Branding 101:

An Overview of Branding and Brand Measurement for Online Marketers

Report Contact: Molly Hislop irector of Researc! " evelopment# ynamic $ogic %00&'()&'()) molly*dynamiclogic+com April '001

ynamic $ogic,s Branding 101: An Overview of Branding and Brand Measurement for Online Marketers

-a.le of Contents
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................3 WHAT IS BRANDING?.......................................................................................6 MEASURING BRANDING OFFLINE...............................................................9 /-A0 /-A0
AR

1RAC-2C3/ 20 -3$342/2O0 A 1RAC-2C3/ 20 1R20- A

43R-2/205 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++6

Case Study: Kraft Uses Copy Testing for DiGiorno Rising Crust Pizza........9
AR 43R-2/205+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++10

Case Study: Advertising Wor s in Print........................................................!! -RAC7205 /-8

23/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1'

Case Study: Avis " Rent#A#Car ...................................................................!$ MEASURING BRANDING ONLINE...............................................................14 O0$203 CO19 -3/-/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1( Case Study: %indings %ro& 'psos#AS' 'ntera(tive........................................!) 20 MAR73- M3A/8R3/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) Case Study: Trave*o(ity.................................................................................!+ COMPARING ONLINE AND OFFLINE BRANDING..................................18 -AB$3: COM1AR205 M3
2A

3::3C-24303// 20 BRA0

205 A0

2R3C-

MAR73-205++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1% M/ ; OB/3R4A-2O0/ O0 M3
2A

3::3C-24303//+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1%

,rand Re(a**..................................................................................................!Generating Produ(t 'nterest..........................................................................!9 Generating ,rand A.areness .......................................................................!9 Cost /ffe(tiveness..........................................................................................!9 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................20 GLOSSARY OF TERMS....................................................................................21 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................22 Marc! '001 ' ynamic $ogic

ynamic $ogic,s Branding 101:

An Overview of Branding and Brand Measurement for Online Marketers

I !"#$%&!'#
1rofessionals involved in online media are met wit! increasing scrutiny surrounding t!e medium<s value+ Online media is not alone# !owever at t!eir inception# all forms of media !ave .een pus!ed to s!ow value+ -!roug! t!at pressure !ave come some innovative and widely accepted approac!es to measure advertising effectiveness+ One simple way to measure t!e effectiveness of advertising# as stated .y t!e !ead of online advertising at a large packaged goods company is to =stop advertising and see w!at !appens+= ;!ile t!at comment was made !umorously# it underscores t!e notion t!at we know advertising works & it,s >ust a c!allenge to know precisely !ow+ /ince t!e stop&and&see&w!at&!appens approac! is not feasi.le# smart marketers need to devise ways to measure t!e value of t!eir advertising on an ongoing .asis+ Of course# t!e measurement tactics and metrics c!osen must meet t!e clearly defined o.>ectives
Total US Ad Spend (TV, Print, Radio) by Goal

of

t!e

campaign:

.randing# direct response# or .ot!+ ;!en looking at w!y ad .udgets are spent in -4# 1rint# and Radio# over !alf of it ?)6@A is for .randing# according to t!e irect Marketing Association+

Branding 59%

Direct Response 41%

Source: Direct Mark eting Association, 2000

How muc! online advertising is geared towards .randing is a topic of some de.ate: AdRelevance says approBimately CD@ w!ereas 0ielsenE0etRatings says 11@+ 3it!er way# .randing campaigns are clearly a part of traditional ad spending and online marketers need to understand !ow to include .rand metrics in t!eir measurement approac!+ /ome online marketers !ear t!ey need to measure .randing and t!ink: Fo! no# !ere is more data we !ave to deal wit!+< ;!ile t!e data&o.session can get overw!elming# t!e answer is not to turn away from t!e important data# .ut per!aps .e more >udicious

Marc! '001

ynamic $ogic

a.out w!at data&point one seeks+ /mart marketers find t!e rig!t .alance# gat!ering select data points wit!out trying to measure every single t!ing and getting frustrated+ $ike a mosaic or t!e famous point&style !ead&s!ots used in -!e ;all /treet Gournal# a few key data&points can paint a clear picture+ Online effectiveness tracking !as !istorically .een framed in terms of ad impressions# click&t!roug! rate# and t!e resultant direct&response action ?registration# purc!ase# etc+A+ -!ese metrics# w!ile important# only tell a small part of t!e effectiveness story+ 5etting people to react immediately to advertising# w!ile possi.le# may not .e feasi.le or appropriate for many advertisers+ 2magine t!e c!allenge for t!e .rand manager of /oap H w!o is t!inking a.out running an online advertising campaignI t!e campaign s!ould .e measured .y w!at are realistic outcomes+

W*+! '/ !*) ")+-'/!'& #%!&#.) 1#" !*) S#+2 3 # -' ) +$ &+.2+'0 ? AA 1eople see an online ad for /oap H# click on it# and .uy /oap H t!roug! t!eir we. site BA 1eople see an online ad for /oap H# don,t click on it .ut .ecome more aware of t!e .enefits of /oap H and are per!aps more likely to .uy /oap H neBt time in t!e store

