previously held various roleswith a range of

organisations includingUnilever, Still Price,

Starcom and Leo Burnett. mark@weapon7.com

Doug Edmonds is the headof numbers at 2CV. Prior tosetting up the quantitative

research department at 2CVin 2000, Doug spent six

years working as an accountplanner in advertising.

DougE@2cv.co.uk

Appeal examples (much/ Difference between Difference between those a little more appealing) test and control (+/–) tempted to interact and control

Mobile operator +8% +10%Mobile phone +16% +26%Soft drink +35% +45%Energy +15% Low base

Purchase consideration Difference between Difference between thoseexamples (much more likely) test and control (+/–) tempted to interact and control

Mobile operator +9% +16%Mobile phone +21% +28%Mobile operator +12% +10%NRT +3% +17%

Enhanced appeal and brand consideration

TABLE 5

More on interactive media atWARC.com

Steven Hess is managingpartner at weapon 7. Prior

he worked as globalplanning director on

McDonald’s at OMD and ledOmnicom’s integration on

Sony Europe. steven@weapon7.com