The Original Campaign

The advertiser spent just over £600,000 on the TV campaign in November 2010, spread across a combination of terrestrial and satellite/cable/digital channels. The campaign reached 56.39% of the UK population aged over 15 – each of whom was exposed to the ad an average of 2.41 times (the frequency). This meant the campaign achieved a total of 136 Gross Rating Points (GRPs) amongst the 15+ population. GRPs are used in advertising to measure the size of an audience reached by a specific media vehicle or schedule. It is calculated by multiplying the percentage of the audience the ad reaches by the number of times they see it in a given campaign. In this case, 56.39 x 2.41 = 136.

Incremental Reach Outcomes

TV + TV

So what would happen if the advertiser decided to spend an extra 10 percent on the TV campaign? The extended campaign would then reach 57.54% of the UK 15+ population. This is an incremental increase in reach from the original TV campaign of 2.04% or 576,000 people.

The average number of times each person was exposed to the ad (frequency) also jumps from 2.41 times to 2.60 times. This meant the extended TV campaign achieved a total of 150 GRPs – an extra 14 GRPs.

TV + Online Display (@ £10 CPM)

So what would happen if the advertiser decided to allocate the extra 10 percent spend to an online display campaign instead of TV? To understand this, we assumed a cost of £10 to have the ad appear on a thousand page views. In online advertising parlance this is referred to as a CPT or CPM – cost per thousand/mille - of £10. At a CPM of £10, a £60,000 budget equates to an online campaign of 6 million page impressions - assuming the ad only appears once on each web page.

The six million page impressions were spread across a number of major portals and entertainment sites. UKOM/Nielsen data for November 2010 shows that this online campaign would, therefore, reach 9.28% of all UK people aged 15+ (4.62 million people). Combining the original TV campaign (c £600,000 spend) with the online campaign (£60,000 spend) results in the overall campaign reaching 60.31% of the UK 15+ population or 30.01 million people.

Therefore, the online campaign results in an incremental reach of 1.95 million UK people (a 6.95% increase in reach) on the original TV campaign or 1.38 million more on the extended TV campaign. That the online campaign was able to reach 1.95 million people who didn’t see the original TV campaign equates to 42% of people who saw the online campaign not seeing the TV campaign. In terms of duplication, 2.67 million people saw both the online and TV campaign.

The “TV+Online” campaign increases the average number of exposures from 2.41 “TV-only” to 2.49. As this is lower than the “TV+TV” campaign average (2.60) but also achieves 150 GRPs, it suggests new people being exposed to the combined campaign at lower, arguably more efficient, frequencies.

Want more like this?

Want more like this?

Insight delivered to your inbox

Keep up to date with our free email. Hand picked whitepapers and posts from our blog, as well as exclusive videos and webinar invitations keep our Users one step ahead.

sign up

By clicking 'SIGN UP', you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

SIGN UP

By clicking 'SIGN UP', you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

TV + Online Display (@ £15 CPM)

Assuming a higher cost for the Internet campaign - £15 CPM rather than £10 – gives a potential campaign of four million page impressions. This time one million impressions were allocated across four major portals and entertainment sites. This online campaign would reach 7.00% of all UK people aged 15+ (3.48 million people).

Even at this higher cost CPM, the overall reach of the campaign still increased by more than the “TV+TV” campaign. Reach rose to 59.34% of UK people 15+ (29.53 million). This is an increase of 1.47 million on the original TV campaign and 896,000 more than the increased TV campaign. Hence, the £15 CPM online campaign was able to reach 1.47 million people who didn’t see the original TV campaign.

The online campaigns were run across some of the most popular websites so it’s possible to extend the incremental reach even further by choosing websites in the plan that tend to have higher concentrations of light TV users. It’s worth pointing out that both of the “TV+Online” campaigns still meet the overall communications levels of the original TV campaign. For all three of these campaigns around 17-18% of people exposed saw the ad between four and six times, and 95% of those exposed saw it no more than six times.

Epilogue: Effectiveness

This research focused purely on the number of UK adults that the campaign reached and the average number of times they saw it. There are a number of ways Nielsen can provide a more granular and holistic view of how the campaign performed. For example, being a campaign for a food brand, the performance can be analysed against different buying targets, such as housewives (demographic group), or particular food-type buyers (product groups). Again, selecting sites that perform strongly on attracting these different groups can improve the efficacy of using the Internet to top up the campaign’s reach against desired groups.

Effectiveness can also be measured beyond just reach by looking at the impact on consumer attitudes and behaviour. Each of the TV and online components of the campaign can be analysed by how much consumers liked the ads, the degree to which they recall the ad, the message delivered and who the advertiser was. Intent to purchase can also be quantified – particularly relevant for FMCG brands.

The TV ad campaign of our brand scored very well on effectiveness, outperforming both the average TV ad for November and the average within its particular food sector. Viewers were 33 percent more likely to remember who the advertiser was and the ads themselves than the average ad within its sector. The ads also scored 26 percent higher on likeability and viewers were 71 percent more likely than the sector average to recall what the ad messages were. Furthermore, ad message recall was just over twice as high (105 percent) than the average across all November UK TV ads.

The impact of the ad campaign can also be gauged through the number of visitors to the product’s website, the number of online searches conducted as well as the change in volume and sentiment around discussions of the product in online and social media. For example, during the fourth quarter of 2010, the week the brand spent the most on UK advertising (week commencing October 31st) coincided with the highest number of brand mentions in social media messages. Furthermore, November was the month of highest ad spend in 2010 as well as the month of most social media mentions, giving a sense of the potential relationship between advertising and buzz.

Beyond intent to purchase, Nielsen measures the actual impact on unit sales, both overall and amongst different consumer groups to assess who the campaign had the greatest impact on. Even if the TV and Online campaign was part of a wider promotion – for example, one that included in-store promotions – they can be stripped out to isolate the impact of the media buy.

The chart above, for example, shows that towards the beginning of Q4, there were three consecutive drops in the level of ad spend, mirrored by a decline in unit sales over this period. The decline was only arrested when Q4 weekly ad spend reached its highest level, from which point unit sales marginally increased or held for three consecutive weeks. In the first five weeks of Q4, the number of brand mentions in social media discussions increased at a similar rate to the decrease in unit sales. This inverse relationship between buzz levels and sales - as one declines the other decreases and vice versa – lasts for nine weeks. Consequently, the advertiser could look at the topics and sentiment drivers of the brand mentions to provide possible insight into the accompanying sales trend, particularly as the ads themselves scored well on recall metrics and likeability.