1 / 15

Measuring the Performance of Brand Integrations

Measuring the Performance of Brand Integrations. Jerome Samson VP, Business Development & Strategy. Brand Integrations Today. Brand integrations are ubiquitous on TV today Number of brands featured*: 7,000+ (+26%) Number of companies involved*: 3,300+ (+36%)

vernon-reese
Download Presentation

Measuring the Performance of Brand Integrations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring the Performance ofBrand Integrations Jerome Samson VP, Business Development & Strategy

  2. Brand Integrations Today • Brand integrations are ubiquitous on TV today • Number of brands featured*: 7,000+ (+26%) • Number of companies involved*: 3,300+ (+36%) • Typical placement activity on broadcast program*: occurrences duration/occurrence exposure 20 5 seconds 100 seconds *growth rate: annualized since 03-04 season Source: Place*Views | primetime broadcast programs | 09/19/05 to 05/24/06

  3. Many Variations in Execution dramas reality shows # occurrences /2 # occurrences x3 • By program source/genre*: • Great variety of placement types*: background foreground wardrobe prop 14,620 10,250 9,062 7,059 528 9,417 3,321 sponsorship brand mention dialogue mention • Overt vs. subtle placements • Standalone vs. hybrid placements • Presence of commercial spots *growth rate: annualized since 03-04 season Source: Place*Views | primetime broadcast programs | 09/19/05 to 05/24/06

  4. Research Objectives • Understand consumers’ reaction to different types of placements in a variety of contexts • Identify key factors that make certain integrations more impactful than others • Assemble framework for a reliable product placement valuation method

  5. Nielsen Valuation Study • Large-scale primary research study 50 243 10,145 # programs # brand placements # study participants • Designed by Client Committee (buyers + sellers) • Data-driven: no pre-conceived design bias • Program exposure (full-length) + survey • Nielsen Entertainment facilities • No pre-survey

  6. Placement Y / Y Y / N (100) (100) Commercial N / Y N / N (100) (500) Test Configurations • Two configurations for each program: with and without a commercial spot to support in-program brands • Control groups were set up for each brand in the study • Altogether, 150,000+ person-brand records form the basis for our analyses

  7. Definitions • Impact defined as multi-dimensional: Recognition a person's likelihood to recognize whether a given brand was featured in the program Positive feeling the likelihood that a person who recognized a brand during the program responded positively (i.e. 7-10 on a 0-10 scale) to that brand's association with the program Purchase Interest the likelihood that a person who recognized a brand during the program had, as a result, a higher interest (i.e. 7-10 on a 0-10 scale) in trying out the products or services associated with that brand

  8. Key Findings • A placement can hold its own against a spot • Brand familiarity: key driver across all metrics • Duration and Frequency have a complex effect • Loyalty to the program carries over to brand

  9. 57.5% 46.6% 39.8% 57.4% 37.4% P C P+C Placement vs. Commercial • Commercials have the edge over placements for recognition and their combination is potent • Placements have a slight edge on positive feel • Both have a similar effect on purchase interest

  10. P C P+C P C P+C Example: Apparel Brands Norm Apparel Recognition Positive Feel Purchase Interest

  11. P C P+C P C P+C Example: Lifestyle Programs Norm Lifestyle Recognition Positive Feel Purchase Interest

  12. recognition 60.4 P+C 48.0 C 42.6 44.1 39.5 P 25.6 low (0-2) familiarity high (7-10) Brand Familiarity • Brand Familiarity is key across all metrics • High familiarity nearly doubles recognition rate for placements • Differences in sensitivity to familiarity • On positive feel, purchase interest: +50%

  13. recognition P duration 15s positive feeling P frequency Placement Duration and Frequency • Both duration and frequency help recognition, yet with an early point of diminishing returns • To generate positive feelings towards the brand, frequency appears more critical than duration, and its effect is linear • Neither affects purchaseinterest much

  14. (7-10) 57.6 P P+C C % with high purchase interest 30.9 self-stated program loyalty low (1) high (4) Program Loyalty • Program Loyalty is key across all metrics • Loyal viewers to the program are nearly twice as likely as non-loyal viewers to express interest inpurchasing the brand

  15. Key Dimensions Show Impact Placement Viewer Product

More Related