media mix modeling 2.0

Media Mix Modeling 2.0

The Fine Art of Blending and Mixing Paid & Earned Media to Build Brands

ARF RE-THINK 2010

DRAFT VERSION

Pete Blackshaw, Executive Vice President Nielsen, Digital Strategic Services

[email protected]

©2010, The Nielsen Company

Blackshaw “Media Mix Modeling 2.0” 1

Summary

Improvements in online measurement and the growing adoption of consumer listening

platforms are laying foundation for a new framework for maximizing brand value through

mixing and weighting “Paid” and “Earned” media online that we might refer to as “Media

Mix Modeling 2.0.” Paid and earned media complement and reinforce one another,

especially with correct levels of brand readiness, agility, advocacy and latency working in

the background. This paper will provide marketing and research stakeholders with a

framework and decision-guide for thinking about paid, earned, and blended media inputs

using select examples of cross-platform integration, from Super Bowl advertising to

Twitter’s echo effect on primetime television shows and advertising. We will discuss how

this should inform key operational choices such as resource, media spend, and indirect

marketing (e.g. CRM, customer service, social media engagement) decisions.

Nielsen learned through in-depth analysis of both paid and earned media inputs during

the 2010 Super Bowl that the interplay of the two made a significant difference for

participating brands. Coordinated activity increased brands’ overall level of conversation

and primed the ad buy for an ongoing annuity of free media through search results and

site indexing, among other things. We also learned that it mattered for brands to be

prepared and primed – we use the terms “brand readiness” and “brand agility” before a

paid media investment. This paper will detail those learnings as well as high-level

learning from the 2010 Olympics and Academy Awards.

Background: Marketing Dilemma in a Digital “Blended” Age

In recent months there has been a growing level of industry attention on “Paid Media

versus Earned Media.” One common refrain is that brands should consider shifting more

attention and resources from the paid to the “earned” side of the equation, ideally

resulting in word-of-mouth conversation favorable to the brand. This might involve, for

example, greater investment in “brand experience” or customer service as this has

proven to trigger favorable conversation as displayed in high visibility search results

against brand searches. Marketers lead toward paid media because it is predictable,

baked into existing media processes, and increasingly targeted and precise – and

increasingly so in a digitally enabled world -- while “earned media,” most embodied in

social media and online conversation, is far harder to guarantee and typically works in

longer-term cycles.

But is it that simple? Paid media often triggers online conversation via the web’s echo-

chamber, creating a form of “blended media” that can display either positively or

negatively for the brand. Conversely, earned media can inform “paid” media

opportunities, such as the growing spectrum of “co-creation” activities. Frito Lay’s

increasing reliance on viewer crowd-sourcing for Super Bowl ads richly illustrates this



phenomenon. Earned media can also inform the shape and direction of paid media and

paid media in turn should echo this learning.

How to best optimize the “media mix” in a paid/earned digital universe – especially

against new dynamics of consumer control and leverage -- and resource accordingly

remains a huge question for marketers. If we know that customer service is the top driver

of high-trust/high-impact “earned media,” should a percentage of “paid” media be used to

pay for it, or should you utilize a more “blended” approach? (e.g. Best Buy anchoring TV

advertising to Twelpforce, as “service” messaging makes TV copy more persuasive and

impactful.) Moreover, how do we think about the mix during different stages of the

product life cycle? Earned media tends to incubate, grow, and spread around new news.

This makes sense as the as “new” provides currency for “social connectors”, digital or

otherwise, to tell others and to “time-stamp” their discovery.

Research Solution: Media Mix Modeling 2.0?

What’s emerging is something we might refer to as “Media Mix Modeling 2.0. This

research makes a first attempt at framing core assumptions around earned, paid, and

blended media inputs. More specifically, we attempt to probe and answer the following

questions:

o Definitions: What are the definitional parameters of “Paid,” “Earned” and “Blended”

media? How do we drive distinctions with the PR industry’s historic use of the term

“earned media?” What is the interplay between “paid and “earned” media?

o Core Measurements: What are the most critical measurements in this type of

environment? What role does the listening platform play as a price of entry for the

new media mix modeling?

o 2010 Super Bowl Learning: How did advertisers overall increase net return on their

$2.5 MM Super Bowl spot leveraging “earned media?” In what ways did Frito Lay

exploit Paid/Earned media framework in the 2010 Super Bowl via the latest version of

the “Crash the Super Bowl” campaign?

o Decision Making & Organizational: What are the key marketing considerations for

senior officers in a paid/earned word? What decisions are within scope, or out of

scope? What are the critical organizational considerations one must grapple with?



