Where’s the Real Money Charlie Chubet Associate Media Director, MEC Digital Anne Hunter VP, Advertising Effectiveness, comScore Bethany R. Mach Managing Director, Client Leadership, Mindshare New York Pauline Malcolm-John EVP, Sales, Wee World Charlie Chubet Associate Media Director, MEC Digital Anne Hunter VP, Advertising Effectiveness, comScore Bethany R. Mach Managing Director, Client Leadership, Mindshare New York Pauline Malcolm-John EVP, Sales, Wee World Tweet #imediasummit Tweet #imediasummit

Where’s the Beef?

When Money Moves to Digital comScore, Anne Hunter

Background Last year comScore and ValueClick presented a paper to the ARF on the impact of various media placement strategies in digital media The goal of the research was to help marketers understand how to allocate the money they were moving to digital and potentially provide a basis for a Market Mix Model for digital The response to the paper was overwhelming – Over 1,500 people downloaded it from the comScore site – Presented at the MIXX conference and IAB site

What We Learned Different strategies drove very different results The best performing strategies changed from the short-term to long- term Retargeting drove both organic search and site visitations better than all other online display buying strategies When multiple strategies were used in concert, results were often higher than when a single strategy was used alone Using behavioral search and site visitation lifts using AdEffx ™ Action Lift™

Site Visitation Lifts By Media Placement Strategy Over 4 Weeks Highest % Lift in Visitation within 1 week 1.Retargeting* 2.Audience 3.Efficiency* 4.RON* 5.Contextual 6.Premium Highest % Lift in Visitation within 4 weeks 1.Retargeting* 2.Audience 3.Contextual 4.Premium 5.RON* 6.Efficiency* *indicates strategy that is based on optimizing to site visitation

Insights Lead to Questions Do placement strategies work the same way when measured by attitudinal data? What are the effects outside of a single ad network? How are different strategies affected by frequency? Could frequency be the cause of the multiplier effect? Clients asked us to continue the research

Methods In order reflect current pricing and buying methods, 6,362 individual placements which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used in the cost evaluation. All costs were normalized to a CPM basis. Reach was determined using census tags placed on all ads in combination with comScore’s 2 million worldwide person panel to create a unified person based reach calculation. 4,454 of the above placements were used to calculate the reach and frequency estimates using AdEffx™ Campaign Essentials™.

Methods 256 campaigns which included 4,454 individual placements which ran between April 2010 through March 2011 were used in the attitudinal analysis with AdEffx™ Brand Survey Lift™. All campaigns had a brand focused objective and at least 15 distinct campaigns per strategy with most strategies averaging 62 studies per strategy. There were an average of 36,500 survey respondents per strategy. Altitudinal lift was calculated from in-flight survey responses. On scaled questions top two boxes out of seven were considered positive. comScore’s Smart Control™ methodology was used based on the difference between the base lifts and incremental lifts generated by exposure.

Placement Strategies Evaluated Audience Targeted – ads placed run of site or run of network which were additionally targeted to a specific demographic or behavior usually by cookie targeting Context – ads which were placed in content relevant to the brand High Impact* – ads which took over a high percentage of the viewers screen usually involving sight, sound and motion such as home page takeover units Retargeting – ads where were shown to people who had previously visited the marketer’s site ROS and RON – ads placed either run of site or run of network which did not have any additional targeting. They are often auto optimized via an ad server to the high converting audiences. Sponsorship* – ads which surrounded premium content, usually in a permanent position and implied support of the content *new to wave 2

New Strategies There is no standard definition for social or video so we looked to ads than ran on sites which define themselves as selling this type of media. Only brand ads were measured. Social – ads that ran on Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace Video – ads that ran on Brightroll, Hulu, YouTube and Tremor media

Measures Evaluated Ad Recall – did they remember seeing the measured brand ads Aided Awareness – were they aware of the measured brand when prompted Top of Mind Recall – when asked for the first brand they thought of, did they mention the measured brand Brand Favorability – did they think highly of the measured brand Intent to Recommend – would they recommend the measured brand to a friend Intent to Purchase – did they intend to buy the measured brand Awareness MeasuresImpact Measures

Strategies Vary in Cost

Frequency Varies by Strategy

Example: Sponsorship Frequency Distribution Variance Average frequency is 6.67, median is 2.96

The More You Show Ads, The More People Are Aware of Them Results significant at 90% confidence

But Not All Ad Strategies Generate the Same Awareness

The More You Show Ads, The More They Influence People But generating lift in impact is much harder than generating lift in awareness

Not All Ad Strategies Generate the Same Impact

Conclusions Remarketing continues to be a highly effective strategy for awareness and impact measures which is consistent with it’s earlier success in lifting Wave 1 behavioral measures RON and ROS advertising works well at generating awareness but viewers are not persuaded by the messaging, similar to the finding in wave 1 where effectiveness of RON wore off quickly. Social and Video work extremely well at generating awareness but not as well as generating impact Better managing frequency can drive greater results for the same dollar Ideas reinforced and new learnings

Next Steps Correlate Behavioral effects from Wave 1 with attitudinal effects from Wave 2 Link strategies to sales data with Wave 3 Evaluate effects by industry Put input data into model to determine upstream behavioral and attitudinal markers that predict sales based on spend by tactic Build media planning model for digital strategies

The Agency Perspective Translating Applying Insights Beth Mach, Managing Director, Client Leadership - Mindshare

Skintimate Case Study Pauline Malcolm-John EVP of Strategic Partnerships, WeeWorld, Inc. Charles Chubet Associate Media Director, MEC Pauline Malcolm-John EVP of Strategic Partnerships, WeeWorld, Inc. Charles Chubet Associate Media Director, MEC

Skintimate Studios Campaign Overview: Objectives & Strategy Strategy: Seamlessly integrate Skintimate Studios campaign into what teen girls come to do on WeeWorld every day Build mass engagement and entrants for the film contest Objectives: Drive awareness of Skintimate and generate brand equity among F13-17 Drive participation for the Skintimate Studios promotion

Why Social Game Integration? 75% of teens play social games online 43% of teens that play social games have spent real money on games REACH AN ACTIVELY ENGAGED TEEN AUDIENCE Users are 10x more likely to interact with a branded good vs. a non-branded good Users show their passion for a brand by virally sharing the brand BRAND INTEGRATION GIVES USERS CHOICES Integration within social environments shows teens that brands “speak their language” Free branded items allow users to stand out in the game and express themselves BRAND INTEGRATION PERPETUATES GOODWILL

Skintimate Brand Ambassadors Hundreds of millions of viral impressions Hundreds of thousands of asset downloads

High Performing Media Millions of paid impressions delivered Out-performed industry average for CTR%

Socialize with Friends: Skintimate Studios World Takeover 58.9% of post campaign survey respondents said they visited Skintimate Studios World! Double digit lift in brand favorability and purchase intent

iPhone – Skintimate In-App Distribution First ever branded integration within Avatar app on iTunes

Proven Cost Effective Engagement ** Based on EDI formula, Skintimate had 7.3 times more interaction (and higher quality) than an equivalent costing banner-only campaign Equivalent Display Impressions = 7.3%** **EDI Formula: (Engagement Events per Impression / CTR (standard media)) multiplied by Weighted Impressions cost (banner eCPM/Social eCPM)

Discussion