. 3 reasons why A+ worked on Multimedia Audit . A Media Audit case history, including: - "old style" mono media assessment - "uptodate" multimedia assessment

1. Auditing Multimedia Campaigns
Opportunities and Threats
Paola Furlanetto
Managing Director & Founding Partner
A+ Advertising Audit
Copyright A+ Ad Audit 2008

2. Multi-media surveys. A reminder
 Multi media surveys were (probably) born in 1970 in UK.
250 HW were writing on a diary products consumption
together with TV and Magazines exposure
 Since then, MM where conceived
more as part of a bigger picture (single source, where media and
products consumption were linked together )
than as a specific objective.
 In brief the aim was ….

3. Making a Quantum Leap
MonoMedia Exposure
Multimedia Exposure and Product Consumption
Multi Media Exposure

4. Instead of climbing each step of the ladder
MonoMedia Exposure
Multimedia Exposure and Product Consumption
Multi Media Exposure

5. ….”Similar leap was attempted
by media auditors.”…
5

6. Traditional Media Auditing on Single Media
(5/6 KPI’s, evaluate campaigns vs pool benchmark)
Econometric models based on multimedia campaigns
Making a Quantum Leap
Traditional Media Auditing
on multi media performance

7. In both cases….
 The aim was perfect
 ..but there was so much information to be gathered
and consequently resources to invest
 ..that, at the end, the objective was seldom reached

8. It is therefore not unusual to…
….Find out that sometimes we are
still living in the Jurassic period….

9. Mono-media Survey Single Media
Auditing
Assessment

10. Reasons
why
A+ is working on
Media Auditing & Multimedia
3
10

11. Target Media Consumption
“More and more
fragmented every day”
1.
11

12. Advertisers
“more and more interested
in reaching their target
through
different media/channels”
2.
12

13. A multimedia Survey
now available in Italy
3.
13

14. The GFK Eurisko Media Monitor
 As those of you who have followed last Nov ASI Conference
are familiar with
 GFK Eurisko in Italy has been conducting since Oct 2006
a multimedia survey, called EMM –Eurisko Media Monitor-
 The survey is now at its second year of test
Scientific Commettee
Advertisers Media Agencies

15. The Key Question is:
Q: ”Will multimedia research
change Media Auditors
campaign assessment?...
15

16. Today’s presentation
1. Media Auditing in brief
2. EMM in brief
3. A case history :
how media audits assessment
may change moving from
single media to multimedia
4. Opportunities and Threats

17. 1. Media Auditing in brief

18. Media Auditing in Brief
What is it
 A systematic, constant control activity
of media costs & communication results
Peculiarity
 Conducted by third party Institutes,
having specific know how in the media planning business
When it is done
 ex-post (at the end of FY or every quarter/six months)

19. Company Compared to
Pool’s
Average
How Auditing Works
Pool = All campaigns
addressed towards the same target
Not as expectation
but in reality

20. Methodology
The comparison is based on parameters:
- frequently used in media planning/buying
- consolidated in international auditing methodologies

21. 4 Qualitative Parameters (media panning)
 1. Effective Reach
Percentage of people reached a minimum number of times (e.g. 3, 6,)
 2. Position in break / in the book
Percentage of pressure in qualitative positions
(e.g. first position in break or stand-alone position)
 3. Affinity
Concentration of target audience among overall contacts
 4. Peak Time
Share of advertising pressure developed by the highest audience
time bands
(time bands definitions may vary according to target: late morning
HWS, afternoon teens, drive time for adults ..etc)

22. Cost Parameter (Media Buying)
 5. Net CPP
Cost of a unit of advertising pressure

23. The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
Key performance Indicators
23

24. The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
The Performance Scale
24

25. The Audit Format: Template
- - - Average + + +
CPP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Less Competitive than the benchmark More Competitive than the benchmark
25