Defining Terms: Paid versus Earned Media

In a “Media Mix Modeling 2.0” world, marketer and researchers should be indifferent to

how they receive “media” impressions. Marketers are always in relentless pursuit of

maximizing favorable impressions for the brand. These impressions later influence

awareness, trial, and ultimately purchase behavior. Today such impressions can source

from either what brands pay for (e.g. TV views, online eyeballs) or what they “earn”

(online conversation, PR). Both sides have grown more complex with the advent of

digital media and with the proliferation of consumer expression venues.

To put this in perspective, there are now over 400 million Facebook accounts globally;

there are an equal number of blogs, and Twitter accounts are mushrooming. Consumer-

generated media and social media infrastructure has been building exponentially for the

past 15 years. Combined, these entities amount to a massive repository of “media”

impressions, many of which implicate (or reward) brands. The challenge of such media

is that it is difficult – and some cases, impossible – to control. Much of the brand-related

chatter emanates directly from brand experience, and that can not be easily changed

overnight. Indeed, solid foundations must be in place for word-of-mouth to have it full

effect and impact.

Brands are increasingly trying to maximize the play of the two as they combine online

and offline ad buys with offline PR and social media. Thus, the term “earned media”

does include the offline and oft-used PR input. Another term we sometimes hear in

marketing circles is “owned media,” which might include the brand website, in-store

advertising, and the like. For the purpose of this exploratory, we put the “owned media”

somewhere between “paid” and “blended.”



Spurned Media: When Earned Goes Negative

One advantage of paid media is it is predictable – the marketer remains completely (or

almost completely in the case of media such as Doritos co-creation ads) in control of the

messaging. Earned media doesn’t function that way, and quite often – as hundreds of

brands have learned the hard way – it often leans negative. We call this “spurned

media” -- earned media that goes horribly negative, invades otherwise pristine search

results or bleeds into traditional media. Bad customer service is a top driver of "spurned

media." Spurned media can include counter-claims by consumers, hostile reviews, viral

waves of negatives (e.g. lack of transparency), off equity content, activists hijacking or

co-opt ad messaging, or various other challenges such as to “Green” or “Health” themes.

Paid advertising – even TV spots – are increasingly counter-balanced by spurned media.

Maximizing the Paid & Earned Synergy

The critical question for today’s CMO, or media planner, or research assigned to boost

advertising effectiveness is this: how does a brand maximize the interplay between “paid

media” and “earned media.” How do we ensure the two are complimentary and not at

odds with each other? Can the two be “blended” to maximize impact? If so, what

variables or factors might make a meaningful difference in the blending process? We

focus special attention on four key measurement considerations and approaches to both

optimize and determine return on “Earned versus Paid” media frameworks.

Brand Readiness: Brand readiness reflects the degree to which the brand is

prepped and primed for incremental media impressions and online conversation.

This includes having the right listening platform in place. Indeed, a growing percent

of “earned media” can be primed through such things as influencer identification,

ensuring the brand website provides ample “currency” to spread the message, and

collecting feedback through consumer relations (which signals respect for the

consumer and nurtures advocacy). Brand readiness also primes “earned media”

echo effects from paid media inputs – e.g. should the ad copy also be placed on

YouTube or the brand site? In a social and “digitally” enabled world, the readiness

list continues to grow.

Brand Agility: Brand agility is the degree to which the brand is primed to act in

actual or near real-time in response to stimuli for the purpose of increasing exposure

or “media impression” count. Does the brand, for instances, have resources (internal

or agency) ready to nurture, propel, advance, or occasionally sandbag and defuse

the conversation? If early buzz on an ad fixates on a certain aspect of the copy,



brands with high levels of “brand agility” are able to respond through ad tweaking, PR

interventions, social media engagement, and more. The oft-used term in research

circles, “sense & respond” ties closely to brand agility. Brands with growing reserves

of employees on Twitter, Facebook fan sites, or even brand-hosted communities tend

to score well on the “agility” front. Brands who staffed their CRM and Twitter

accounts 24/7 during the Olympics displayed high levels of “brand agility.”

