A presentation entitled MAXIMIZING MOMENTUM: Insights from Verizon, SMG & Cisco, was given at the Advertising Research Foundation’s (ARF) AM 6.0 conference. Insights on Brand building were presented. Presenters included Patrick McLean-Executive Director at Verizon Interactive, Helen Katz-SVP/Research Director at Starcom MediaVest Group, & Charlie Treadwell-Marketing Strategy Manager Corporate Affairs Marketing at Cisco.
2. 2
Featured Presenters
Patrick McLean
Executive Director
Verizon Interactive
Helen Katz
SVP/Research Director
Starcom MediaVest Group
Charlie Treadwell
Marketing Strategy Manager
Corporate Affairs Marketing
Cisco
3. Building a Digital Brand
Patrick McLean
Executive Director
Verizon Interactive
3
June 13, 2011
6. • Need to find a new way to talk to our customers
• Ecommerce is growing > 20% per year
• 50% of online adults now participate in social media
• Consumers want content aggregated for them, not concerned with source
• Consumers expect seamless integration across platforms and devices
• Mobile rapidly becoming a main channel for video and social content
• Digital ad spending growing at > 25% globally
… but consumers are living digitally…
… what we are doing about it?
6
7. We must transform to a Digital Brand
Learn
E-Commerce/
Sales
My Verizon
& Small Business
Center
Targeting and Personalization
Customer Generated Content and Social Media
Cross-Channel Integration
Verizon Digital Brand
Change our
Culture &
Incentives
Drive
Digital
Conversations
Evolve
Online
Platforms
Strategic
Imperatives:
Market With a Digital Focus – Pricing, CTA, Spend
7
9. Shifting marketing & sales to online requires
a new strategy
“When someone acknowledges us as
individuals and personalizes our experience
based on our unique characteristics, we feel
understood and valued. Our feelings of good
will increase. Our confidence grows. Our
tolerance broadens.
Personalization casts a powerful spell!”
9
10. Online Shopping Personas provide another layer
of insight
The Collaborator The Get It Done
Decision Maker
The Wheeler/
Dealer
The Methodical
Shopper
The Opinion
Seeker
It’s difficult enough to
meet everyone’s
needs in the house –
why does the process
have to be so
complex?
Too much detail
slows me down. I just
want to check this off
my to-do list as
quickly as possible.
I love the feeling of
gaming the system
and getting a great
deal.
The more I know, the
less likely I am to be
ripped off.
I’d hate to make the
wrong choice so I
check with people
who might know more
than I do.
10
11. From “One Size Fits All” to Personalized
Users
User Segment / Persona Identified
Learn
Shop
Order
My Verizon
Homepage
First Time
Visitor
Learn
Shop
Order
My Verizon
Homepage
“Switcher”
Learn
Shop
Order
My Verizon
Homepage
Wheeler
and Dealer
Learn
Shop
Order
My Verizon
Homepage
Returning
Non
Qualified
Visitor
Learn
Shop
Order
My Verizon
Homepage
First time
visitors
from NY
Users
Homepage Learn Shop Order
My Verizon
11
12. Maximizing the Target Audience: SMG’s Learning
on Addressable Advertising
Helen Katz
Senior Vice President/Research Director
Starcom MediaVest Group
12
June 13, 2011
13. • Need to find a new way to talk to our customers
– Consumers increasingly avoid ads
– Advertisers ‘waste’ money in sending ad messages to everyone
• Growing concern over quality and monetization of content
– Three possible outcomes
1. Consumers pay more in subscription fees
2. Content quality diminishes – audiences leave
3. Advertisers pay significantly more, for less
• Addressability can solve all three outcomes
13
Today’s challenges with TV advertising
14. • Delivering television ads to specific households based on characteristics of
those households
‒ Combines targeting power of direct mail + internet
‒ Provides consumer engagement + relevance
‒ Offers growth engine for television industry
14
Addressable Advertising provides a solution
15. 15
The landscape is changing
And we must change too
Broadcast
Programming
Age/Sex Demos
Broad messaging
Unicast
Context +
Audiences
Consumer based
household
characteristics
Specific messaging
Acceptance of
waste Waste is managed
16. 16
Addressable advertising has four key benefits
Locate the
True Target
Improve
Relevancy
Provide More
Accountability
Improve
Efficiency
17. 17
Addressable goes beyond simple demographics
• Geography
• Socio-economic data
• Media usage
• Lifestyle habits
• Retail and business data
• Purchase behaviors
18. 18
SMG has worked with multiple partners in
addressable TV
Huntsville, AL Baltimore, MD
2008-09
Brooklyn, NY
2009
US
20112006-08
19. • Efficiency:
– How much money can advertisers save by delivering ads to those homes
in which they are interested?
