drive offline response with online advertising

1

DRIVING OFF-LINE RESPONSE WITH

ONLINE ADVERTISING

Richard Becker President – Target Analytics

Monday, September 30th, 10am – 11:15am

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

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

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

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 user’s geographic location

Demographic Targeting Target ads based on a user’s estimated age, income, gender, etc.

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

CONNECTION360: ONE-TO-ONE ON-LINE ADVERTISING

One-to-One Marketing via On-line Display Advertising

• Leveraging the industry’s 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 industry’s only “closed loop analysis”

8

USE CASE #1

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

ADS SERVED

300 x 250 02

728 X 90 01

728 X 90 02

120 X 600 01 120 X 600 02 160 X 600 02 160 X 600 01

180 X 150

120 X 240

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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%

< $15K $15K - $29K

$30K - $39K

$40K - $49K

$50K - $59K

$60K - $74K

$75K - $99K

$100K - $124K

$125K - $149K

$150K - $199K

$200K - $249K

$250K - $499K

> $500K

Income IU Control IU Test

• Test and Control follow very similar income distribution

• Majority of these households have income above $100K

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

DISTRIBUTION BY DONOR GROUP

No Donations

Previous 3 Years

Donations 1X or 2X

Previous 3 Years

Donations Each Year

Previous 3 Years

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

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

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

GEO ANALYSIS

In state donors responded 25% higher than the total

5.5% vs. 4.4%

26

CONCLUSION & 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

USE CASE #2

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

CREATIVE REVIEW & 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

CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW - CREATIVE

30

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%






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

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 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

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

CAMPAIGN RE S ULT S

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

CAMPAIGN METRICS – INCREMENTAL LIFT Control

Cookies No Ad Served

Test Cookie Ad Served Lift


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%


Connection360 generated an additional 239 donors representing an incremental

$39,283 in gifts

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

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 $ 105,361 323 $ 39,283

Year 2 1,121 $ 29,561 1247 $ 47,192 126 $ 17,631

Year 3 549 $ 16,546 611 $ 26,421 62 $ 9,875

$ 112,185 $ 178,974 $ 66,789

40

CAMPAIGN SUMMARY

Ad Spend

Incremental Gifts ROAS

Control Group:

No Digital Ads

Test Group:

Digital Ads

Served

Display advertising

provided a 46.9%lift in

Average gift as a result of

the banner advertising.

Control Group:

No Digital Ads

Test Group:

Digital Ads

Served

Total

Conversions

Conversions increased by

11.24% as a result of banner

advertising.

The Return on Advertising

Spend realized ~ .94:1

equaling $39,284

incremental gifts.

Average Gift per

Donor

$41,842

$39,284

2,875 3,198

$23.54 $34.59

.94:1 ROAS

46.9%

11.24%

41

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

Strategic Plan

Analysis

Creative

Augment annual mail strategy with Connection360.

Evaluate program efforts on a quarterly basis.

Align on-line with off-line messaging to maximize conversions.

Continue testing creative, opportunity to test messaging, i.e.. Matching

funds.

42

CONTACT S INS IGHT Impressions served spike quickly in the first week of the campaign,

followed by a sharp drop for ~10 days.

Daily impressions were served at a relatively consistent rate per day

after the first few weeks.

43

TEST VS. CONTROL

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-75 Over 75

Age

Control

Test

• Test and Control follow very similar age distribution

• The head of household for each group is more likely to be older, in

the range of 51-75 years old

44

TEST VS. CONTROL

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

< $15K $15K - $29K

$30K - $39K

$40K - $49K

$50K - $59K

$60K - $74K

$75K - $99K

$100K -

$124K

$125K -

$149K

$150K -

$199K

$200K -

$249K

$250K -

$499K

> $500K

Income

Control

Test

• Test and Control follow very similar income distribution

• Majority of households have income within $75K -$124K

45

TEST VS. CONTROL

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Super Buyer Heavy Buyer Active Buyer Moderate Buyer

Low Buyer

Buyer Score

Control

Test

• Test and Control households follow even distribution

when segmented according to buyer score*

*Buyer Score is a measure of purchasing activity and purchasing capacity, on a scale of 1-100. A score of 90 represents the

90th percentile of purchasing activity and capacity as compared to the US population. This score is a proven predictor of future

purchasing behavior.

46

USE CASE #2

47

CAMPAIGN INFORMATION

Campaign Objective: Complement direct mail with on-line advertising for 3 month campaign cycle.

Evaluate the impact of display advertising on campaign response rate and donations.

Evaluate the mail package

Evaluate return on advertising spend (ROAS)

Campaign Scope:

# of Household Records- Mail File 1,000,000

Campaign Duration 3 months

Campaign Timing 10/10/2013 – 12/31/2013

Digital Campaign Spend $53,912*

48

CAMPAIGN METRICS – FILE ANALYSIS

Initial Mail File 1,000,000

Total # of Targetable Households with Connection 360 Profile 950,098

Total # of Targetable Households with Cookies 588,439

% of Targetable Households with Cookies 61.94%







Brand Exposure:

245,210 Households were served 6,010,424 Ad Impressions over 3 Months

49

CAMPAIGN HIGHLIGHTS

Ad Spend

Incremental Gifts ROAS

Control Group:

No Digital Ads

Test Group:

Digital Ads

Served

Display advertising

provided a 23.7% lift in

Average gift .