Brand Advocacy: Brand advocacy is at the heart of “earned media,” and reflects

the degree to which consumers recommend, endorse, praise, or publicly bear

allegiance to the brand. (Facebook “fans,” typically reflect high levels of brand

advocacy.) Brand advocacy is both the requirement and engine of word-of-mouth. It

can be quantified and translated in many ways, including via Nielsen’s Brand

Advocacy Quotient (BAQ). Moreover, platforms that lend themselves to brand

advocacy are proliferating across the web. A high quotient of brand advocacy before

a media buy generally increases odds of favorable viral or conversational lift.

Brand Latency: Latency measures the degree to which the content sticks or how it

appears in search results or other critical places in the online consumer purchase

funnel. At Nielsen, we measure latency through an instrument called iShelf that

assigns value to brand positioning in search results, not unlike how “category

management” assigns value to shelf-space. Brand latency might suggest, for

instance, that Nationwide insurance still reaps millions of dollars in “earned media”

impressions for their highly conversational ad in the Super Bowl four years ago

featuring Kevin Federline. Latency is also reflected in Wikipedia brand entries,

YouTube search results and tags, and just about any social media discovery engine.

A New Measurement Framework: The Blended Media Score (BMS)

With such variables in mind, Nielsen recently embarked upon an effort to see whether

there might be an opportunity to combine both paid and earned media metrics to provide

a more complete holistic view or campaign, launch, or event effectiveness to marketing

stakeholders related. And so we developed and tested a new metric, the Blended Media

Score (BMS), with the goal of giving brands and content providers a more complete view

of ad effectiveness. This BMS metric tracks the impact from traditional “Paid Media” (TV

ads, banner ads) but also “blends” data from online buzz and social media – what we’re

calling “Earned Media.”

How is the Blended Media Score calculated?

The BMS is the sum of an ad/brand’s paid media efforts and the earned media gained

online through consumer conversation and action. Our approach is an empirically-derived

algorithm which takes into account key metrics for each paid and earned media ensuring

that both components are equally represented. All metrics are normalized to the same

scale, summed, and then indexed about the mean to derive the overall score.



The BMS is indexed to the mean which is equal to 100; therefore, we consider indices

between 90-110 as average performers. Ads/brands that receive a score below 90 signify

under-perform relative to competitors, while scores above 110 indicate high performance.

What are the paid and earned indices?

To add context we provide independent indices for the paid and earned media

components to illustrate how an ad/brand performs for each element. Similar to the

overall blended score, these metrics are indexed about the mean. Accordingly, the

overall score is not an average of the earned and paid scores, but rather a composite of

all metrics. A weighting scheme is applied to the metrics to reflect their value in the

broader scope of advertising effectiveness. We find in both paid and earned media that

recall, appeal and reach are the most important metrics and therefore give them slightly

more weight than variables such as sponsorships/other in-program placements or

change in Twitter followers/Facebook fans.

Super Bowl Case Study

There is no better environment to road test this Blended Media Score than the Super

Bowl, where the online conversations is already prevalent and can impact brand

perception in new and meaningful ways both before and after a traditional advertisement

hits the airwaves.

Unique Considerations

The metrics considered were focused to accommodate Super Bowl advertising

evaluation, and the paid media variables limited to only TV metrics to simplify the

analysis. Earned variables are limited to consumer responses to those TV ads;

therefore, customer service and product performance do not play a role in ad evaluation,

and influencers/advocates do not play a part in immediate post Super Bowl reactions.

Below is a simplified version of the metrics included in the Super Bowl analysis:

EARNEDPAID



Blended Score Super Bowl Results

The top Blended Media Score performers for the 2010 Super Bowl managed to perform

well in both earned media (buzz volume, sentiment, increased engagement through

social media channels) and paid media (recall, likeability, audience/reach).

Brands that succeeded in only one area fell in the middle of the pack for their BMS

ranking. For example, Focus on the Family over-indexed on earned media due to their

very high volume of conversation (122) but under-indexed in paid media (80) causing

them to fall 16th out of 43 advertisers.

Brands that offered free products or trial

incentives (Denny’s, Dockers) over-performed

in earned media relative to other advertisers.

The offers not only spurred higher levels of

buzz, but also appeared to provide unique

“pass along” currency to consumers.

Specifically, Denny’s succeeded largely due to

the earned media its advertising gained

because of the “free factor.” Offering free

breakfast won over consumers and led to very

high likability scores as well as a large amount

of online discussion. Their frequent updates

and teasers on Facebook led to many

individuals becoming fans of the brand online.

The top six brands all over index on both paid and earned media components and not

surprisingly showed a rounded offering. Brands seven and eight on the blended score

rating as you can see in the chart below. Coke and Bridgestone, had very strong paid

components but slightly less than average earned media.