26. 2. GFK EURISKO Media Monitor in brief

27. The Sample
December)

28. Media with Passive Measurement
TV RADIO

29. + Retailer
Media w/o Passive Measurement
PRINT WEB CINEMA MAIL

30. Gfk Multimedia - Meter
Microphone
Bar-code Scanner”
button
“Voice”
button
Red Led: “you
have a message!”
Barcode Scanner
Bleu Led: meter
works properly
“OK” button: show
messages on display and
confirm selections
GPRS for data-transfer
and to ask question in
real time
Recognizement of
delayed listening
PRINT
WEB
CINEMA
MAIL
TV
RADIO
PRINT

31. EMM – METHODOLOGY
Passive measurement
(TV, Radio)
Push button + CAPI
(Press, Internet, Cinema)
CAPI (GDO, Direct Mail,
Outdoor)
Media
Exposure
IndividualCAPI
Interview
CAPI
Interview
Consumptions

32. Gfk Eurisko Multimedia – Product List

33. The Analysis: Software and Database

34. Strengths Weaknesses
34
EMM

35. Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption
and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
 Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
Do not allow detailed analysis on:
- segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns
-Low exposure vehicles
35
EMM

36. Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption
and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
 Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on:
- segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns
-Low exposure vehicles
36
EMM

37. Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption
and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
 Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on:
- segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns
-Low exposure vehicles
37
EMM
Therefore
A+ conducted an experimental study
aimed at identifying possible changes in media auditing perspective.
37

38. Strengths
Helicopter View
on Multimedia consumption
and
Broad Target Net Reach
Weaknesses
 Sample: 2.300 ind. / Field: 2 months a year
does not allow detailed analysis on:
- segmented target
- 12 months period campaigns
-Low exposure vehicles
38
EMM
Therefore
A+ conducted an experimental study
aimed at identifying possible changes in media auditing perspective.
A 2° step will take place next year
Based on a wider sample and analysis base. 38

39. The Case History

40. Key Findings
The assessment of an advertiser campaign performance
may shift
from below the average
to above the average
By switching
from single media
to multimedia analysis.

41. Our case, in a snapshot
The Advertiser must be:
 Active during the EMM period (Ott7 - Nov 07)
 On air in Radio e TV
Test on Brand X, characteristics:
 FMCG product
 Target 15-34yo
 Investment share (90,2% tv, 9,8% radio)

42. The Brand “X” Campaign – Flight Overview Oct/Nov
MEDIA
NET NET
INVESTMENT % INV Target GRP Sales Houses
TV € 926.043 90,2% 410 RAI, MEDIASET
RADIO € 101.150 9,8% 412
MANZONI, MONDADORI,
NOVE NOVE, OPENSPACE,
RADIO ERETI, RDS
TOTAL € 1.027.193 100%
ADULTS
15-34yo

43. Media Strategy: Weights
QUALITYCOST
30% 70%
NB Same Strategic weight 4 both Tv and Radio
COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT
50% 0% 10% 10%
COST
30% 70%
QUALITYCOST
30% 70%
QUALITYCOST QUALITYCOST
30% 70%
QUALITYCOST
30% 70%
QUALITYCOST
30% 70%
QUALITYCOST

44. TV: KPI versus Benchmark
44

45. TV: KPI versus Benchmark
- - - Average + + +
CGRP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 19.20-23.00 – Preferred Position: First & Last
Tv
90%
+13,9%
-2,4%
-21,3%
-30,0%
-1,4%
-2,2%
45

46. Radio: KPI versus Benchmark
- - - Average + + +
CGRP
Reach
Peak Time
Position*
Affinity
TOT KPI
Radio
10%
+4%
+12,6%
+45,9%
-30,8%
+0,3%
+9,0%
CPP on 15-34yo target – Effective Reach: 3+ - Peak Time: 7,00-10,00 – Preferred Position: First & Single in Break
46