Outcome A is .est measured .y ()*+,'#"+- .)!"'&/ suc! as click&t!roug! and post&click conversion analysis+ -!ese are .e!avioral in nature and measure t!e actions as driven .y t!e computerEmouse+ Outcome B is .est measured .y ("+ $' 0 .)!"'&/ suc! .rand awareness# message association# .rand favora.ility# and purc!ase intent+ -!ese are attitudinal in nature and measure people,s minds t!roug! t!eir attitudes+ ;idely used in t!e offline world in terms of effectiveness tracking# .randing metrics can only .e gat!ered t!roug! consumer interviews+ -!is paper .egins wit! a definition of .randing and .rand eJuity and t!en outlines t!e various tactics marketing researc!ers !ave used to measure .randing .ot! offline and online+ Case studies wit! actual data are included w!erever possi.le+ 0ote t!is paper investigates various met!odologies for measuring ad effects on .rand eJuity measures+ As suc!# t!e met!odologies reviewed focus on attitudinalEsurvey (

Marc! '001

ynamic $ogic

.ased measures and not .e!avioral measures linking ad eBposure to sales+ -!e issue of linking up advertising and sales will .e eBplored in a future paper+

Marc! '001

ynamic $ogic

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

W*+! '/ B"+ $' 0?

Before a discussion on researc! tec!niJues for measuring ad effects on .randing can commence# t!e term .rand itself must .e defined+ A ("+ $ is a
B"+ $: istinguis!ing name or sym.ol designed to identify t!e origins of a product or service# differentiate t!e product or service from t!e competition# and protect t!e consumer and producer from competitors w!o would attempt to provide similar products+

distinguis!ing name or sym.ol designed to: 2dentify to origins of a good or service ifferentiate t!ose goods or services from t!ose of t!e competition 1rotect t!e consumer and producer from competitors w!o would attempt to provide products t!at appear to .e identical B"+ $' 0 is t!e process of creating an association .etween a sym.olEo.>ectEemotionEperception and a productEcompany wit! t!e goal of driving loyalty and creating differentiation+ :or eBample# t!roug! product packaging and advertising# Coca Cola !as created an association .etween many different o.>ects and its .rands+ -!e !ourglass s!aped .ottle# t!e red and w!ite colors# and even t!e font of its logo toget0er make Coca Cola distinctive from competitors+ -!e product<s past a.ility to satisfy consumer needs and its widespread distri.ution play an important role in consumption# !owever constant advertising !as .een successful in reinforcing past positive associations .etween t!e .rand and consumers ?Assael# 166%A+ 2n addition to recognition# .randing may consist of .uilding emotional responses ?4olvo wit! a feeling of safetyA or cultural responses ?Mountain ew wit! yout!A+ As consumers are .om.arded wit! a variety of products to meet t!e same need# .randing provides a way for consumers to reduce t!eir decision making to consider only t!ose products t!at t!ey feel are relevant to t!em or t!at !ave met t!eir needs accepta.ly in t!e past+ -!ere is no Juestion t!at a strong .rand is an important corporate asset+ B"+ $ )6%'!4 cannot .e measured in dollars and cents .ut rat!er it is a direct result of !ow consumers value a .rand .ased on t!eir eBperiences and perceptions ?/paet!# 166DA+ 2t is t!ese eBperiences and perceptions t!at permit t!e .rand to earn greater volume or margins t!an it could wit!out t!e .rand name+

B"+ $' 0: -!e process of creating an association .etween an o.>ect or feeling and a productEcompany+

B"+ $ E6%'!4: -!e value of a .rand as derived from consumer attitudes# .e!aviors# awareness# and perceptions+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 -!ere are many steps involved wit! .uilding a .rand<s eJuity includingI .rand awareness ?unaidedEaidedA# .rand attri.utes# message association# .rand favora.ility# .rand preference# and ultimately .rand loyalty+ 3ac! !as an important role in moving a consumer towards a purc!ase and s!ould .e understood in terms of t!eir specific function+
Branding Metric B"+ $ +7+") )// 8% +'$)$9 B"+ $ +7+") )// 8+'$)$9 B"+ $ +!!"'(%!)/ M)//+0) +//#&'+!'# B"+ $ 1+,#"+('-'!4 Kuestion it answers 2s t!e .rand =top of mind= for t!e consumerL 2s t!e .rand somet!ing t!at t!e consumer recogniMes w!en presented wit! t!e nameL 2s t!e .rand coolL HipL 2ntelligentL 5ood valueL /ta.leL 2nnovativeL etc+ oes t!e .rand offer a specific value proposition to t!e consumerL 2s t!e .rand well&respected and appreciated .eyond .eing known and B"+ $ 2")1)") &) even usedL ;!ere does t!e .rand stand w!en consumers are asked to c!oose among a B"+ $ -#4+-!4 competitive setL 2s t!e .rand strong enoug! to keep consumers coming .ack for moreL After conversion $ate Middle Middle $ate /tage of .rand .uilding 3arly 3arly

