Drive Offline Response with Online Advertising

Download Drive Offline Response with Online Advertising

Post on 08-May-2015

775 views

Category:

Business

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

bbcon 2013

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li>1.1 DRIVING OFF-LINE RESPONSE WITH ONLINE ADVERTISING Richard Becker President Target Analytics Monday, September 30th, 10am 11:15am </li></ul><p>2. 2 AGENDA The Next Generation of On-Line Advertising Use Case # 1 University of Indiana Use Case # 2 XXX Use Case # 3 XXX Wrap Up 3. 3 AGENDA There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television or radio service inside the United States."--T.A.M. Craven, Federal Communications Commission commissioner (1961) Needless to say, Mr. Craven is no longer the commissioner of the FCC. * "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."--Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 Of course, Watson was referring to room-size mega-machines filled with vacuum tubes. But still. * "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys."--Sir William Preece, chief engineer, British Post Office, 1876 How're the messenger boys working out for you, England? * "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication."-- Western Union internal memo, 1876. Oops! Western Union sent its last telegram in 2006. * "Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."--Darryl Zanuck, 20th Century Fox, 1946 He was right. We've moved on to aluminum and plastic. 4. 4 WHY IS DISPLAY ADVERTISING IMPORTANT? Improve the response and conversion Reinforcing the brand to build awareness, favorability, and consideration is often overlooked The Role of Display Advertising 5. 5 TRADITIONAL MODELS OF ON-LINE ADVERTISING Topic and Interest Targeting Target users from predefined interest categories, inferred from a user browsing history Keyword Contextual Targeting Use keywords to find web pages for your ads across your ad network Remarketing / Retargeting Target ads to people who have previously visited your website as they browse other web sites Self Reported Data Targeting Target ads based on information volunteered by the user via a membership form or user profile Location Based Targeting Target ads based on a users geographic location Demographic Targeting Target ads based on a users estimated age, income, gender, etc. 6. 6 LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL ON-LINE AD MODELS Key Limitations Advertising based on inferences of affinity, interest, and capacity, not previous philanthropic behavior or organizational affinity Advertising is delivered to unknown recipients, limiting the ability to measure its effectiveness on stimulating other on-line and off-line channels Advertising is centered on the on-line actions of web users, such as previously visiting your website, a very limited perspective that does not account for previous philanthropic related behavior or affinity 7. 7 CONNECTION360: ONE-TO-ONE ON-LINE ADVERTISING One-to-One Marketing via On-line Display Advertising Leveraging the industrys premier on-line audience and targeting network, Target Analytics is able to provide on-line display advertising to your target prospect list, enabling true 1:1 marketing. Wherever your audience is on-line, Target Analytics is able to identify them and provide display advertising to them, synchronizing the delivery of your advertising with all other 1:1 on- line and off-line marketing channels. Better yet, Target Analytics is able to measure and report on both the on-line and off-line impact of the impressions served to your audience, via the industrys only closed loop analysis 8. 8 USE CASE #1 9. 