47. The Old Style but “Comfortable” Assessment

48. Total Advertising KPI: based on MONO MEDIA
Total KPI
Investment Share
Weighted Results
TOTAL MM KPI -1,1%
- 2,2%
90,2%
-2,0%
TV
+9,0%
9,8%
+0,9%
RADIO
48

49. Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
Overall Performance – With Multimedia
49

50. Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
MEDIA
COST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI
WITHOUT MULTIMEDIA
12,9% -0,9% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% -1,1% 100%
50

51. An up to date approach, based on MM
(to be validated)
51

52. Overall Performance – Without Multimedia
Overall Performance – With Multimedia
MEDIA
COST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI
WITH MULTIMEDIA
12,9% 2,1% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% 0,4% 100%
MEDIA
COST COVERAGE AFFINITY PIB PT KPI % inv.
TV 13,9% -2,4% -1,4% -30,0% -21,3% -2,2% 90,2%
RADIO 4,0% 12,6% 0,3% -30,8% 45,9% 9,0% 9,8%
OVER ALL KPI
WITHOUT MULTIMEDIA
12,9% -0,9% -1,3% -30,1% -14,7% -1,1% 100%
52

53. In brief
 Only thanks to multimedia surveys
media auditing can assess
the ability of improving overall net reach
using different media.
.. As many of you who are familiar with media planning know …
Good performance in overall reach
may come from low coverage commercial,
with high exclusivity level
….Which is similar to our case where
A multimedia reach above the average,
may results from
2 single media reach below the average.

54. Process
Source: Individua Media Surveys
(Softwares: AGB Arianna / Mediasoft Theresold. Surveys: Auditel for TV and Audiradio for Radio)
1. Choice of the campaign to be tested
(Brand X, active in Oct/Nov 07, planning both Radio and TV)
2. Selection of reference pools for Radio and TV (  15-34 yo)
3. Within the pools, Identification of Radio and TV reach benchmark for given # of grps
(average level for grps cluster)
4. Pinpoint, within Radio and TV pools, of benchmark’s representative flights (3.)
Source: Multimedia (Software Memis/Supernova on EMM Survey)
5. Upload of both Brand X campaign and representative flight media plans in EMM
6. Check of flights’ performance in the EMM database
7. Application of "correction factors" to EMM (in order to reduce different methodology bias
and maintain coherence between Brand X performance and TV and Radio benchmarks).
8. Validation of grps and reach results on single media (only TV, only Radio)
9. Analysis of Multimedia reach performance on both Brand X and benchmark flights
10. Comparison between brand X and benchmark flights overall net reach
11. Overall reach performance index is exported in the BRAND X KPI assessment
Traditional approach
Present Test

55. Q: ”Will multimedia research
change Media Auditors
campaign assessment?...
A: Yes.
The ability in obtaining
high level of overall net reach
can be pursued
-and assessed by media auditors-
only through multimedia surveys.
This ability seems to be
more and more requested by major advertisers
57

56. Opportunities
Multimedia researches
are in line with
target and advertising evolution.
Threats
 Political barriers
and
need for vehicles detailed information
(to fit the fragmented exposure
within specific media)
slow down MM development.
58

57. Opportunities
Multimedia researches
are in line with
target and advertising evolution.
Threats
 Political barriers
and
need for vehicles detailed information
(to fit the fragmented exposure
within specific media)
slow down MM development.
59
The pursuit of perfection
is sometimes risky…..

58. We think in “Matrix” terms..
60

59. ... but we behave in the Flinstone’s way
61

60. Future Scenarios
Advertisers are moving towards
. Total advertising expenditure control/audit
. Consistent and measurable Innovation
. Optimization on a multi-media level
Media Auditors should be prepared for it
Multimedia solutions are expected to:
. feed advertisers need for overall optimization
. match with existing in-depth single media surveys
62

61. Albert Einstein
…. I Never think of the future
It comes soon enough”
63