Most# if not all of t!ese metrics are derived t!roug! attitudinal researc!+ ;!ile loyalty can .e measured .e!aviorally# .e!avioral metrics alone cannot !elp marketers understand w!y consumers act t!e way t!ey do+ Having t!e answer to t!e Fw!y< Juestion# or w!at u.off and /paet! call Ftrue commitment#< will identify t!e reasons for loyalty and as a result !elp marketers identify t!e source of .rand profita.ility ? u.off and /paet!# '000A+ /o !ow do you measure ad effects on .rand eJuity components suc! as .rand awareness# .rand familiarity# .rand favora.ility# .rand image# and
E:2#/)$ + $ C# !"#-: Researc! met!odology designed to isolate t!e impact of a stimulus ?advertisementA on a response ?awareness# purc!ase intent# etc+A+ T)/! B"+ $: Refers to t!e .rand .eing measured+

.rand loyaltyL By definition# t!ese metrics are cognitive in nature and cannot

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 .e inferred from consumer .e!avior+ As a result# marketing researc!ers must

derive t!e .randing value of advertising t!roug! interviewing consumers+ ;!ile met!odologies vary for different media# most involve t!e
S!+!'/!'&+- S'0 '1'&+ &): A finding ?for eBample t!e o.served difference .etween t!e means of two random samplesA is descri.ed as statistically significant# w!en it can .e demonstrated t!at t!e pro.a.ility of o.taining suc! a difference .y c!ance only# is relatively low+ 2t is customary to descri.e one,s finding as statistically significant w!en t!e o.tained result is among t!ose t!at would occur no more t!an ) out of 100 times w!en t!e only factors operating are t!e c!ance variations t!at occur w!enever random samples are drawn ?Hoffman# '001A+

widely practiced ):2#/)$ + $ &# !"#- .)!*#$#-#04+ 2n t!is design# t!e impact of an advertisement is isolated from ot!er potential varia.les t!roug! placing a sample of consumers into one of two groupsI eBposed to an ad or not eBposed to an ad+ Bot! take a survey wit! Juestions regarding t!e !)/! ("+ $ and differences .etween t!e two samples are tested for /!+!'/!'&+- /'0 '1'&+ &) and attri.uted to ad eBposure+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

M)+/%"' 0 B"+ $' 0 O11-' )

Standard Pra(ti(es in Te*evision Advertising 2n t!e world of television advertising# one widely accepted approac! to
C#24 T)/!' 0: -esting t!e .randing value of a television commercial in a controlled environment+ Copy testing is done .efore commercial airs on television+

measuring t!e .randing value of a television ad is t!roug! copy testing+ C#24 !)/!' 0 involves sampling a group of consumers to participate in a researc! study and splitting t!e group in !alf+ ;!ile viewing a program# !alf of t!e group is eBposed to an advertisement ?eBposedA w!ile t!e remaining !alf sees an alternative ad ?controlA+ After viewing a program# .ot! groups answer a .rief Juestionnaire wit! Juestions concerning a particular category as well as t!eir preferences and attitudes for various .rands in t!at category+ 2f t!e test .rand scores !ig!er among t!e eBposed group t!an t!e control group# t!e difference is attri.uted to t!e commercial+ Case /tudy: 7raft 8ses Copy -esting for i5iorno Rising Crust 1iMMa -!e eBtent to w!ic! communication o.>ectives are met will determine if t!e commercial is ready to air# reJuires modifications# or if it is .ack to t!e drawing .oard+ -!e Marc! 1666 edition of A&eri(an De&ograp0i(s outlines !ow copy testing was used as part of a researc! program commissioned .y 7raft to c!ange t!e consumer perception t!at froMen piMMa tastes like card.oard ?$ac!# 1666A+ Based on eBtensive researc! pro.ing w!y consumers eat piMMa# especially froMen piMMa# 7raft produced a num.er of -4 spots+ found t!e following: C( percent of respondents recalled t!e spots< main message w!ereas t!e average commercial tested scored a.out '(@+ -!e ads generated strong .rand identification wit! )D@ recalling t!e i5iorno name+ 2t t!en commissioned Millward Brown to copy test eac! D0&second television ads and

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 According to 0ielsen data# 7raft did notice a steady rise in sales for its i5iorno .rand since its launc! in 166C+ Additionally# awareness for t!e .rand !as also increased from 'D@ during t!e launc! year to NN@ in 166%+ ;!ile powerful in determining a commercial<s potential# copy testing is not t!e appropriate tactic to measure t!e impact of a campaign after it is running+ Most -4 advertisers w!o want to measure in market performance use a metric entitled ay After Recall+
D+4 A1!)" R)&+--; 1!one .ased met!odology to understand !ow memora.le a commercial is. -!e Oday after recall measureP is t!e percent of t!ose in t!e commercial audience w!o were watc!ing t!e s!ow .efore and after t!e commercial was s!own# w!o remem.ered somet!ing specific a.out it+

