Case study for UnME Jeans: Branding in Web 2.0

1. Case Study
UnME Jeans: Branding in Web 2.0

2. The changes in marketing in social
media: Web 2.0

3. 1. Consumer’s changing media habits

4. 2. Increasing advertising clutter

5. 3. Consumers tuning out ads

6. Still,more than 85% budget is spent on traditional media
marketing.

7. “ There is a palpable sense of discomfort.”

8. The reasons?
• Convincing the management for funding
• Lack of matrices to measure performance
• Rapid change in options

9. Consider the case for UnME jeans
The product: Fashion-forward
jeans for teenage girls

10. “Celebrating the individuality of
teenage
girls and encouraging teens to
speak out against peer pressure
and conformity.”

11. Target audience for UnME Jeans
marketing :
12 to 24 yr women

12. The social media options:
WEB 1.0: Distribution outlet for content
Banner
Ads
Classified
Ads
Search
Ads

13. Is spending money on Web 1.0 really worth it?
Total money spent on social media advertising: 0.5$ Billion
Spent on online media advertising: ~8%
Total money spent on online media advertising: ~40million

14. Search ads
Click-through rate: 5%
Internet advertising revenue: 41%
Total money spent ~$16.4million
Money spent per click rate % =$3.28million
CPM=$8.52
Effective CPM=$170.4

15. Banner ads
Click-through rate: 0.2%
Internet advertising revenue: 32%
Total money spent ~$12.8million
Money spent per click rate %= $64million
CPM=$3.50
Effective CPM=$1750

16. The verdict: The company has to spend considerably less
amount of money for the same click rates if they spend on
search advertising.
UnME should spend more on
search advertisements than on
banner advertisements

17. Web 2.0 options (as per the agency)
Facebook Zwinky Youtube
Lets analyse each of these options..

18. Facebook
Costs incurred:
• One-time charge of $350,000 for creative development
• $150,000 for a three-month advertising program
Estimated total number of visitors in 3 months= 14,196,000X3=42,588,000
Target audiences : Teens+young adults
Should UnME pay Facebook based on CPM or
click through rates?

19. Facebook
Teens
Users: 34% ==14,479,920
Visits per person in 3 months: 61.5
Total visits in 3 months: 890,515,080
Age group:12-17

20. Facebook
Users:46%==19,468,800
Young adults
Visits per person in 3 months: 67.9
Total visits in 3 months: 1,321,932,000
Total no of visit of target audiences in 3 months:
2,212,446,600
Age group: 18-21

21. Facebook
Total no of visit in 3 months: 2,212,446,600
Total costs in 3 months: $500,000
CPM: 22 cents

22. Facebook
Interest in social network profile from a brand?
Teens: 27%
Frequency 3 months: 38times
Total number of interested users: 3909578.4
Total number of clicks in 3months: 148563979.2
Click-through rate: 16.6%

23. Facebook
Interest in social network profile from a brand?
Frequency 3 months: 38times
Total number of interested users: 7106112
Total number of clicks in 3months: 270032256
Gen Yers: 36.5%
Click-through rate:20.4%

24. Facebook
Total no of clicks in 3 months: 418,596,235.2
Total costs in 3 months: $500,000
Cost per 1000 click throughs: $1.19
Total click through rates: 18.9%

25. Future of Facebook
Year-over-year growth: 85%
Social networking site advertising is estimated
to grow by $0.46 billion
Currently 80 million active users

26. Zwinktopia
Costs incurred:
• $200,000 for upfront creative development
• Recurring charge of $100,000 per year for operation, maintenance, and
updating
Zwinky’s target market: girls 13 to 24
No. of users: 7million
CPM: $42.85
Expected click through rates:
34%

27. Future of Zwinky
50-60 million users will be on metaverses
Currently 7 million active users

28. Youtube
Costs incurred:
• $300,000 for upfront creative development
• $300,000 media buy out
Total number of visits per month : 48,152,000
Click-through-rates for in-video ads~75%
CPM: $40
Expected click through rates:
75%

29. Future of Youtube
Year-over-year growth: 140%
US online video advertising spending: $5800 millon
Current internet users using video sharing site: 74%

30. The comparison matrix
CPM($) Click-through-
rates (%)
Effective reach
coefficient
Banner ads 3.50 0.2 1750
Search ads 8.52 5 170.4
Facebook ads 0.22 18.9 1.16402116402116
Zwinky ads 42.85 34 126.029411764706
Youtube ads 40 75 53.3333333333333
TV ads 29.95 1.5 1996.66666666667
Radio ads 11.55 1.5 770
Magazine ads 11.91 1.5 794

31. The verdict
1. The Web 2.0 options outperform their Web1.0 counterparts.
2. Facebook and Youtube perform better than Zwinky.
3. On Facebook,the deal must be made with CPM basis.
4. Search ads should be preferred over banner ads.
5. Web1.0 seems to have run it’s course.
6. The year-over-growth potential for Facebook and Youtube are
very high.
7. All Web2.0 plans incorporate the right attitude towards
advertising in those media.

32. The suggested changes in media plan
1. Incorporate Web 2.0 media channels in the plan.
2. Reduce spending on Banner advertisements
3. Youtube and Facebook have more potential over Zwinky
4. Expenditure on TV ads should be dramatically reduced

33. Disclaimer
"These slides were created by Jay Patrikar, as part of an
internship done under the guidance of Prof. Sameer Mathur
(www.IIMInternship.com)"