• Effectiveness:
– Are homes exposed to a targeted, addressable ad less likely to tune away
during that ad than homes exposed to a non-addressable ad?
19
Two ways to determine Addressable Advertising
success
21. 21
In most recent test in Baltimore, targeted at least
2/3 of HHs
Baltimore
Advertiser
A
Advertiser
B
Advertiser
C
Advertiser
D
Advertiser
E
Target Segment 1 26% 26% 25% 3% 20%
Target Segment 2 18% 18% 25% 19% 8%
Target Segment 3 38% 29% 26% 38% 34%
Total HHs
Targeted
82% 73% 77% 60% 63%
% Not Targeted 18% 27% 23% 40% 37%
• Anywhere from 3% to 38% of homes in a target segment
• Approximately 60,000 Unique Subscriber HHs
22. 22
An example of addressable multi-brand
target segmentation
Priority 1 Target Ad Priority 2 Target Ad Priority 3 Target Ad Priority 4 Default Ad
Hispanic HH
The Default Ad spot used separate Ad copy for the entire Trial period.
Hispanic
Health Care
Advocates
Care Givers
HH with Women and
kids, Interest in Healthy
Living
Adults Age 50+ Balance of
unselected HH’s
… plus Control
Group
NOTE: Each of the 3 Target Segments use different demographic selection criteria.
HH’s that meet the targeting criteria for multiple Target Segments are de-duplicated
based on Target Ad Priority sequence.
Women 25-54
23. 23
Most advertisers saw significant efficiency savings
Advertiser D/Brand A saved
88% in reaching just this
target segment and not
paying for any other group.
Advertiser/Brand % Savings
Advertiser A/Brand A 64%
Advertiser A/Brand B 67%
Advertiser A/Brand C 67%
Advertiser B/Brand A 62%
Advertiser B/Brand B 39%
Advertiser B/Brand C 78%
Advertiser C/Brand A 59%
Advertiser C/Brand B 62%
Advertiser C/Brand C 63%
Advertiser D/Brand A 88%
Advertiser D/Brand B 70%
Advertiser D/Brand C 45%
Advertiser E/Brand A 36%
Advertiser E/Brand B 77%
Advertiser E/Brand C 97%
AVERAGE 65%
24. 24
Effectiveness measured by pre/post
test v. control method
• The control group consists of 10% of the homes selected for the trial and is
isolated from receiving addressable ads for the duration of the test.
• Differences in tuneaway (d1 – d2) are examined using t-tests to determine
the statistical significance.
Pre-AA
(Baseline)
Post-AA
(Trial Months)
Addressable
Homes
TA1 TA2
Control
Homes
TA3 TA4
Difference d1 d2 d1-d2
25. 25
While not all advertisers saw effectiveness
increase, many did
Advertiser/Brand
% of Change
(Overall % Diff. vs.
Chg in Control)
A/Brand A -12%
A/Brand B 6%
A/Brand C 114%
B/Brand A 149%
B/Brand B 109%
B/Brand C 66%
C/Brand A -44%
C/Brand B -13%
C/Brand C -21%
D/Brand A 4%
D/Brand B 71%
D/Brand C -62%
E/Brand A 42%
E/Brand B 98%
E/Brand C -5%
Average 32%
26. 26
For one advertiser, two seemingly similar addressable
targets watched different networks
And neither watched the same as buying target
Network Rating (%) Index
Fox News .75 155
CNN .38 124
ABC Network 1.09 119
NBC Network 2.24 117
Discovery .28 115
TLC .22 112
HGTV .40 112
Comedy .23 110
CNN Headline .22 105
Nickelodeon .50 104
Network Rating Index
HGTV .729 204
Fox News 1.055 151
CNN .776 148
Noggin .232 137
ABC 31 1.618 128
Westerns West .302 128
Hallmark .470 125
Cartoon .556 123
Nickelodeon .840 122
PBS 1.257 119
True Target (Client Database) LookalikeTarget
27. 27
Combined ratings and tuneaway for true targets to find
‘sweet spot’ networks
Rating by Tuneaway
Target Index vs. Control
HIGH RATINGS/HIGH
TUNEAWAY
HIGH RATINGS/LOW
TUNEAWAY
LOW RATINGS/HIGH
TUNEAWAY
LOW RATINGS/LOW
TUNEAWAY
DISCOVERY
CNNESPN
HGTVLIFETIME
TNT
USA
0200
200
0
FOX NEWS
ESPN,
LIFETIME, TNT
CNN, DISCOVERY,
HGTV, USA
28. • Launch: Early 2012
• Full deployment will deliver addressable ads to 8-10MM homes
• Insertions in “local” inventory on multiple cable networks
• Advertiser only buys desired HHs; DR ad delivered to remainder
28
Up Next: DirecTV
29. Discussion Snapshot: HP Interop Keynote
Charlie Treadwell
Marketing Strategy Manager, Corporate Affairs Marketing
Cisco
29
June 13, 2011
30. • How was HP’s keynote perceived by key
stakeholders
• Draw actionable insight from the
discussion in traditional and social media,
May 10-18, 2011
URL: bit.ly/mgHC3C
Objectives and Approach
30
31. Number of stories/posts
that discussed HP/Cisco
and Interop, conference,
Las Vegas
256
HP’s percentage of
positive /negative Interop
discussion
40%/40%
15%/25%
Cisco’s percentage of
positive /negative Interop
discussion
164.7K HP’s negative Twitter
reach about Interop
10.7K Cisco’s negative Twitter
reach about Interop
By the numbers
31
33. Responses to HP’s Keynote
“Hewlett and Packard were known
for innovation. Now HP is known
for trash talk.”
