2. Main content
Summary
Set-up and Objectives
• Campaign objectives
• Study objectives
• ROI model
• Set-up research
Analysis
• Cost
• Impact
• Cost/effect
Outcomes & implications
Appendix
2
3. Summary
Main conclusions
Google Display Network most efficient at driving visits to website (>15s).
1 • GDN delivers 23% of the effect for 2% of the budget and is therefore 7.8 times more efficient than TV.
• TV has more reach and impact per impression, however GDN is more efficient due to much lower cost/GRP.
TV reaches majority of population. Google Display Network has lowest cost/GRP.
• Cost/GRP on TV is 14 times higher than on GDN and 5 times higher than on Radio.
2 • At effective contact frequencies the overlap between media decreases: a combination of media is needed to achieve a
high effective reach.
Targeting quality to be increased by better definition of target audience.
• Current definitions of target audiences – based on demographics only – block the possibility to quantify the quality of
3 targeting.
• A segmentation study is needed to identify potential buyers based on online behavior and previous buying behavior.
Background ROI Model
Industry Car Insurance
AllSecur Cost
Objective Increase sales, measured by increase in
website visits to AllSecur domain with
duration longer than 15 seconds
Research Type Cross Media: TV, Radio, Online (Display Targeting Cost/Effect
on Google and IMX)
Impact
3
4. TV most effective in driving website visits,
Google Display Network most efficient
Impact Effectiveness Efficiency
KPI score on KPI score on Impact x Reach Impact x Reach
-
exposed group unexposed group Budget
Site visit > 15 sec
4
6. Campaign Objective & Creative Materials
Campaign objective • Drive visits to Allsecur website with a duration longer than 15 seconds
TV
Commercial for independent car insurance comparison
Commercial for claims support
Online
6
7. Study objectives
Main Research questions
1 Online and off-line have different “languages”: how do we integrate towards one currency?
2 Online and off-line have different impact and cost: how do we compare them?
Research Questions TV, Radio & Online
• How do cost per GRP/Impressions for TV, Radio and Online compare?
• How do reach and (effective) frequency compare?
• How much of the Radio and Online reach is unique?
• How does targeting of Radio and Online compare to TV?
• What is the impact of TV, Radio and Online on website visits?
• How do cost/effect (ROI) for TV, Radio and Online compare in driving website visits ?
7
8. ROI Model
Cost
Targeting Cost/Effect
Impact
Efficiency consists of three components; (1) cost per contact, (2) % of waste generated (wrong target group or people not being
in market for your product) and (3) impact caused by the format (each individual media type has a different impact per contact).
8
10. Single Source Media Research
TV Radio
Visits to
website
Media
Online
Psycho Demo-
graphic Personal graphic
“Single source” measurement means that from each member of the panel we know the media consumption (TV, Radio and Online) as well as the
website visitation behavior. This allows for a calculation of media impact on this metric.
10
12. TV reaches majority of population,
GDN has lowest cost/GRP
Budget
allocation
Cost/GRP (indexed) Reach
Avg contact
frequency 12.0 48.5 16.5 9.7
GRPs 1154 4283 658 246
12
13. 1+ Reach: TV reaches majority of population
Media type
mentioned second
Overlapping reach
between both
media
Media type
mentioned first
Reach has been measured over the total half year period
13
14. 3+ and 5+ Reach: At effective contact frequencies
overlapping reach between media decreases
Left column: 3+ reach
Right column: 5+ reach
Media type
mentioned second
Overlapping reach
between both media
Media type
mentioned first
14
16. No uplift in website visits as a result of Radio contacts.
TV +46% and GDN +36%.
Site visit > 15 sec
Effects shown are without the influences of other media types, effects are single media effects
16
17. Optimal frequency for TV is between 3 and 5
Optimal frequency for Online is between 5 and 8
Percentage that stays on website > 15 seconds
TV
IMX Display
Google Display
Radio
Number of contacts with media
17
19. Calculation of effect and efficiency
KPI score on
- KPI score on
Vision &
Impact
Mission = exposed group unexposed group
Effectiveness = Impact x Reach
Impact x Reach
Cost/Effect = ____________
Budget
19
20. TV most effective in driving website visits,
Google Display Network most efficient
Impact Effectiveness Efficiency
KPI score on KPI score on Impact x Reach Impact x Reach
-
exposed group unexposed group Budget
Site visit > 15 sec
20
22. TV most effective in driving website visits,
Google Display most efficient due to lower cost
Cost
Radio Index:
4.5
Google Display Index: 14.0
IMX Index: 13.4
Targeting Cost/Effect
Radio Index: 1.5 Radio Index: 0
Google Display Index: 1.2 Google Display Index: 7.8
IMX Index: 1.1 IMX Index: 4.2
Impact
Radio Index: 0
Google Display Index: 0.46
IMX Index: 0.31
22
23. Outcomes & implications
Google Display Network most efficient at driving visits to website (>15s).
1 • GDN delivers 23% of the effect for 2% of the budget and is therefore 7.8 times more efficient than TV.
• TV has more reach and impact per impression, however GDN is more efficient due to much lower cost/GRP.
TV reaches majority of population. Google Display Network has lowest cost/GRP.
2 • Cost/GRP on TV is 14 times higher than on GDN and 5 times higher than on Radio.
• At effective contact frequencies the overlap between media decreases: a combination of media is needed to
achieve a high effective reach.
Targeting quality to be increased by better definition of target audience.
• Current definitions of target audiences – based on demographics only – block the possibility to quantify the
3 quality of targeting.
• A segmentation study is needed to identify potential buyers based on online behavior and previous buying
behavior.
Note: Radio did not have an impact on website visits despite high reach and low cost/GRP. This study evaluated website visits as a direct response metric, however radio
may have driven awareness which was outside the scope of the study.
23