D+4 A1!)" R)&+-- tests typically occur '( !ours after a commercial !as aired in a certain market+ /ince it is not possi.le to understand w!o in a given market was actually eBposed to a -4 ad# consumers in t!e market are called at random and asked to recall if t!ey !ave seen any advertisements .y companies in a particular category+ -!ey are t!en asked to recall anyt!ing a.out t!e commercialI w!at was said# w!at was s!own# and w!at t!e main idea was+ -!e Oday after recall measureP is t!e percent of t!ose in t!e commercial audience w!o were watc!ing t!e s!ow .efore and after t!e commercial was s!own and remem.er somet!ing specific a.out itI suc! as t!e sales message# t!e story line# t!e plot# or some visual or audio element+ -o avoid .iasing t!e sample# advertisers interested in .rand measurement can ask a .attery of Juestions on t!e test .rand .efore recall measures are gat!ered and use t!e recall information to split t!e sample into eBposed and uneBposed groups+ -!ey can t!en look to see if t!ere are any differences .etween t!ose w!o recall seeing an ad and t!ose w!o could not recall seeing an ad+ Standard Pra(ti(es in Print Advertising

S!+"&* A$ R)+$)"/*'2 P"#0"+.; 8ses one on one interviews to determine a print advertisement<s effectiveness in terms of readers!ip+ Ads are compared to ot!er ads in an issue as well as ot!er ads from competitors+

-!e S!+"&* A$ R)+$)"/*'2 P"#0"+. measures t!e readers!ip of advertisements in magaMines and newspapers+ -!roug! one on one personal interviews# /tarc! uses a recognition model to assess a particular ad<s effectiveness on four degrees of reading: 0onreader: A person w!o does not remem.er !aving seen t!e advertisement in t!e issue+ 0oted: A person w!o remem.ers seeing t!e advertisement in t!e issue+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 Associated: A person w!o not only OnotedP t!e advertisement# .ut w!o also saw or read some or part of it and clearly indicated t!e .rand or advertiser+ Read Most: A person w!o read )0@ or more of t!e written material in t!e ad+ Cost data from newspaper and magaMine space can .e used to calculate a Oreaders per dollar metric+P

3ac! year# /tarc! measures over ')#000 ads in over (00 magaMine issues+ On t!e most .asic level# clients get raw readers!ip scores && t!e percent of readers w!o saw t!e ad and read t!e copy+ -!en t!e data are put into a conteBt: -!e ad is ranked not only against ot!er ads in t!e issue# .ut also against ot!er ads in its product category over t!e past two years+ -!ese norms !elp clients to >udge t!e performance of t!eir ads over time and against t!eir competition+ Case /tudy: Advertising ;orks in 1rint uring t!e 16C0s# Alfred 1olitM conducted t!ree classic studies to s!ow t!e effectiveness of print advertising+ 3ac! study took place in a controlled setting w!ere.y specially prepared magaMines were left wit! consumers+ -!ese su.>ects were asked to review a magaMine for editorial content and were unknowingly eBposed to varying num.ers of test ads in t!ese magaMines+ $ater# consumers were asked to rate t!e advertised .rands on a num.er of dimensions ?7im# 166'A+ 2n all t!ree studies 1olitM found: Brand familiarity increased wit! num.er of eBposures Claim familiarity and .elief increased wit! t!e num.er of eBposures 1urc!ase intent increased wit! t!e num.er of eBposures /ome critics of t!e study cite t!e potential .ias t!at results w!en eBperiments are conducted in a controlled setting+ /ince t!e su.>ect knows !eEs!e is participating in an eBperiment# t!ey may spend more time t!an t!ey normally would interact wit! t!e stimulus+ 2n association wit! /eagram and /ons# -ime# 2nc attempted to replicate 1olitM<s findings outside of a controlled setting+ Ads were rotated for eig!t /eagram products in issues of Ti&e and

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 Sports '**ustrated+ ;eekly Juestionnaires sent to su.scri.ers in .ot! test markets supported t!e 1olitM findings+ Overall# increases were noted in use and purc!ase for t!e .rands advertised ?7im# 166'A+ Tra( ing Studies Oftentimes a campaign utiliMes various media and it .ecomes increasingly !ard to attri.ute advertising effects to any one media using an in& market test of advertising effectiveness+ 2t is not uncommon for advertisers to
T"+&<' 0 S!%$4; $ongitudinal researc! program w!ere.y respondents are recruited in waves to take a .randing survey+ -!e result is a time trend of .randing metrics+ -racking studies are meant to give an idea !ow a campaign is performing rat!er t!an any individual advertisement in t!at campaign+

