1. Pre-Campaign Ad testing model

2. Content 19 Analysis & reporting 8 Demo survey screens 3 The model reasoning Page number Subject

3. The model reasoning

4. The Theoretical base of the model The strategic goal of a campaign is: To create, change or enhance consumer’s ATTITUDE Toward the advertised Brand/Product/offer An attitude is compound of 3 elements (the ABC model) C ognition B ehavior A ffect

8. Demo survey screens The following screens are not an actual survey but rather an example based on many pre-campaign tests which has been made

9. The Methodology – Interview screens (Interview screens will be presented in the order of the test group) Presenting the Commercial In a break of 7

10. Measuring conspicuousness & recognition The Methodology – Interview screens

11. Commercial likeability

12. Reasons for disliking (for those who scored likeability less than 5)

13. Product perceptions * * For control group – before exposure to the commercial. For test group – after exposure to commercial

14. Brand image perceptions * 5 Brand values, Randomly presented 3 competitive brands, Randomly presented * For control group – before exposure to the commercial. For test group – after exposure to commercial

15. Ad effect evaluation

16. Projective user image * * For control group – before exposure to the commercial. For test group – after exposure to commercial

17. Projective user image – explanation * * For control group – before exposure to the commercial. For test group – after exposure to commercial

18. Net Prompter * * For control group – before exposure to the commercial. For test group – after exposure to commercial

19. Analysis & reporting

20. Part 1 - conspicuousness & recognition Analysis of Ad recognition relatively to the other ads in the brake. Also, relatively to the Nestle Benchmark.

21. Don’t like at all Slightly don’t like like Part 2 - Commercial likeability Like very much 22% 43% 25% 10% reasons for disliking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average score 7.1

22. Part 3 – Ad effectiveness – -16% 6.6 7.9 +25% 7.1 8.8 +21% 7.5 9.1 -25% 5.5 7.3 The Ad communicates Nut’ values 25% more than the brand perception and the Ingredients – 21% more. The Ad communicates Pack friendliness 25% less than the brand perception and the taste – 16% less. coherency between Ad and brand perceptions Taste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nutrition values Ingredients Package

23. Part 2 – Ad effectiveness – effect of exposure to the Ad on brand perceptions +5% +15% +15% 0% 7.7 8.1 - Test sample (exposed to AD before measuring perceptions) - Control sample (exposed to AD after measuring perceptions) 8.1 7.1 8.6 7.5 7.3 7.3 Part 3 – Ad effectiveness – Taste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nutrition values Ingredients Package

24. effect of exposure to the Ad on Projective user image Part 3 – Ad effectiveness – Test group ) exposed to AD before measuring projection Test group ) exposed to AD After measuring projection Test group ) exposed to AD before measuring projection Test group ) exposed to AD After measuring projection 37% 26% 20% 42% 32% 18% “ Chubby sails women who's on a diet all the time” “ Mature health-freak school teacher ” “ Young professional women try to eat healthy ” “ Young professional women try to eat healthy ” “ An athlete that eats only healthy energy food ” “ young mother who loves nature & outdoor activities ” Exposure to the Ad effects the user image of the brand towards more athletic & outdoor woman

25. effect of exposure to the Ad on purchases intentions (Net prompter) Part 3 – Ad effectiveness – 2.7 2.1 1.6 2.4 2.2 1.9 Control group Test group Exposure to the Ad increased the level of recommending the brand in 13%