2. This Presentation
• What drives effectiveness and what should we measure?
• Why some metrics and analytics are damaging to
effectiveness
• The ultimate data challenge: the dominant driver of
effectiveness is usually ignored
• What can we do about this?
3. Our main sources
• IPA dataBANK - 929 case studies - 30
years of data
• Nielsen analysis of 30 UK packaged
goods categories - 123 brands
• World’s leading database on creativity
• World’s leading global case study
database
4. The measures of business success
• Effectiveness measured in terms of business results, not
prizes.
• Key metrics:
– Effectiveness Success Rate.
% cases showing very large effects across a range of business
metrics, from sales to profit.
– Efficiency
points of market share growth per 10 points of Extra Share of
Voice (ESOV).
ESOV = SOV minus SOM
6. There is more to growth than
volume
Price is the key to profit
70%
60% 63%
50% Incidence
40%
30% 36% Very large profit
growth
20% 26% 25%
22% 20%
19%
10%
5%
0%
Price sensitivity Share growth Share defence Sales growth
Campaign objective
7. Build advocacy not loyalty
The myth of loyalty
Common practice... ...is not best practice
25% 90%
Effectiveness success
80%
20% 70% 82%
60% 73%
Incidence
15%
21%
50%
rate
40%
10%
13% 30%
5% 20%
7%
10% 27%
0% 0%
Increase Increase Increase both Increase loyalty Increase Increase both
loyalty penetration penetration
Campaign objective Campaign objective
8. Awareness, image & short-term
responses are over-rated
The most popular objectives are not the most effective
80%
70% 78%
67% Incidence
60% 67% 68%
61%
50%
55%
40% 46% Effectiveness
success rate
30% 33%
20%
10%
0%
Awareness Image Direct Fame
Campaign objective
10. The concept of equilibrium SOV
Source: Marketing in the era of Accountability
11. How ‘extra’ share of voice drives
growth
Market share growth vs 'extra' share of voice
100%
Market share gain (% points)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ESOV (SOV-SOM)
-20%
-40%
12. The advantage of brand leadership
1.6%
1.4%
Mkt share gain per 10% points
1.2% 1.4%
ESOV (% points)
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2% 0.4%
0.0%
FMCG Brand Leaders FMCG Challenger Brands
13. The difference between average
strategy and ‘best in class’
0.9%
Mkt share gain per 10% points
0.8%
0.7% 0.8%
ESOV (% points)
0.6%
0.5%
0.4% 0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
FMCG Nielsen Average FMCG IPA Average
14. The difference between traditional
and multi-channel campaigns
3.0%
Mkt share gain per 10% points ESOV
2.5%
2.5%
2.0%
(% points)
1.5%
1.0%
1.1%
0.5%
0.0%
Traditional advertising alone Advertising plus other channels
Communications channels used
15. TV enhances campaign efficiency
Campaigns 2004-2010
1.0%
Efficiency: Mkt share gain per 10%
0.9%
0.9%
points ESOV (% points)
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4% 0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
Campaigns using TV Campaigns not using TV
16. On-line enhances TV effectiveness
80%
70%
Effectiveness success rate %
71%
60%
63%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Campaigns using TV without on-line Campaigns using TV + on-line
17. Why some metrics can be
damaging to effectiveness
How campaigns drive growth
18. Communications strategies
• Effective campaigns aim to change behaviour.
• Some try to do this in a primarily rational way, some
primarily use emotions, and some use both.
• Rational campaigns are the most common, but…
19. Emotional strategies are more
profitable
35%
V large profit gains (% reporting)
30%
30%
25%
26%
20%
15%
16%
10%
5%
0%
Emotional Combined Rational
Campaign strategy
Emotional campaigns outperform on almost every metric
22. The dangerous exception
40%
V large short term direct effects
35% 38%
35%
30%
(% reporting)
25% 28%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Emotional Combined Rational