monitor campaign impact t!roug! a !"+&<' 0 /!%$4 w!ere.y periodic sampling of a target audience provides a time trend of .randing measures+ Of particular interest is !ow t!e campaign# as opposed to a specific advertisement# is affecting t!e .rand+ 2n t!is type of study# a .aseline measure of .rand metrics is gat!ered prior to a campaign going live ?preA and t!en again as t!e campaign is running ?postA+ Any information gat!ered in t!e post wave is compared to t!e .aseline levels seen in t!e pre wave+ ;!ile t!is met!odology is common# it cannot attri.ute lifts to any one media or advertising eBecution and it does not control for t!e influences of non&advertising related varia.les+ Case /tudy: Avis Q Rent&A&Car 2n responding to a reJuest from Avis management# t!e marketing researc! team at Avis worked wit! Bates 8/A# its advertising agency# and $ie.erman Researc! to demonstrate t!at Avis advertising !ad a positive effect in .uilding .rand eJuity and ultimately s!are of market for Avis ?5eorgiou and Miller# 166NA+ Avis turned to a tracking study conducted over a 10&year period among car renters+ 4aria.les measured over t!is time period included .rand and advertising awareness# communications# .rand image and s!are of market+ Avis et al first looked at t!e relations!ip .etween c!anges in advertising spending and various measures of .rand eJuity and s!are of market+ Avis found t!at t!ere is a strong relations!ip .etween t!e amount of money spent on advertising and its s!are of market+ Additionally# Avis also found t!at

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 t!ere was a significant positive relations!ip .etween advertising spending and measures of company awareness and advertising awareness+ Additionally# spending was also correlated wit! advertising communications ?t!emeEslogan recallA and to a lesser eBtent company image ?5eorgiou and Miller# 166NA+ Once t!ese relations!ips were identified# Avis worked wit! $isette Berry " Associates# a statistical consulting firm# to develop a model t!at descri.es !ow variations in advertising spending influence s!are of market+ -!is model was .ased on a regression analysis designed to identify t!e mec!anisms in w!ic! advertising !as its influence ?5eorgiou and Miller# 166NA+ Based on t!is model# Avis found: C!anges in advertising spending !ave a greater effect on company awareness# advertising awareness and advertising communications t!an on company image+ -!e two measures most !ig!ly correlated wit! s!are of market are company awareness and company image+ -!ese insig!ts led Avis to conclude t!at c!anges in company awareness ?particularly unaided awarenessA and imagery are more likely to .e translated into improved market s!are+ Being a.le to identify t!e predictors of market s!are ena.led Avis to focus its marketing strategies and advertising tactics on t!ese two important varia.les+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

M)+/%"' 0 B"+ $' 0 O -' )

All of t!e met!odologies we !ave reviewed are t!e result of demand for accounta.ility in advertising eBpenditures+ advertising+ Over time# t!ese researc! tactics !ave .ecome standard in measuring t!e .randing impact of offline As 2nternet advertising is also under t!e scrutiny of accounta.ility# it is important for online advertisers to understand !ow t!eir online efforts are impacting measures of .rand eJuity+ 1n*ine Copy Tests
O -' ) C#24 T)/!; -estEControl .ased met!odology designed to measure t!e .randing potential of an online ad+ ReJuires respondents to view a ;e. page wit! eit!er a client<s .anner ?eBposedA or an unrelated .anner ?controlA+ /cores on .randing metrics are calculated for eac! group and differences are attri.uted to t!e ad+

2t is possi.le to replicate a &#24=!)/! met!odology on t!e 2nternet+ 2n t!is practice# users are recruited from a site or data.ase and asked to take a .rief survey+ 8sers are randomly assigned to eit!er a control group or an eBposed group+ 3Bposed group respondents see a page wit! a client<s .anner on it w!ile control group respondents see an alternative ad+ -!e user t!en answers some Juestions a.out t!e test .rand and differences .etween eBposed and control groups are measured and attri.uted to t!e ad eBposure+ Millward Brown 2nteractive is largely credited for .ringing t!e copy&test approac! online and s!owing t!at online advertising is effective regardless of click& t!roug! ?Briggs and Hollis# 166NA+ -!is service !elps online advertisers reduce t!e risk t!at .anners in t!eir campaign will !ave no effect+ $ogic<s online copy test product is called A$I $): L+(+ Case /tudy: :indings :rom 2psos&A/2 2nteractive 2psos A/2 was an early mover in measuring t!e .randing effectiveness of online advertising+ /ince 166N t!e company !as .een measuring 2nternet advertising .ased on t!e premise t!at# as in traditional advertising# t!e effectiveness of online advertising is .ased on a consumer<s a.ility to recall an ad and a.sor. and decode a message .efore .e!avior and attitudes can c!ange+ 2psos< 2nternet Advertising Consumer Model s!eds some lig!t on t!e value of different advertising formats# sponsors!ips# and .road.and advertising ?:lores# '000A+ All findings are .ased on online copy tests+ ynamic

