ONLINE ADVERTISING AS A BRANDING TOOL Vizeum Finland 2012

Jukka Veteläinen, Insight Manager

CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW

Vizeum case study 2012.

57 %

43 %

Media split

TV Display

Big formats

TV spots

CPC-networks

Big formats

Big formats

KEY VALUES USED IN THIS CASE

Vizeum case study 2012.

Served impressions

having visibility

data

Viewed impressions

Visibility rate

Duration per impression

Cumulative visibility

duration

Cost per thousand minutes

Exposed contacts

Exposure duration

Total display 28,5M 20,8M 72,9% 15,5s 7,4M min 8,6 € 6,8M 64,7s

Due to many CPC sites in campaign the results between display and tv

advertising are compared with only large banners.

As a results of over 800 previous x-media researches we know that CPC campaigns have only a small influence on brand KPI’s so they

can be ignored in this case.

Percentage of counted impressions that were actually visible on visitors’ screen. The average duration the ads were visible

on visitors’ screens.

The total amount of time spent with brand during the campaign.

BUILDING AWARENESS ONLINE WITH 980X400

Vizeum case study 2012.

Served impressions

having visibility

data

Viewed impressions

Visibility rate

Duration per impression

Cumulative visibility

duration

Cost per hour

Exposed contacts

Exposure duration

Site 1 1 880 637 1 619 237 86,1 % 7,3 s 3 302 h 4,29 € 1 197 850 9,9 s Site 2 1 406 106 1 210 121 86,1 % 7,1 s 2 372 h 5,98 € 566 592 15,1 s Site 3 1 577 845 1 413 013 89,6 % 14,6 s 5 728 h 2,48 € 1 127 477 18,3 s

Top 3 sites 4 864 588 4 242 371 87,2 % 9,9 s 11 402 h 3,73 € 2 891 919 14,2 s

Site 1 overdelivered the impressions bought

All sites bought with same CPM prices and exact number of impressions (1,5M) on weekly frequency of 1.

Site 3 delivered the best quality of impressions

COMPARISON WITH TV ADS

Vizeum case study 2012.

Served impressions

having visibility

data

Viewed impressions

Visibility rate

Duration per impression

Cumulative visibility

duration

Cost per hour

Exposed contacts

Exposure duration

Site 1 1 880 637 1 619 237 86,1 % 7,3 s 3 302 h 4,29 € 1 197 850 9,9 s Site 2 1 406 106 1 210 121 86,1 % 7,1 s 2 372 h 5,98 € 566 592 15,1 s Site 3 1 577 845 1 413 013 89,6 % 14,6 s 5 728 h 2,48 € 1 127 477 18,3 s

Top 3 sites 4 864 588 4 242 371 87,2 % 9,9 s 11 402 h 3,73 € 2 891 919 9,9 s

TV 10 238 000 15,0 s 9 154 h 6,11 € 2 197 000 15,0

Display advertising had almost as long visibility duration as tv ads Because display advertising

reached wider audience than tv with higher frequency, the

cost per hour was cheaper with display advertising.

Gross contacts Net contacts

POST-CAMPAIGN SURVEY

Vizeum case study 2012.

TV+Online 27 %

TV 26 % Online

11 %

Doesn't remember

36 %

38 %

53 %

Display-advertising

TV advertising

Even though big display ads out-performed TV ads by actual contacts,

people interviewed after the campaign did not recall the campaign

from online as well as from tv.

The online reach was higher, but the frequency lower and ad duration

shorter than tv campaign’s.

OVERALL BRAND RESULTS

TIME WITH BRAND Over 9 000 hours @

6,1 € cost/minute

TIME TO RECALL 28 seconds ≈ 2 times

TIME WITH BRAND 11 400 hours @

3,7 € cost/minute

TIME TO RECALL 37 seconds ≈ 4 times

Online delivered

25 % more and

39 % cheaper

time with brand than tv

TV advertising needed to be seen

2 times less than

online advertising to have an impact

(recall) Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Channel 1

Channel 2

Channel 3

Channel 4

Channel 5

Channel 6

15s

Avg. 10s

CREATING AWARENESS

Frequency Ad duration Ad visibility

In this case, TV ad duration was longer than online ads’ and the average frequency over four times the frequency of online campaign’s.

Choose right placement for every channel. Get rid of poorly performing channels (site 1 and site 2).

Non-aware Aware

FREQUENCY BUILD-UP

64 %

49 %

35 %

26 % 21 %

16 % 12 %

8 % 7 % 5 %

52 %

8 % 4 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+

TV

Top3 sites

All online

The frequency build-up demonstrates why display advertising wasn’t as well

recalled as TV advertising was.

From 2+ on the online campaign’s frequency trails TV ads clearly, which has a huge impact on ad recall and other KPI’s measured with campaign post-tests.

WHAT IF…

We would have bought the

same amount of impressions

from same sites with frequency

of 2

What would have happened to brand measures?

WHAT IF…

We would have bought the

same amount of impressions

from same sites with frequency

of 2

What would have happened to brand measures?

Exposure duration per visitor would

have increased to a 28 seconds

This way the top3 sites would have reached fewer people, but the ad recall would have

been approximately 50 % (+32 %).

WHAT IF…

We would have bought the

same amount of impressions

from same sites with frequency

of 2

What would have happened to brand measures?

Exposure duration per visitor would

have increased to a 28 seconds

This way the top3 sites would have reached fewer people, but the ad recall would have

been approximately 50 % (+32 %).

The cost of one percent ad recall would

have been 19 % cheaper in online than in television.

KEY LEARNINGS

Display advertising has an clear impact on message awareness. Display advertising is not as powerful channel as TV in creating awareness, but it is cheaper. This case shows that ad duration and frequency has a huge impact on ad recall, not just in tv, but in online as well.

13 Vizeum case study 2012.

FIND ME ON LINKEDIN: FI.LINKEDIN.COM/IN/JUKKAVETELAINEN/ TWITTER: @ZUGI83