Biggest Bowl and Biggest Buzz Nearly 107 million tuned into CBS’ telecast of Super Bowl XLIV, making it the most watched TV program ever in the United States. The game also generated the highest volume of online conversation and “Earned Media,” with conversation spikes on Facebook and Twitter playing a disproportionate role the buzz. Key Data from The Super Bowl:

14% of home Super Bowl viewers with Internet access browsed the web at least once during the big game, up slightly from last year’s 12%. This compares favorably to the Olympic Opening Ceremonies where 13% of viewers multitasked.

These “multitaskers” average time spent online also increased from 24 to 29 minutes. This total was less than the 32 minutes spent by Olympic viewers.

36% (38% Olympics) of Super Bowl users visited Google.com and 34% (41% Olympics) visited Facebook.com.

Facebook was visited during the game by 1 in 20 of all at-home Super Bowl viewers with Internet access, averaging 19 minutes per user.

*Data from Nielsen Convergence Panel and select National People Meter homes

Paid and Earned Media Scoring by Brand



Scoring and “Blending” Brands

105

100

130

136

117

129

101

136

164

195

110

121

94

93

117

111

160

153

162

147

0 50 100 150 200 250

Emerald of California Nuts

E*Trade Online Financial

Bridgestone Tires

Coca-Cola Beverages

Google

Snickers Candy

Dockers Clothing

Denny's Restaurants

Doritos Tortilla Chips

Budweiser Beer

Earned

Paid

MEANMEAN

Blended Blended ScoreScore

242242

225225

189189

161161

140140

134134

129129

124124

121121

115115

242242

225225

189189

161161

140140

134134

129129

124124

121121

115115

E*Trade leveraged an integrated social media campaign to gain attention of their

Facebook page and YouTube channel. They integrated their Facebook page across their

full advertising strategy; as a result, they experienced a large influx of Facebook fans and

experienced the second largest increase in fans among all advertisers.

Game Recap Learning: Does Timing Matter?

Until Super Bowl 2010, the season finale of M*A*S*H in 1983 aired the highest

commercial minute, when an estimated 108.9 million viewers watched the second half

hour of the program. However, a Doritos commercial featuring two men attacked in a gym

for stealing someone else’s Doritos was seen by an estimated 116.2 million viewers in

the last Super Bowl which made it the most

watched television commercial of all time.

The ad ran in the game’s fourth quarter at

9:30pm ET.

Audi’s “Green Police” ad earned the title of

second most viewed ad with 115.6 million

watching. Electronic Arts’ spot for its new

game Dante’s Inferno drew 115.1 million.

Focus on the Family’s ad featuring Tim

Tebow tied for the least viewed ad of Super

Bowl XLIV, despite the heavy pre-game

buzz going into the game.



There is a positive correlation between seconds of advertising, buzz volume and ad

appeal. Many of the brands featuring only 30 seconds of paid time receive lower appeal

ratings and minimal buzz while the more appealing ads receive more buzz.

Budweiser is a clear leader with both high levels of paid time and subsequent online

discussion. Doritos also is a strong performer and receives ” more bang for their buck” –

they paid for less time than Budweiser, had consumers make the creative (ads), yet

received more buzz and higher appeal rating.

Budweiser:

Budweiser garnered points for buying the most seconds of advertising (300) and placing

several of their ads during Q1, leading to high recall, as well as Q4 when viewership was

at its max. Five out of the six Bud ads were both highly memorable and likeable based

on next-day viewer response. The ads, combined with the brand’s sponsorship of the

aerial coverage of the game, gave Budweiser a heavy paid presence during the telecast.

On the earned side, the Clydesdale ads generated a large amount of discussion. The

brand also leveraged a Facebook campaign leading to a significant increase in Facebook

fans as fans were asked to vote on which ads should be aired during the game.

Doritos:

Doritos succeeded again this year with co-creation of commercials in an

online contest. Three out of the five most effective ads of 2010 were from

Doritos. Although one ad, “Snack Attack Samurai ,” was polarizing based

on TV viewer response, online chatters loved the Doritos ads overall and

stated they were the funniest of the night. Doritos purchased fewer seconds

of advertising than Budweiser but they appeared in strong timeslots and

rounded out their Super Bowl presence by sponsoring the Halftime Report.

Post-game fans flocked to follow Doritos on Twitter. Additionally, ccording

to Nielsen Netview, Doritos saw almost 430,000 unique visitors to the

website during the pre- Super Bowlad voting period.