“I didn’t see Dave’s keynote but I did
hear a lot of post-presentation
commentary. Much of the networking
crowd was aghast.”
“Donatelli epitomizes everything that’s
wrong with HP these days! No class
and at the bottom end of IT pyramid.”
“HP… should concentrate on
making good products … not
relishing in bluster and bullying.”
“…I guess when you lack anything of
substance, you'd better try and
distract from that with a little bravado
and noise.”
“From the ‘awkward public moments
series’: HP takes swipe at Cisco on
Interop stage.”
33
35. • Gloves are off… but, take the high road in large public settings.
• Focus on newer solutions and leverage customers to help communicate
about them.
• Consider clear communication plans around the reorganization and how
it will help Cisco to be focused and competitive.
Conclusions and Recommendations
35
Despite headlines peppered with strong language such as “HP takes swipes at Cisco on Interop stage” and “HP gunning for Cisco in computer network arena”, most coverage from traditional media sources was neutral or positive toward HP.
Most traditional media stories mentioned HP’s FlexNetwork architecture and Donatelli’s digs to Cisco on innovation, complexity and costs. Most conveyed the message: “HP wants to transform networking.”
Reaction to those stories via comments or via Twitter was unabashedly negative toward HP, as was the reaction from Interop attendees, according to some anecdotal evidence (such as ESG’s Jon Olsik).
Several comments from readers and event attendees disapproved of the negative tactics used by Donatelli and HP, calling the attack ‘classless.’
Some commenters pointed out that HP chose not to focus on its own value proposition in favor of ‘taking the low road.’ The lack of HP customers at the event supporting the new products was also noted.
Almost all Twitter coverage of the keynote was negative toward HP (86%) and neutral toward Cisco (95%).
Very few bloggers from Cisco’s influential social media sources covered the story.
Donatelli’s assertions that HP’s FlexNetwork architecture was more modern than ‘incumbent technology that is outdated and stifles innovation and collaboration’ was frequently picked up in traditional news sources.
Some sources quoted Yankee Group’s Zeus Karravella, who warned that HP’s numbers need to be viewed carefully. “They’re comparing themselves to Cisco products that are a few years old now so there’s no doubt that it’s higher performing.” Karravella added that new HP switches are for campus networks, not data centers.
The VAR Guy, on the other hand was more negative toward Cisco and upbeat toward HP. The head-to-head comparison approach was praised, as was the HP cloud positioning as ‘the backbone that keeps cloud afloat’. The blog even quoted HP about Cisco’s reorganization: “You can reorganize but that doesn’t make you more competitive.”
One negative Reuters story written by Jim Finkle (May 10) got picked up by several sources. The article referenced HP’s Interop keynote as part of a larger discussion about aggressive competition, lagging products, the Gartner report about the single-vendor solution and the recent reorganization
Recommendation: Gloves are off… but, Take the high road in large public settings.
There is no question the gloves are off when it comes to HP. Our sales team should keep this in mind when in a competitive situation, however, in public forums like Interop, we should focus on solution selling that emphasizes value propositions and key differentiators without making negative statements about competitors’ products.
Let Donatelli and HP continue to appear the bully while Cisco remains above the fray.
Recommendation: Focus on newer solutions and leverage customers to help communicate about them.
When discussions come up about this Interop session, make sure we emphasis that HP chose to reference older Cisco products – not making a fair comparison (Yankee Group / Zeus Karravella).
Ensure that the media and networking followers understand that Cisco’s newer solutions are competitive and stress simplicity and cost-competitiveness. Utilizing customers in the narrative adds credibility to the story.
Recommendation: Consider clear communication plans around the reorganization and how it will help Cisco to be focused and competitive.
Help key influencers to understand how the organizational changes will positively impact the business in both the short and long term.