A$I $): L+(; 1roduct offered .y ynamic $ogic designed to let advertisers pre&test t!eir online creative to reduce t!e risk t!at t!eir ads will !ave no effect+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 $arger ad units are more noticed and communicate more !owever# if ads are too disruptive to t!e consumer eBperience ?slow downloadA# t!e consumer may take away a negative perception of t!e ad# .rand# or even site itself+ Online sponsors!ips can positively impact advertising awareness of a .rand+ Ric! media increases an ads a.ility to .e recalled .ut does not impact ad likea.ility+ $ike t!e 1olitM print effectiveness findings# t!ere is always t!e possi.ility of a .ias in any researc! conducted in a controlled environment+ Because of t!is fear# t!e industry !as pus!ed for in market tests to measure t!e .randing effectiveness of online advertising ?recogniMing of course t!at online copy tests remain an important tool for pre&testing a campaign<s effectivenessA+ 'n 2ar et 2easures -!ere are certain c!allenges faced in t!e online world in terms of measuring advertising impact on .rand eJuity w!en t!e ads are in&market+ 8nlike television or print advertising# 2nternet advertising is served dynamically so t!at two people visiting t!e same site may never see t!e same ads+ Because of t!is# recruiting people w!o were eBposed to a specific ad is a c!allenge+ ;!ile ad eBposures can .e tracked .y t!ird&party ad serving data.asesI most ad servers do not !ave t!e a.ility to link eBposure information to t!e survey data information reJuired to derive .rand eJuity measures+
O -' ) T"+&<' 0 S!%$4; Measures .randing in waves using t!e 2nternet for recruitment and survey !osting+ oes not allow advertisers to link eBposure to attitudes+

Marketers can modify a !"+&<' 0 /!%$4 to measure t!e impact of an online campaign as it is running in market+ $ike t!e offline version# online tracking studies recruit respondents in waves# often from t!e same sites t!e ads are running on+ /urveying typically !appens .efore a campaign is launc!ed and t!en again in su.seJuent waves after t!e campaign !as launc!ed+ ;!ile recruiting and interviewing are conducted online# oftentimes eBposure information cannot .e linked to survey data+ As a result# it is

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 impossi.le to attri.ute a c!ange in .rand eJuity measures to advertising eBposure+ -!roug! t!e use of cookies# it is possi.le to matc! survey data wit! ad
A$I $):; 2n market measurement of online advertising performance on .randing varia.les+ 2solates online advertising<s impact on .rand eJuity metrics and can .e repeated over time for more longitudinal measures+ Ad2ndeB also allows advertisers to understand !ow freJuency and site selection impacts .randing+

eBposure data+

ynamic $ogic<s A$I $): product does >ust t!at+ Ad2ndeB

measures consumer perceptions and attitudes toward an advertiser,s .rand .y capturing consumer opinions t!roug! an online survey w!ile t!e online campaign is running in market+ -o isolate t!e impact of advertising eBposure on consumer attitudes# two groups of online consumers are sampled at t!e same time from t!e same ;e. sites on w!ic! a test campaign is running+ As t!e only difference .etween t!e groups is t!e presence of t!e advertising# any attitudinal differences .etween t!e two groups can .e attri.uted to t!e eBposure to t!e specific online ad campaign+

F")6%) &4; -!e num.er of times a consumer is eBposed to an advertisement or message+

Ad2ndeB captures 1")6%) &4 data so t!at advertisers can understand !ow varying levels of eBposure to advertising impacts .randing+ :urt!ermore# Ad2ndeB works wit! any ad&server and can measure a campaign<s performance across multiple sites so t!at advertisers can understand !ow t!e different media properties on a .uy impact .randing+ Case /tudy: -ravelocity '(EN Media commissioned ynamic $ogic to researc! t!e .randing

effectiveness of online advertising for its -ravelocity client+ Results s!ow t!at -ravelocity !as significantly increased awareness of t!eir .rand t!roug! t!e use of online advertising+ 8sing Ad2ndeB to measure t!e .randing value of t!eir campaign#
A'$)$ A7+") )//; Aided awareness refers to t!e percentage of respondents w!o indicated t!at t!ey are aware of an advertiser+

-ravelocity found t!at t!eir .anner campaign significantly lifted +'$)$ +7+") )// of t!e -ravelocity .rand .y 1C@+ Aided awareness refers to t!e percentage of respondents w!o indicated t!at t!ey are aware of -ravelocity w!en presented wit! a list of travel service providers+ -!is greatly eBceeds t!e average lift in awareness of all campaigns measured using Ad2ndeB# w!ic! is C@+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 -!e results vary .y freJuency level & t!e more times a person saw t!e .anners# t!e greater t!e impact in awareness lift+ Among t!ose people w!o were eBposed to t!e .anners four or more times# t!e lift in awareness of -ravelocity was ((@+

;!ile -ravelocity<s overall goal is to sell seats# t!e company recogniMes t!at t!ere is a way to measure !ow successful its online advertising is .eyond counting sales+ By Juantifying a significant lift in .rand awareness# ynamic $ogic was a.le to Juantify t!at more consumers may place -ravelocity in t!eir consideration set w!en t!ey need to make travel arrangements in t!e future+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