The Role & Impact of Brand Readiness

High readiness ratings did not consistently convert into high BMS scores; nevertheless,

among the top 10 according to BMS, both Doritos and Bridgestone received high

readiness scores. (Doritos has the second highest BMS and the highest readiness, while

Bridgestone ranked 8 by the BMS with the second highest readiness score)

Brands could succeed without having all the boxes checked off, but then they needed to

over compensate in another area. For instance, both Budweiser and Doritos are in the

bottom tier for one social media platform. In Budweiser's case, the brand far outperforms

all others on the paid variables that the deficit in Twitter is balanced out. Doritos, on the

other hand, compensates for the lack of lift in Facebook fans by over performing on buzz

volume as well as gaining slight incremental value through the paid variables second of

advertising and recall. All top brands were successful in creating appeal toward the ad(s),

generating buzz linked to the super bowl, and receiving a social media lift in Facebook

fans OR twitter followers.

Ad Recall

Super Bowl had a record audience size with

viewership growing throughout the game. Ad

recall, however, declines throughout the game.

Nevertheless, many ads airing in the third and

fourth quarters receive high recall levels when

the audience size is at its peak.

AppealIPP/

SponsorPaid Ad

Audience Recall

∆ Brand Buzz

Volume

Brand SB Linkage

Buzz

Buzz Sentiment

∆ TwitterFollowers

∆ FB Fans

Budweiser

Doritos

Denny's n/a

Dockers n/a

Snickers n/a

Google n/a n/a

Coca-Cola n/a

Bridgestone

E*Trade n/a

AppealIPP/

SponsorPaid Ad

Audience Recall

∆ Brand Buzz

Volume

Brand SB Linkage

Buzz

Buzz Sentiment

∆ TwitterFollowers

∆ FB Fans

Budweiser

Doritos

Denny's n/a

Dockers n/a

Snickers n/a

Google n/a n/a

Coca-Cola n/a

Bridgestone

E*Trade n/a



Other Results and Learning

Nielsen learned through in-depth analysis of both paid and earned media inputs in the

2010 Super Bowl is that the interplay of the two made a significant difference for the

brand. It increased their overall level of conversation and buzz, and primed the spot for

an ongoing annuity of free media through search results and site indexing. We also

learned that “brand readiness” and “brand agility” played a key role. Preliminary learning

from the 2010 Winter Olympics and the 2010 Oscars seem to echo these learnings.

Opportunities & Guidance from Super Bowl Analysis

1. Think hard about a compelling “call to action.” Advertisers leveraging a distinct

online call to action (Dockers, Denny’s) earned high levels of buzz, and greater

interaction with their social media touch points. Brands offering free samples also

sustained online buzz for a longer period of time than other advertisers. As social

media expression venues proliferate, this may well become an even greater

opportunity.

2. Brand Readiness really matters so line-up as many success factors and

variables as possible. Go Daddy ads drove a higher number of survey respondents

to their website), but didn’t score in the top 20 Blended Media Score. This occurs

because the ad has low appeal ratings and relatively low movement among Twitter

followers and Facebook fans with only average recall. To be a top performer, the

ad/brand had to succeed on more than one variable. (Additionally, website visitation

is not a variable in the Super Bowl BMS and an issue that will be addressed in the

future.)

3. Humor and free trials continue to drive highest levels of buzz and earned

media. These talk drivers tended to drive significant activity as both a call to action

and a unique “pass along” for online currency.

4. Steer away from half-time ads in favor of half-time conversation drivers. Game

day buzz is highest during the half-time show when ad recall is at its lowest. Since

consumers already spend more time talking online during half-time, find creative

ways to encourage conversation, with or about your brand. Since Simultaneous

Visitors are largely active on social media, while they are not focused on the game,

try capturing their attention online. Consider having a conversation with your

fans/followers during half-time or host a half-time contest on your website related to

the game

5. Brand Latency is an ongoing game. Brands cannot determine true impact of all

adds immediately as continued exposure occurs from the latency effect in search

results. Pepsi, not an advertiser this year, still continued to receive views and

placement from previous efforts.



Brand Readiness – Check-list for Maximum ROI

The Super Bowl (as well as the Olympics) provided data

proving the importance of “Brand Readiness” to enhance

customer feedback and commentary as well as Brand ROI.

