program engagement power. programs do affect ad engagement

Steve WeaverNetwork Research DirectorNine Network Australia

Program Engagement Power:Programs Do Affect ad Engagement

BackgroundBackground

BackgroundBackground

• TV currency a measure of airtime efficiency

•Cost per thousand the standard bearer of airtime trade

•World rapidly changing– CFO driven marketing– ROI accountability

•Continual search to find measure of effectiveness of advertising airtime

ProblemProblem

“Turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context”

ARF Definition, December 2005

Engagement

EngagementEngagement

ObjectiveObjective

• To establish a measure that is able to demonstrate that commercial creative shown in highly engaging content will generate a better ROI than if shown in low engaging content

• That the measure can be simple to understand

• That the methodology is capable of adapting to the changing media landscape and applied to other mediums

MethodMethodNeuroscience

A B C D E F6 Standard Break Sets

Order A1 Prom o TVC1 E TVC2 R TVC3 E TVC4 ROrder A2 Prom o TVC1 R TVC2 E TVC3 R TVC4 E

E = Em otional. R = Rational.

Standard Ad Break Design

Mem. Enc. BiasAd PIB 1 0.55 0.01Ad PIB 2 0.58 -0.03Ad PIB 3 0.59 0.02Ad PIB 4 0.55 -0.01

MethodMethod

• Two groups of 50 respondents viewed segments of 12 programs– Group A viewed programs 1 to 6– Group B viewed programs 7 to 12

• Each program was followed by one of the 6 standardised ad‐breaks

• For each group, the 6 programs and ad‐breaks were viewed over a 60 minute test session

• The program:ad‐break pairs remained constant– Eg: Ad‐break #1 always followed Program #1, etc

• To counteract potential order effects, the presentation order of the program:ad‐break pairs was varied

The DetailAchieving representative program content within the “limitations” of a test environment

AnalysisAnalysis

Source: OzTAM

0

5

7

2.1

7.7

9.8

7

9.8

6.8

9.1

6.3

5

Pushing Daiseys

Canal Road (Local Drama)

CSI: Miami

The Today Show

Getaway (Travel Show)

60 Minutes

The Footy Show

RPA (Observation Doco)

Funniest Home Videos

Farmer Wants a Wife

Friday Night Football

Sarah Connor Chronicles

GRP’s – Airtime Value Based on Efficiency

AnalysisAnalysis

Source: ADA Q Scores

0

29

43

19

24

21

31

54

22

26

47

36

Pushing Daiseys


CSI: Miami

The Today Show


60 Minutes

The Footy Show



Farmer Wants a Wife



Q Scores – Airtime Value Based on Claimed Engagement

AnalysisAnalysis

Source: Neuro Insight PEP Study

0.52

0.53

0.55

0.59

0.6

0.64

0.64

0.7

0.71

0.73

0.73

0.9

Pushing Daiseys


CSI: Miami

The Today Show


60 Minutes

The Footy Show



Farmer Wants a Wife



Memory Encoding

AnalysisAnalysis

y = 0.7162x + 0.1296R2 = 0.5305

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Program Engagement

Ad

Bre

ak E

ngag

emen

t


AnalysisAnalysis

0.48

0.5

0.55

0.48

0.51

0.58

0.67

0.65

0.64

0.83

0.57

0.71

0.52

0.53

0.55

0.59

0.6

0.64

0.64

0.7

0.71

0.73

0.73

0.9

Pushing Daiseys


CSI: Miami

The Today Show


60 Minutes

The Footy Show



Farmer Wants a Wife



Memory Encoding – Program and Pod Engagement


PEP ScorePEP Score

Program Engagement Index

Program A Program Engagement = 0.9

Database Average Program Engagement = 0.65

Program Engagement Index (Prog A) = (0.9/0.65)*100

= 138

PEP PEP –– PProgram rogram EEngagement ngagement PPowerowerIndex of Program Engagement Index of Program Engagement

Index of Engagement Conversion to Ad BreakIndex of Engagement Conversion to Ad Break