C#.2+"' 0 O -' ) + $ O11-' ) B"+ $' 0

Recently# Morgan /tanley ean ;itter released a report entitled Corre(tion: Does 'nternet Advertising Wor 3 4es5 ,ut6 Based on data provided .y ynamic $ogic and ot!ers# M/ ; eventually concluded t!at 2nternet advertising .anners are a cost&effective .randing tool w!en compared to -4 and print+ 7T0e 'nternet perfor&s .e** a(ross 8randing &easures5 8ut .e 8e*ieve it is 8etter for t0ose .0o a*ready 0ave a 8rand t0an t0ose .0o are trying to deve*op one.9 7At today:s pri(es5 .e 8e*ieve 8anners are (ost#effe(tive in generating 8rand re(a** and 8rand interest68ut t0ey are on*y a &oderate*y effe(tive dire(t &ar eting too*.9

-a.le: Comparing Media 3ffectiveness in Branding and irect Marketing

TV CPM - Cost per 1000 impressions $nde%ed to $nternet Generatin !rand A"areness $nde%ed to $nternet )ost *++ecti,eness !rand Re#all Ability $nde%ed to $nternet )ost *++ecti,eness Generatin !rand$Prod%#t &nterest $nde%ed to $nternet )ost *++ecti,eness $16 !! 45&% "6% #5&% 56% 1&% 6"% 14% 46% 1!5% #"% Magazines Newspaper Banners $6 !! 1&1% #9% #!&% 1#1% #6% 96% 56% 44% 1!!% 5-% $19 !! 54"% N'( N'( N'( #"% -5% 16% N'( N'( N'( $" 5! 1!!% 14% 1!!% 1!!% #&% 1!!% 1!!% 44% 1!!% 1!!% e-Mail $#! !! 5&1% N'( N'( N'( N'( N'( N'( N'( N'( N'(

Source: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 2001

2SDW 18servations on 2edia /ffe(tiveness Brand Recall According to t!e data gat!ered .y M/ ;# t!e 2nternet leads magaMines# newspapers# and television in .rand recall+ After seeing an ad on t!e 2nternet# consumers

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101 s!owed a 'N@ greater a.ility to recall a .rand t!an .efore+ -!is compares to 'C@ for magaMines# 'D@ for newspapers# and 1N@ for television+ 5enerating 1roduct 2nterest Consumers were ((@ more interested in learning more a.out a product after seeing a .anner ad t!an .efore+ -!is num.er is similar for magaMines .ut slig!tly lower t!an television# w!ose compara.le figure is (C@+ 5enerating Brand Awareness -!e 2nternet !as .een s!own to raise awareness of a .rand .y an average of 1(@# lower t!an .ot! television and magaMines wit! DC@ and '6@ respectively+ Cost 3ffectiveness M/ ; calculated t!e effective C1M for t!e 2nternet to .e RD+)0+ At t!is price# .anners remain less cost effective in generating .rand awareness t!an magaMines .ut more t!an television+ 2n terms of .rand recall# t!e 2nternet is more cost&effective t!an television# magaMines# and newspapers and in terms of generating product interestI t!e 2nternet<s RD+)0 C1M ranks it as t!e most cost effective media+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

S%..+"4
Online marketers !ave traditionally looked at .e!avioral responses to measure t!e effectiveness of t!e medium+ As click&t!roug! rates !ave .een declining# critics !ave .een reporting t!at online advertising is ineffective+ However# looking only at .e!avioral responses to online advertising ignores t!e fact t!at online advertising can impact a .rand<s eJuity+ Measuring t!e .randing effectiveness of advertising !as .een done in t!e offline world for over !alf a century+ Many of t!e tactics marketers !ave used to measure advertising<s impact on .randing !ave .een outlined in t!is paper+ -!ese traditional metrics can .e adapted to online advertising effectiveness studies to give advertisers a more valid assessment of t!eir online advertising efforts+ :inally# online advertising !as .een s!own to .e a cost effective .randing ve!icle especially w!en it comes to generating .rand recall and .rand interest+ Conversely# .anner advertising !as .een s!own to .e only moderately effective in terms of generating direct response+