Readiness doesn’t necessarily mean direct brand

engagement in the conversation but instead mostly refers to

ensuring the consumers have the means to easily discuss

brand related topics such as the commercials. A Super Bowl

“Readiness Checklist” can be seen to the right. Key points

include ensuring mention of and video of the ads on the

brand website to drive traffic and searchability for the ad via

internal brand search and external search. Additionally, a

presence on key social networking sites is a must to truly

empower consumer discussion and enhance ROI from the

paid ad purchase.

Future Exploration, Conclusions and Drivers for Organizational Action

BMS and the entire theory behind Media Mix Modeling 2.0 is not a finished product. The

industry continues to evolve and the score must evolve with it. We continue to work to

answer (among many others) the following questions to better model consumer behavior

and their interactions with media be it online, offline, digital, paper, etc:

What drives the latency effect? Is the impact from free giveaways/contests lasting?

What readiness metrics truly impact long term performance?

Is there added earned media or conversational value in having a spokesperson?

How do brands fare that leverage only an online campaign compared to brands that

leverage only paid TV advertising? Is one form more successful than the other?

Regardless of the questions that still to be answered, it is apparent that media leaders

cannot afford to look at paid and earned media in isolation. Media must function as part

of an integrated campaign which works towards the desired consumer action. Failure to

for the “left hand to know what the right hand is doing” will not just result in less value for

marketers, a big concern in itself, but could cause negative reactions and spurned

media, damaging the brand long term.

Simple but integrated tactical steps can drive this synergy within organizations and

increase success of campaigns. Stay on equity, stay transparent and stay agile to

respond to consumer needs. The media world is complex, continuing to splinter, and

driven by creative and ever more demanding consumers. This requires business leaders

to be insightful and create new frameworks to embrace the multitude of access channels

to those consumers if businesses wish to remain relevant in their consumers’ lives.

-C -

Readiness Check-list Brand

Website Preparedness

Ad Mentioned on Brand Front Page

Ad Video on Brand Site

Separate Website for Ad

Availability to Provide Feedback for Ad

Ad-Related Mobile App

Search

Ability to search for ad on Brand Site

Brand Sponsored Google Ad Links (SB)

YouTube in Ad’s Google Results (’10)

Ad Presence on Brand’s Wikipedia Page

Social Networking

Official Brand Facebook Page

Official Brand Twitter Handle

Official Brand YouTube Channel

Readiness Rating:

Readiness Check-list Brand

Website Preparedness

Ad Mentioned on Brand Front Page

Ad Video on Brand Site

Separate Website for Ad

Availability to Provide Feedback for Ad

Ad-Related Mobile App

Search

Ability to search for ad on Brand Site

Brand Sponsored Google Ad Links (SB)

YouTube in Ad’s Google Results (’10)

Ad Presence on Brand’s Wikipedia Page

Social Networking

Official Brand Facebook Page

Official Brand Twitter Handle

Official Brand YouTube Channel

Readiness Rating:



About the Author

Pete Blackshaw, EVP of Digital Strategic Services, Nielsen

Pete Blackshaw, whose professional background encompasses public policy, interactive

marketing and brand management, is Executive Vice President of Digital Strategic

Services for Nielsen. Pete’s strategy group works with many of the world’s top brands

and corporations to develop cohesive, consumer-centered digital programs and

strategies. A 2010 grand prize recipient of the ARF’s “Great Mind” award, he is the

author of a recent book by Doubleday entitled “Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends,

Angry Customers Tell 3,000: Running a Business in Today’s Consumer Driven World,”

and writes a bi-weekly column in Advertising Age centered around the book’s themes. A

former award-winning interactive marketing leader at P&G and founder of consumer

feedback portal PlanetFeedback.com, Pete co-founded the Word-of-Mouth Marketing

Association (WOMMA). He is also the Chairman of the Board of the National Council of

Better Business Bureau and in that capacity also sits on the National Advertising Review

Council. He’s a recipient of “industry achievement” recognition by both Ad-Tech. He

advises a host of non-profit organizations on digital strategy including the United Way of

Greater Cincinnati, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center and the Cincinnati

Youth Collaborative. Pete, his wife Erika, and their three children live in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pete is a graduate of Harvard Business School and the University of California, Santa

Cruz.

Other Contributors

Nina Stratt, Senior Analyst, Measurement Science, Nielsen

Alka Gupta, SVP Research, IAG, Nielsen

Kim Cox, Senior Analyst, Buzzmetrics, Nielsen

For more information on Nielsen Buzzmetrics or Nielsen in general, please contact Josh

Hammond at (859) 905-4973 or [email protected]

media mix modeling 2.0

Documents