Campaign strategy
23. The most powerful strategy?
40%
Very large profit gains (% reporting)
35%
30%
34%
25% 28%
26%
20%
15%
16%
10%
5%
0%
Fame Emotional Combined emotional Any rational
involvement & rational
Communications strategy
24. The power of Fame
Fame campaigns achieve broader business success
60%
% achieving very large effect
50% 53%
50%
40% Fame
campaigns
34%
30% 32%
30%
Other
20% 22% campaigns
10% 13%
9%
6%
3%
0%
Profit Price Sales Loyalty Penetration
sensitivity
Business metric
25. Fame campaigns are more efficient
Fame campaigns are 2.3 times more efficient
60%
SOM growth Other campaigns
50%
Fame campaigns
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
-10%
-20% ESOV
-30%
-40%
26. Implication for targeting
• Fame is the antithesis of tight targeting – ‘waste’ can be
good
• By getting a brand and its marketing talked about:
– Give the brand a sense of stature and authority beyond its actual
size
– Turn consumers into brand advocates
28. The impact of creativity
• 16 years of data
– 367 campaigns
– 65 creatively awarded
– 20% international
• Comparison of the efficiency of creatively awarded vs
non-awarded campaigns
29. How ESOV drives growth:
overall efficiency for the sample
How ESOV drives market share growth
60%
SOM growth 50%
40%
30%
99% confidence
20%
10%
0%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
-10%
-20% ESOV
-30%
-40%
On average 1.3 points of share growth per 10 points of ESOV
30. Efficiency of non-creatively awarded
cases
Efficiency of non-awarded campaigns
60%
SOM growth 50%
40%
30%
20% 99.7% confidence
10%
0%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
-10%
ESOV
-20%
-30%
-40%
On average 0.8 points of share growth per 10 points of ESOV
31. Efficiency of creatively awarded
campaigns
Efficiency of creatively awarded campaigns
60.0%
SOM growth
50.0%
40.0%
30.0% 99.9% confidence
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
-60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
-10.0% ESOV
-20.0%
-30.0%
-40.0%
On average 5.4 points of share growth per 10 points of ESOV
32. The power of creativity is clear
Comparison of the efficiency of awarded and non-awarded campaigns
60.0%
SOM growth
50.0%
40.0% Creatively
awarded
30.0%
Non-creatively
20.0% awarded
10.0%
0.0%
-60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
-10.0%
ESOV
-20.0%
-30.0%
-40.0%
~7:1 advantage in terms of efficiency
33. Non-awarded campaigns are
becoming less efficient
The efficiency of non-awarded campaigns has fallen over time
60%
SOM growth 50%
Pre 2004
40%
2004 & post
30%
20%
10%
0%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
-10%
ESOV
-20%
-30%
-40%
34. Whereas awarded campaigns are
becoming more efficient
The efficiency of creatively-awarded campaigns has risen over time
60%
SOM growth 50%
40%
30% Pre 2004
20%
2004 & post
10%
0%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
-10%
ESOV
-20%
-30%
-40%
Now ~12:1 advantage in terms of efficiency
35. How does creativity appear to
work?
Awarded campaigns are more likely to be emotional
100%! Communications
19% model
Proportion of all cases
90%! 34%
80%! Rational
33%
70%! Combined
60%! 31% Emotional
50%!
40%!
30%! 47%
20%! 35%
10%!
0%!
Creatively Non-awarded
awarded
36. How does creativity appear to
work?
50%
45% 48%
Percentage reporting very large effects
40%
35% Creatively
awarded
30%
25% 25% 25% Non-awarded
20%
23%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fame Awareness
+ -
37. So why is creativity getting more
important?
The widening fame gap
80%
% reporting very large fame effects
70% 70%
60%
Creatively
50% awarded
40% Non-
awarded
30%
29%
20%
28%
18%
10%
0%
Pre 2004 2004 & post
38. The creative fame journey –
the growing challenge for
measurement
The multi-channel idea makes non-holistic
measurement irrelevant
39. The creative fame journey
• From relying entirely on the popularity of great work to
drive fame…
• To developing on-line ‘collateral’ to drive and exploit the
fame potential of a great idea
45. What can we do about it?
Common practice Best practice
• Measure volume • Measure price elasticity
• Measure loyalty • Measure advocacy
• Measure brand awareness • Measure brand fame
• Measure immediate • Measure long term effects
response
• Promote rational • Promote emotional
communication engagement
• Suspicious of creative • Reward creative awards
awards