9 CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW Client University of Indiana Campaign Objective Cross channel campaign to complement direct mail, targeting alumni Goal was a minimum of a 3% lift in donors during 6 month program. At an average gift of $118, minimum expected return of $53,602 on a digital campaign cost of $45,000 (Return on Ad Spend of 1.16 : 1) Campaign Scope # of Household Records Mail File 453,488 Campaign Duration 6 Months Campaign Timing September 18, 2012 February 15, 2013 Digital Campaign Spend $45,000 Cost per Thousand Impressions $9.00 10. 10 ADS SERVED 300 x 250 02 728 X 90 01 728 X 90 02 120 X 600 01 120 X 600 02160 X 600 02160 X 600 01 180 X 150 120 X 240 11. 11 IMPRESSION FREQUENCY Daily impressions were served at a relatively consistent rate per household over the campaign duration, serving a daily average of ~2 imps/HH/day 12. 12 BRAND EXPOSURE Total Mail File - # of Households 453,488 Total # of Households with Cookies 340,294 % of Mail File with Cookies 75.0% Total # of Households Served Ads During Campaign 161,898 % of Mail File Served Ads 35.7% % of Mail File with Cookies Served Ads 47.6% # of Ads Served 4,992,663 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household 30.8 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household Per Month 6.3 161,898 Households were delivered 4,992,63 Ad Impressions Over 6 Months 13. 13 CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE Control Cookies No Ad Served Test Cookie Ad Served Lift Unique Households 161,898 161,898 - Total Gifts 10,075 11,778 1,713 or 17% Total Revenue $1,343,681 $1,564,017 $220,337 or 16.4% Total Donors 6,253 6,870 617 or 9.9% $ Per Household $8.29 $9.66 $1.37 Average Gift Per Donor $214.89 $227.65 5.9% Average Gift $133.36 $132.68 (0.51%) Connection360 generated an incremental 617 donors representing an incremental $220,337 in gifts 14. 14 CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE Ad Spend Incremental Gifts ROAS/Incremental Gifts Control Group: No Digital Ads Test Group: Digital Ads Served Control Group: No Digital Ads Test Group: Digital Ads Served Gifts Display Adverting produced 17% increase in gifts. Display Advertising has an extremely positive impact 5:1 ROAS Total Revenue Generated $44,934 10,075 11,778 17% $220,337 $1,343,681 $1,564,017 Display Advertising provided incremental lift in revenue in excess of $220K representing 16.4% lift Test Group: Digital Ads Served 16.4% 15. 15 CHANNEL ANALYSIS Test Control Lift Web $ 99,150 $ 56,360 $ 42,790 Mail $1,464,867 $1,287,320 $177,547 Total $1,564,017 $1,343,681 $220,337 Campaign Cost $44,934 Return On Advertising Spend 4.9:1 16. 16 LIFETIME VALUE ANALYSIS Lifetime Value 12:1 LTV Assumptions: Year 2 Donor Retention at 61.5% and Revenue Retention at 82.1% Year 3 Donor Retention at 65.1% and Revenue Retention at 83.8% Control Test Lift Conversions Gifts $/K Conversions Gifts $/K Conversions Gifts S/K Year 1 6,253 $1,344 6,870 $1,564 617 $220 Year 2 3,846 $1,103 4225 $1,284 379 $176 Year 3 2504 $924 2750 $1,075 246 $147 $3,371 $3,923 $552 17. 17 TEST VS. CONTROL: AGE 1% 4% 8% 9% 11% 12% 14% 14% 12% 10% 6% 1% 4% 9% 10% 12% 13% 14% 14% 11% 9% 4% 18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-75 Over 75 Age IU Control IU Test Test and Control follow very similar age distribution The head of household for each group is more likely to be of middle age, in the range of 45-60 years old 18. 18 TEST VS. CONTROL: RESULTS BY AGE Age Group Control Test Lift 20-29 1.8% 2.49% 138.3 30-39 1.91% 2.27% 118.8 40-49 2.81% 3.40% 121.1 50-59 4.52% 5.45% 120.8 60-69 6.26% 6.39% 102.8 70-100 7.83% 8.27% 105.6 n/a 8.99% 11.07% 123.2 Total 4.10% 4.48% 109.2 19. 19 TEST VS. CONTROL: INCOME 1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 10% 18% 16% 10% 12% 9% 7% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 5% 9% 17% 16% 10% 13% 10% 8% 4% &lt; $15K $15K - $29K $30K - $39K $40K - $49K $50K - $59K $60K - $74K $75K - $99K $100K - $124K $125K - $149K $150K - $199K $200K - $249K $250K - $499K &gt; $500K Income IU Control IU Test Test and Control follow very similar income distribution Majority of these households have income above $100K 20. 