Control Group:

No Digital Ads

Test Group:

Digital Ads

Served

Donations Display Adverting produced

29.1% more donations

dollars.

The Return on Advertising

Spend realized ~ 1.49:1

Average Gift per

Donor

$53,912

$79,764

$273,792 $353,556

$64.28 $79.52

1.49:1

ROAS

23.7%

29.1%

50

CONNECTION360 RESULT SUMMARY

Total Households Reached with On-Line Advertising 245,210

Total Ad Impressions Served to Households 6.010,424



Brand Exposure

Campaign Performance

Control Test Lift

Web $48,848 $108,707 $59,859

Mail $224,944 $244,849 $19,905

Total $273,792 $353,556 $79,764

Campaign Cost $52,912

Return On Advertising Spend 1.49:1

Connection 360 resulted in a net increase in gifts of $79,764

Return on Ad Spend = 1:49:1

51

CAMPAIGN METRICS – INCREMENTAL LIFT FOR DIRECT MAIL Control

Cookies No Ad Served

Test Cookie Ad Served Lift


Total Conversions 4,487 4,629 142 or 3.1%

Total Revenue $273,792 $353,556 $79,764 or 29.1%

Total Donors 4,259 4,446 187 or 4.4%

$ Per Household $1.12 $1.44 28.5%


Average Gift $61.02 $76.38 25.1%

Connection360 generated an incremental 187 donors representing an incremental

$79,764 in gifts

52

LIFETIME VALUE

Control Test Lift

Conversions Gifts Conversions Gifts Conversions Gifts

Year 1 4259 $ 273,792 4446 $ 353,556 187 $ 79,764

Year 2 1,618 $ 113,678 1689 $ 146,808 71 $ 34,130

Year 3 825 $ 80,570 861 $ 104,026 36 $ 23,456

$ 468,040 $ 604,390 $ 136,350

Lifetime Value

Return on Advertising Spend

2.5 :1

LTV Assumptions:

Year 2 + 38% retention and increase in gift of 9.3%

Year 3 = 51% retention and increase in gift of 39%

53

PACKAGE PERFORMANCE

Mail Piece Control Test Lift

Conversions

Re-activated 1,584 1,637 53

Non Re-activated 2,903 2,992 89

Total Conversions 4,487 4,629 142

Revenue

Re-activated $78,143 $200,646 $122,503

Non-Re-activated $196,649 $152,910 -$42,739

Total Revenue $272,792 $353,556 $79,764

54

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

Strategic Recommendation

Creative

Augment annual mail strategy with

Connection360.

Evaluate program efforts on a quarterly basis

Align on-line with off-line messaging to

maximize conversions.

Proactively leverage online advertising to

promote re-branding efforts

Continue testing creative, opportunity to

leverage rich media

55

CRE AT IV E P E RF ORMANCE Creative Impressions Clicks

Total

Conversions

View

Conversions

Click

Conversion CTR

Conversion Rate

9.28.2012_Care_468x60.jpg (3353048) 8619 2 0 0 0 0.02% 0.000%

9.28.2012_Care_728x90.jpg (3353049) 228981 68 7 7 0 0.03% 0.003%

9.28.2012_Care_160x600.jpg (3353053) 138898 54 9 9 0 0.04% 0.006%

9.28.2012_Care_180x150.jpg (3353054) 506 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.000%

9.28.2012_Care_300x250.jpg (3353055) 283950 99 8 8 0 0.03% 0.003%

10.16.2012_Care_468x60.jpg (3556877) 31621 7 1 1 0 0.02% 0.003%

10.16.2012_Care_728x90.jpg (3556878) 812718 243 20 20 0 0.03% 0.002%

10.16.2012_Care_120x240.jpg (3556879) 3 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.000%

10.16.2012_Care_160x600.jpg (3556880) 544761 182 14 14 0 0.03% 0.003% 10.16.2012_Care_180x150.jpg (3556881) 2873 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.000%

10.16.2012_Care_300x250.jpg (3556882) 958753 291 37 34 3 0.03% 0.004%

11.21.2012_Care_180x150.jpg (4055137) 3008 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.000%

11.21.2012_Care_160x600.jpg (4055139) 586682 218 44 44 0 0.04% 0.007%

11.21.2012_Care_300x250.jpg (4055142) 1302239 374 95 95 0 0.03% 0.007%

11.21.2012_Care_468x60.jpg (4055145) 42636 7 4 4 0 0.02% 0.009%

11.21.2012_Care_728x90.jpg (4055149) 1064176 277 66 66 0 0.03% 0.006%

Date Range: Oct 10 through Dec 31 6010424 1,822 305 302 3 0.03% 0.05%

56

CONTACT S INS IGHT • Aside from some fluctuations at the start, impressions were served

fairly consistently across the duration of the campaign

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769717375777981

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Im

pre

ssio

ns

Day

Cumulative Impressions

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79

Imp

ress

ion

s

Day

Impressions per Day

57

IMP RE S S ION F RE QUE NCY • Half of all households served received 11 impressions or less

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Hou

seh

old

s

Impression Frequency

Households by Impressions Frequency

58

TEST VS. CONTROL

59

THANK YOU

Elizabeth Hester

Solutions Consultant

617-780 2816

[email protected]

drive offline response with online advertising

Business