IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG Sponsorship Effectiveness Study Sponsorship Effectiveness Study IAB Advertisers Forum September 10, 2003
IAB Volvo/Euro RSCGIAB Volvo/Euro RSCGSponsorship Effectiveness Study Sponsorship Effectiveness Study
IAB Advertisers ForumSeptember 10, 2003
IAB Sponsorship Effectiveness StudyIAB Sponsorship Effectiveness Study
• Objectives• Past Research• Methodology• Participants• Findings• Conclusions
Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives
• Can we understand the business value ofOnline Sponsorship?
• Is there a difference between the value of“Exclusive Sponsorship” versus “Shared Sponsorship”?
Shared Sponsorship vs. Exclusive SponsorshipShared Sponsorship vs. Exclusive Sponsorship
ExclusiveShared
Advertorial
Editorial Content
Past ResearchPast Research
Hooper StudyHooper Study
• 250,000 coincidental calls to measure the immediate recall of TVcommercials from 10AM to 10PM in each local time zone.
• The immediate commercial recall on sponsored programs was about 2.5 times the average scatter plan level.
“Big Cat, Little Cat”“Big Cat, Little Cat”
• 1968 CBS primetime special• Sponsored by Ralston Purina• Integrated cast-presenter commercials• High involvement by cat lovers• Tripled scatter plan norms in terms of Persuasion• Doubled scatter plan norms in terms of recall
Five CBS Specials Aired During 1990Five CBS Specials Aired During 1990
• Sponsored (in four cases, one sponsor per Special)• Sponsors involved Anheuser-Busch,AT&T, Chrysler, GM, Hallmark,
McDonald’s, Pepsico, Reebok, Valvoline• Top Of Mind Brand Awareness was
increased up to +230% (median=+17%)• Top Of Mind Advertising Awareness was increased up to +500%
(median=+24%)• Purchase Intent was increased by as much as +40%
(median=+20%)• Crude benchmark: rsc finds average +4.3% Persuasion increase by
regular 30-second commercial (not sponsorship)
Sponsorship Effectiveness Index (SEI)Sponsorship Effectiveness Index (SEI)
• Brands demand accountability• Collaborative effort to meet needs
Cumulated Previous SEI StudiesCumulated Previous SEI Studies
42.3%
No Sponsor Mention
53.4%
Sponsor Mention
Across 9 brands
Source: Sponsorship Effectiveness Index Studies for Studio One Networks 2000-2003
+26% Lift+11.1 Points
Sample Size: 4117~100% significance
Vehicle DistributionVehicle Exposure
Advertising ExposureAdvertising Attentiveness
Advertising CommunicationAdvertising Persuasion
Advertising ResponseSales Response
New ARF ModelNew ARF Model
Sponsorship Effectiveness Index MethodologySponsorship Effectiveness Index Methodology
Users agree to
50%
50%
participate Both groups complete identical
survey
ASponsor Exposure
BExposure
No SponsorGroup A over B demonstrates sponsorship lift
Users Agree To ParticipateUsers Agree To Participate
Study ParticipantsStudy Participants
IAB Euro RSCG/Volvo IAB Euro RSCG/Volvo Sponsorship Study ResultsSponsorship Study Results
The Rewards of Shared SponsorshipThe Rewards of Shared Sponsorship
5.8%
Control
4.6%
Exposed
Car Make Inclusion in Consideration Set
Source: IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG Sponsorship Effectiveness Study 2003
Sample size: 1514
Significance at 67%
No SignificantDifference
The Rewards of Exclusive SponsorshipThe Rewards of Exclusive Sponsorship
1.6%
Control
7.7%
Exposed
Car Make Inclusion in Consideration Set
Source: IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG Sponsorship Effectiveness Study 2003
+381% Lift+6.1 Points
Sample size: 1514
Significance at 98%
Exclusive Sponsorship Lifts Purchase IntentExclusive Sponsorship Lifts Purchase Intent
40.0%
No Sponsor Mention
51.5%
Sponsor Mention
Source: Sponsorship Effectiveness Index Cumulation Study Q3 03, StudioOne Networks
Sample size: 5631
Significance at 100%
+29% Lift+11.5 Points
Across 10 brands, 28 studies
Modeling Consideration Into SalesModeling Consideration Into Sales
Margin/Car = $1500Reach = 1,000,000Increm. 6000 Cars SoldIncrem. $9,000,000Plus subsequentpurchase cycles
1.6%
Control
7.7%
Exposed
6.1%
Difference
3.6%
New CarBuyers
0.6%
1 in 6Footrule
Simulation usingPlaceholder Parameters
Why Exclusive Sponsorship WorksWhy Exclusive Sponsorship Works
• A highly-involved target audience is consciously or subconsciously grateful to the sponsor for having brought them content of a type that they, that audience, normally do “not get enough of” from their own point of view.
• Because there is ONE sponsor, who does not take advantage of thesituation to hype his product, this “gift” is not ruined. Gratitude translates into more lift in Willingness To Buy than produced by hard sell pitches.
Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research
Why Shared Sponsorship Doesn’tWhy Shared Sponsorship Doesn’t
• To the consumer, Shared Sponsorship is perceived as just more advertising. If consumer screens out ads, he/she will screen these out too.
• Because there are multiple advertisers, no one of them is seen as “bringing the content to the audience.” The “gift” psychology is not evoked.
Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research
RelevancyRelevancy
• There is an immediate opportunity for advertisers to use Exclusive Sponsorship on the Internet and to therefore greatly increase Persuasion and Sales per dollar.
• In the oncoming TV environment (TiVo etc.) the use of Exclusive Sponsorship is highly indicated as a way of getting Persuasion and Sales through TV when commercials become more generally zapped.
• Advertisers can sponsor the addition of interactivity to TV programs as a way of engendering the Gratitude Effect.
Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research