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

G-#//+"4 #1 T)"./
-3RM A$I $): 3:202-2O0 2n market measurement of online advertising performance on .randing varia.les+ 2solates online advertising<s impact on .rand eJuity metrics and can .e repeated over time for more longitudinal measures+ Ad2ndeB also allows advertisers to understand !ow freJuency and site selection impacts .randing+ 1roduct offered .y ynamic $ogic designed to let advertisers pre&test t!eir online creative to reduce t!e risk t!at t!eir ads will !ave no effect+ Refers to t!e percentage of respondents w!o indicated t!at t!ey are aware of an advertiser+ istinguis!ing name or sym.ol designed to identify t!e origins of a product or service# differentiate t!e product or service from t!e competition# and protect t!e consumer and producer from competitors w!o would attempt to provide similar products+ -!e value of a .rand as derived from consumer attitudes# .e!aviors# awareness# and perceptions+ -!e process of creating an association .etween an o.>ect or feeling and a productEcompany+ -esting t!e .randing value of a television commercial in a controlled environment+ Copy testing is done .efore commercial airs on television+ -!e segment of respondents w!o are recruited to provide a .aseline measurement of .randing levels & t!ese respondents are eit!er 0O- eBposed to t!e test .rand advertisement or t!ey eBposed to a =control= or =place.o= ad 1!one .ased met!odology to understand !ow memora.le a commercial is+ -!e Oday after recall measureP is t!e percent of t!ose in t!e commercial audience w!o were watc!ing t!e s!ow .efore and after t!e commercial was s!own# w!o remem.ered somet!ing specific a.out it+ Researc! met!odology designed to isolate t!e impact of a stimulus ?advertisementA on a response ?awareness# purc!ase intent# etc+A+ -!e segment of respondents w!o are recruited to provide an ad&eBposed measurement of .randing levels & t!e data from t!ese respondents is compared to control group -!e num.er of times a consumer is eBposed to an advertisement or message+ -estEControl .ased met!odology designed to measure t!e .randing potential of an online ad+ ReJuires respondents to view a ;e. page wit! eit!er a client<s .anner ?eBposedA or an unrelated .anner ?controlA+ /cores on .randing metrics are calculated for eac! group and differences are attri.uted to t!e ad+ Measures .randing in waves using t!e 2nternet for recruitment and survey !osting+ oes not allow advertisers to link eBposure to attitudes+ 8ses one on one interviews to determine a print advertisement<s effectiveness in terms of readers!ip+ Ads are compared to ot!er ads in an issue as well as ot!er ads from competitors+ A finding ?for eBample t!e o.served difference .etween t!e means of two random samplesA is descri.ed as statistically significant# w!en it can .e demonstrated t!at t!e pro.a.ility of o.taining suc! a difference .y c!ance only# is relatively low+ 2t is customary to descri.e one,s finding as statistically significant# w!en t!e o.tained result is among t!ose t!at would occur no more t!an ) out of 100 times w!en t!e only factors operating are t!e c!ance variations t!at occur w!enever random samples are drawn+ Refers to t!e .rand .eing measured+ $ongitudinal researc! program w!ere.y respondents are recruited in waves to take a .randing survey+ -!e result is a time trend of .randing metrics+ -racking studies are meant to give an idea !ow a campaign is performing rat!er t!an any individual advertisement in t!at campaign+

A$I $): L+( A'$)$ A7+") )// B"+ $

B"+ $ E6%'!4 B"+ $' 0 C#24 T)/!' 0 C# !"#- G"#%2 D+4 A1!)" R)&+--

E:2#/)$ + $ C# !"#E:2#/)$ G"#%2 F")6%) &4 O -' ) C#24 T)/!

O -' ) T"+&<' 0 S!%$4 S!+"&* A$ R)+$)"/*'2 P"#0"+. S!+!'/!'&+S'0 '1'&+ &)

T)/! B"+ $ T"+&<' 0 S!%$4

D4 +.'& L#0'&5/ B"+ $' 0 101

R)1)") &)/
Assael# Henry+ Consumer Be!avior and Marketing Action+ Ct! 3d+ /out! ;estern College 1u.lis!ing# ?166%A: 10(+ Briggs# ReB and Hollis# 0igel+ OAdvertising on t!e ;e.: 2s -!ere Response Before Click&-!roug!LP ;ourna* of Advertising Resear(05 DN# ' ?166NA: DD&()+ u.off# Ro.ert and /paet!# Gim+ 2ar et Resear(0 2atters: Too*s and Te(0ni<ues for A*igning 4our ,usinessI Go!n ;iley " /ons# 2nc+ '000+ :lores# $aurent+ O2nternet Advertising 3ffectiveness: ;!at id ;e $earn and ;!ere are ;e 5oingLP Wor*d.ide Advertising Conferen(e5 Rio de ;anerio# 0ovem.er '000+ 5eorgiou# 1aul and Miller# /tep!en+ O10 9ears of -racking in t!e Rent&A&Car Business+P Advertising Resear(0 %oundation# 166N+ Hoffman# Howard /+ O/tatistics 3Bplained+P T0e Ani&ated Soft.are Co&pany# '001+ 7im# 1eter+ O oes Advertising ;ork: A Review of t!e 3vidence+P T0e ;ourna* of Consu&er 2ar eting# 6# ( ?166'A: )&16+ $ac!# Gennifer+ O8pper Crust: 7raft :oods 1ours t!e /auce# /prinkles t!e C!eese# and elivers Results wit! a -astier :roMen 1iMMa+ A&eri(an De&ograp0i(s# Marc! 1666+ Russel# Mic!ael G# 7eit!# Ro.ert G# :euer# Rod 0# Meeker# Mary and Ma!aney# Mark+ O oes 2nternet Advertising ;orkL 9es# ButSP 2organ Stan*ey Dean Witter 'nternet Dire(t 2ar eting and Advertising Servi(es# :e.ruary ''# '001+ /paet!# Gim+ OBrand 3Juity and AdvertisingI $essons from Gimi HendriB+P Advertising Resear(0 %oundation# 166D+