20 TEST VS. CONTROL: GENDER Gender Control % Pop. Test % Pop. Control Index Test Index Lift Female 60.1% 59.7% 4.10% 4.31% 105.16 Male 39.9% 40.3% 4.10% 4.73% 115.29 Total 100.0% 100.0% 4.10% 4.48% 109.25 21. 21 DISTRIBUTION BY DONOR GROUP No Donations Previous 3 Years Donations 1X or 2X Previous 3 Years Donations Each Year Previous 3 Years 22. 22 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT BY DONOR STATUS No Donations Previous 3 Years Donations 1X or 2X Previous 3 Years Donations Each Year Previous 3 Years 23. 23 REACTIVATION IMPROVEMENT # Years Lapsed Control Test Lift 0 Years 22.8% 23.9% 107.4 1 Year 6.67% 7.45% 110.1 2 Year 2.70% 3.99% 147.4 3 Year 2.48% 2.88% 115.8 4 Year 1.69% 1.91% 112.8 5 Year 1.07% 1.56% 145.9 6+ Years 0.66% 0.72% 110.0 Total 4.10% 4.48% 109.2 24. 24 ANNUAL GIFT LIKELIHOOD MODEL 80% of gifts in top 20% of Annual Gift Likelihood (AGL) Score Range 56% of gifts in the top 10% of Annual Gift Likelihood (AGL) Score Range Distribution of AGL scores were similar, Test/Control 25. 25 GEO ANALYSIS In state donors responded 25% higher than the total 5.5% vs. 4.4% 26. 26 CONCLUSION &amp; RECOMMENDATIONS Consistently reinforcing the University of Indiana brand on-line improves awareness, favorability, and consideration, leading to higher direct response conversion rates The measure of success for this campaign was significantly exceeded Recommendation Run brand reinforcement campaign on-line year round, receiving bi-annual closed loop report to verify fundraising impact Broaden file to include more than alumni Results Test Control Lift (Actual) Lift (%) Alumni Household Conversions 6,870 6,253 617 9.87% Dollars Raised During Campaign $1,564,017 $1,343,681 $220,337 16.4% Measure Campaign Goal Campaign Result Return on Ad Spend 1.16 to 1 4.9 to 1 Incremental Revenue $53,602 $175,337 27. 27 USE CASE #2 28. 28 CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW Client Environmental Defense Fund Campaign Objective Complement direct mail campaign with on-line advertising for 3 month campaign cycle. Two audiences provided: 735,832 Prospects 144,857 Lapsed Donors Evaluate the impact of Display Advertising on campaign response rate and donations. Evaluate return on advertising spend (ROAS) Campaign Scope # of Household Records Mail File 880,689 Campaign Duration 3 Months Campaign Timing September 18, 2012 December 31, 2012 Digital Campaign Spend $41,842 Cost per Thousand Impressions $9.00 29. 29 CREATIVE REVIEW &amp; ONLINE PERFORMANCE Creative Impressions CTR View Donations View Donations Amount Click Donations Click Donations Amount 9.20.2012_EDF_C_120x600.jpg (3260991) 4221 0.09% 0 $ - 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_C_160x600.jpg (3260992) 302229 0.04% 4 $ 95.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_C_300x250.jpg (3260993) 501742 0.03% 5 $ 125.00 1 $ 25.00 9.20.2012_EDF_C_728x90.jpg (3260995) 453073 0.03% 2 $ 115.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_A_120x600.jpg (3260997) 4898 0.00% 0 $ - 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_A_160x600.jpg (3260999) 346300 0.05% 3 $ 40.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_A_300x250.jpg (3261001) 553169 0.03% 5 $ 570.00 1 $ 10.00 9.20.2012_EDF_A_728x90.jpg (3261002) 495724 0.03% 10 $ 205.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_B_120x600.jpg (3261003) 4171 0.00% 0 $ - 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_B_160x600.jpg (3261004) 303266 0.04% 4 $ 85.