Engagement Conversion IndexProgram A Program Engagement = 0.9

Program A Ad Break Engagement Score = .71

Program A Differential = 0.78

Database Average Differential = 0.914

Conversion Index (Prog A) = (0.78/0.914)*100

= 85

PEP= 112

AnalysisAnalysis

90

92

97

89

92

98

106

104

103

118

98

112

Pushing Daiseys


CSI: Miami

The Today Show


60 Minutes

The Footy Show



Farmer Wants a Wife



PEP Score


AnalysisAnalysis

$0

$19

$60

$9

$28

$26

$40

$20

$26

$37

$33

$40

$0

$21

$62

$10

$30

$27

$38

$19

$25

$31

$34

$36

Pushing Daiseys


CSI: Miami

The Today Show


60 Minutes

The Footy Show



Farmer Wants a Wife



Cost per 0 0 0 Cost per Engaged 0 0 0

Cost per Engaged 000

AnalysisAnalysis

0.81

0.620.69

0.59

0.76

0.56 0.55 0.55

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

A BProgram

Spot

Eng

agem

ent

TVC1 TVC2 TVC3 TVC4

Ad Engagement is Affected by Program Engagement HaloSpot engagement differs by program


AnalysisAnalysisProgram Ad1 Engagement y = 1.2046x - 0.1746

R2 = 0.7127

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Program Eng

Ad

Eng

AdBreakLinear (AdBreak)

Program Ad2 Engagement y = 1.0691x - 0.1318R2 = 0.6548

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Program Eng

Ad

Eng


Program Ad3 Engagement y = 0.5863x + 0.2125R2 = 0.3279

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Program Eng

Ad

Eng


Program Ad4 Engagement y = 0.4416x + 0.2911R2 = 0.1862

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Program Eng

Ad

Eng AdBreak

Linear (AdBreak)

Ad Positions 1 & 2 have the strongest relationship with Program Engagement


AnalysisAnalysis

r2=0.19

r2=0.33

r2=0.65

r2=0.71

r2=0.57

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Ad Break Ave. 1st in break 2nd in break 3rd in break 4th in break

Program Halo EffectCorrelations between program engagement and ad engagement


AnalysisAnalysis

Program Engagement Halo

Ad Pod

Program Halo Effect

AnalysisAnalysis

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

NeuroscienceGlobal Average

Std Pod Sport Engagement Sport Std PodEngagement

Sport Solus AdBreak

Program Halo Supports Previous Research on Power of Solus

35%

Source: Neuro Insight Cricket Study

AnalysisAnalysis

0.62

0.580.59

0.57

0.66

0.62

0.64

0.61

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

1st Ad in Break 2nd Ad in Break 3rd Ad in Break 4th Ad in BreakPIB

With Promo Without Promo

Program Halo Supports True First in Break

9.4%


AnalysisAnalysis

y = 0.6499x - 0.1606R2 = 0.4646

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Program Engagement

Ad

Rec

all

Linking Back to More Commonly Accepted MeasuresCorrelation between PEP and Ad recall


AnalysisAnalysisLinking Back to More Commonly Accepted Measures


AnalysisAnalysis

y = 0.6499x - 0.1606R2 = 0.4646

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Program Engagement

Ad

Rec

all

Linking Back to More Commonly Accepted MeasuresCorrelation between PEP and Ad recall


ConclusionsConclusions

• Program engagement using neuroscience measures do not correlate with claimed engagement measures

• Traditional high GRP programs may not necessarily be highly engaging

• Ad Effectiveness is affected by program– Implications for traditional copy‐testing methods

• Program Engagement correlates strongest with PIB 1 & 2 – Implications for how broadcasters value last in break

• Program Engagement Halo wears off across the pod– Implications for value of true first in break– Implications for value of solus and shorter ad pods

• Program Engagement correlates with Ad Recall

Next StepsNext Steps

• Extend Database for programs yet to air– Make the model predictive

• Extend Database to multi‐platform– Supplier already established similar finding for radio

• Test Market with supportive client to buy schedule of high PEP programs vs standard schedule in control market

program engagement power. programs do affect ad engagement

Documents