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_B_300x250.jpg (3261005) 502426 0.03% 2 $ 275.00 0 $ - 9.20.2012_EDF_B_728x90.jpg (3261006) 451106 0.03% 4 $ 95.00 0 $ - 11.7.2012_EDF_A_Rnd_2_300x250.jpg (3872537) 287485 0.03% 13 $ 1,140.00 1 $ 25.00 11.7.2012_EDF_B_Rnd_2_300x250.jpg (3872538) 288652 0.03% 11 $ 365.00 0 $ - 11.7.2012_EDF_B_Rnd_2_728x90.jpg (3872539) 253170 0.03% 18 $ 1,295.00 0 $ - 11.7.2012_EDF_C_Rnd_2_300x250.jpg (3872541) 288080 0.03% 19 $ 640.00 0 $ - 11.7.2012_EDF_C_Rnd_2_728x90.jpg (3872545) 252102 0.03% 15 $ 805.00 0 $ - 11.7.2012_EDF_A_Rnd_2_728x90.jpg (3872548) 252253 0.02% 17 $ 605.00 0 $ - 11.8.2012_EDF_A_Rnd_2_160x600.jpg (3889932) 151449 0.05% 8 $ 275.00 0 $ - 11.8.2012_EDF_B_Rnd_2_160x600.jpg (3889934) 151118 0.05% 11 $ 405.00 0 $ - 11.8.2012_EDF_C_Rnd_2_160x600.jpg (3889935) 150795 0.05% 9 $ 1,135.00 0 $ - Date Range: Sept 21 through Dec 31 5997429 0.03% 160 $ 8,270.00 3 $ 60.00 30. 30 CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW - CREATIVE 30 31. 31 32. 32 33. 33 CAMPAIGN METRICS FILE ANALYSIS Initial Mail File 880,689 Total # of Targetable Households with Connection 360 Profile 879,537 Total # of Targetable Households with Cookies 567,923 % of Targetable Households with Cookies 64.57% Total # of Households Served Ads During Campaign 250,452 % of Mail File Served Ads 28.48% % of Mail File with Cookies Served Ads 44.09% # of Ads Served 5,997,429 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household 23.9 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household Per Month 7 Brand Exposure: 250,452 Households were served 5,997,429 Ad Impressions over 3 Months 34. 34 CONNECTION360 RESULT SUMMARY Total Households Reached with On-Line Advertising 250,452 Total Ad Impressions Served to Households 5,977,429 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household 23.9 Average Number of Ad Impressions Per Household Per Month 7 Brand Exposure Return on Ad Spend Connection 360 yield an additional 323 conversions resulting in an incremental $39,283 in Gifts .94:1 Return on Advertising Spend Revenue Donors Incremental Lift Associated - Direct Mail $23,170 74 Incremental Lift Associated Web $14,278 214 Incremental Lift Associated -Other $1,835 35 Total Associated with Ad Spend $39,283 323 Total Cost of Campaign $41,482 35. 35 FORENSIC CONTROLS EXPLAINED Run the Campaign Define the Control Group Measure Performance Post Exposure Pre-Result The Control Population was created from the population of 317,471 households that were: Matched to a cookie, and Received direct mail, and Did not receive ad impressions The Forensic Analysis worked as follows: We used the total population of households served ads as the Test Group, this group is the 250,452 households that were served ads during the campaign We compared the performance of the Test Group to the Control Group to identify the incremental lift 36. 36 CAMPAIGN RESULTS Environmental Defense Fund Campaign: Results Test Control Variance Percent Variance Conversions 3,198 2,875 323 11.24% Donors 3,046 2,807 239 8.51% AOV $32.95 $22.98 $9.96 43.34% Revenue $105,361 $66,078 $39,284 59.45% 37. 37 CAMPAIGN METRICS INCREMENTAL LIFT Control Cookies No Ad Served Test Cookie Ad Served Lift Unique Households 250,452 250,452 - Total Conversions 2,875 3,198 323 or 11.24% Total Revenue $66,078 $105,361 $39,283 or 59.4% Total Donors 2,807 3,046 239 or 8.5% Average Gift $22.98 $32.95 43.4% Average Gift Per Donor $23.54 $34.59 46.9% Connection360 generated an additional 239 donors representing an incremental $39,283 in gifts 38. 38 Control Test Lift Revenue Conversions AOV Revenue Conversions AOV Revenue Conversions AOV Mail $54,672 2,542 $21.50 $77,842 2,616 $29.76 $23,170 74 $8.26 Web $8,551 233 $36.70 $22,829 447 $51.07 $14,278 214 $14.37 Other $2,855 100 $28.50 $4,690 135 $34.74 $1,835 35 $6.24 $66,078 2,875 $22.98 $105,361 3,198 $32.95 $39,283 323 $9.96 Segment Donor Households Donation $'s Prospect 2019 $61,134 Lapsed 1027 $44,226 PERFORMANCE BY CHANNEL Performance by Segment 39. 39 LIFETIME VALUE 1.58:1 ROAS LTV Calculations: Year 2: Retain 39% and AOV will increase by 14.75% Year 3 Retain 49% and AOV will increase by 14.28% Control Test Lift Conversions Gifts Conversions Gifts Conversions Gifts Year 1 2875 $ 66,078 3198...</p>

Recommended

View more >