Tns _L'evoluzione del Brand Tracking_Webinar _Settembre 2015

Webinar TNS : The future of tracking
© TNS 24 Settembre 2015 C.Colombo - W.Caccia
The future of tracking : the value
of Social data integration
The case for creative destruction
Cristina Colombo
Chief Client Officer
Walter Caccia
Head of Brand & Communication

It’s tough out there
Increased pressure
on pricing
More competition,
lower barriers to entry
More
empowered consumers
2

It’s tough out there
And all of this in the context of
a gloomy economic outlook
3

This gives rise to fundamentally different business
models well suited to succeed in this climate
4

It requires “research” to change fundamentally
60
555
1050
2040
35 25
30
45 15
It’s time to evolve
5

We are on the brink of a new digital revolution
Returning
information advantage
to marketers
Access insights in
advance
Mobile technology
delivers more
understanding
6

A comprehensive framework for more agile
decision making
Predictive spine
Social and search
Slimmer survey
Shorter, smarter surveys
Modular deep dives
Touchpoint eval.,
Social campaign eval.,
Qual etc.
Situational Equity
Occasions
7

A slippery slope
9

Implementing the 3 Rs
10

Insight mining
requires
expertise and a
clean data
stream

Predictive social brand tracking
In a world of accelerating change, marketers need
forward looking tools that help them to anticipate and
predict changes in market context or in consumer
preferences.
Incorporating social and search data into tracking
programmes can keep brand insights up to date and act
as a lead indicator of brand equity over time. Rather
than understanding what your equity was, it provides an
reliable indication of what it is likely to be - and thereby
facilitates timely corrective action.
Using social and search ‘signals’, we build a model which
accurately replicates trusted brand equity metrics (as
measured by legacy surveys).
This allows us to build a system that strips the fat out of
the big, expensive survey based tracking paradigm.
We produce equity scores from social signals and reduce
the frequency and length of surveys, focussing them on
what they are best placed to deliver (deep dives and
analysis by key target groups).
We can predict equity scores from around 2-4 weeks in
advance giving you a valuable window of opportunity to
take course-correcting action before competitors.
12

The new tracking program gives you timely opportunity
to plan and act
Predictive equity metrics
from the Social Spine
A windshield view into where your brands are heading,
not a rear-view mirror focus on the past
Which result in:
Plan and Act
Identifying upside
opportunities/downside
risks from the Track
Survey
13

The modelled brand equity metric puts time on your
side
Imagine that with just survey-based tracking methods, you get a report on how well your
brand is doing in Week 9. This is 3 weeks after the survey was actually completed (Week 6).
By using Social Media and Search data at Week 3, we can model estimates of your brand
equity metrics 4 to 8 weeks out.
This gives a 6 week advantage to manage brands with more agility.
Week…
Lead time to get the jump on competition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1242
Modelled data from engaged
‘leading indicator’ group
indicates your brand equity
will be “10” in 4-8 weeks.
2 3 4
Survey responses amongst
mass market measure your
brand equity to be “10”.
6
The results of your survey
based tracker tell you your
brand equity was “10” three
weeks ago.
9
14

Proof of concept comes from 80 brands in 6 categories
(including automotive)
We have been able to build these models successfully using our Power in the Mind measure, as well as clients’
proprietary equity metrics. As can be seen in the examples, the modeled predicted metric lines up almost
perfectly over time with the survey equity metric, in all cases with R² over 90%.
Brand Equity
CPG – long purchase cycle
R2 = 92%
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0 Actual Predicted
Automotive brand
Brand Equity
-1,2
-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
Week
Actual Predicted R2 = 98%
CPG – medium purchase cycle
Brand Equity
Brand Equity
CPG – short purchase cycle
Actual Predicted
15

Delivering precision “in the moment”
For individual consumers, brand equity is never truly
constant. It fluctuates according to times of day,
seasons of the year, different occasions, different
experiences and different consumer contexts.
Traditional equity studies capture an average reading
across these different situations. Situational Equity is
a groundbreaking approach that looks beyond
these averages.
Situational Equity delves into the moment, identifying
and unlocking specific growth opportunities, at the
strategic and tactical level.
We use mobile data collection to get closer to the
specific moments of brand choice, and reveal the
targeted actions that can deliver new sources of growth.
16

Identify causes of abnormal
behaviour
Understand context-specific
barriers and triggers to
purchase or usage
React faster to changing
behaviours
Exploit context-specific
insights with effective,
efficient and targeted
interventions
Understand the factors that
influence choice
Enable marketers to fine tune
strategies to ensure their
brands have the highest
likelihood of being chosen
1 2 3
People use a repertoire of brands and can be committed to more than one
Brand choice switches within this repertoire depending on the situation,
occasion, brand promotion and market factors
‘In the moment’ research provide more accurate and granular responses
Why situational brand equity?
17

“Market share” in this situation refers to the share that the brand gets within
a particular situation and is not representative of actual overall brand shares
in the market
Market share
Situational equity refers to the attitude towards a brand within a given situation
Situational equity
The gap represents the difference between what people are purchasing compared to
what they want to be purchasing in a situation.
Market share
vs.
siituational equity
How do we examine situational equity?
18

The analysis framework that guides strategic and
tactical marketing decisions
Where would share go?
What do we do to keep the
share? Market factors
How do we close the gap and
grow equity?
Which competitors lead share?
Why are our competitors getting
more share? More equity?
What’s missing in the
market/situation? How can we
align our brand with the drivers?
Which competitors get more
share?
What are the market factors
we can unlock to grow share?
What drives our equity, and
competitor equity?
What drives equity /
preference?
Why do we get more share than
competitors?
Who are the closest competitors
and how do their share/equity
drivers differ?
opportunity maintain
create defend
High equity
Low equity
Low share High share
19

Optimising touchpoint management
Consumers today experience brands in more ways than
ever before, and every experience has the potential to
change their attitude and behavior towards your brand.
ContAct provides a 360-degree view of your brand’s
performance across all types of paid, earned and owned
touchpoints. It helps you build equity by optimising
performance in relation to marketing spend and
competitor performance. Based on industry leading
ConversionModel thinking and advanced behavioural
tools it offers robust validity.
It measures memorability (reach) and the impact each
touchpoint has on your brand equity (experience quality)
using our unique, validated, power in the mind score
from ConversionModel. It looks at how your competitors’
touchpoints affect your brand’s perception and market
position.
It identifies the most effective touchpoints, so you can
extend your brand’s message more impactfully and
optimise the return on your media spend – or reduce
media spend with the same impact.
ContAct
20

The impact of a touchpoint is the combination of reach
and quality of experience
= × Quality
of experience
Shift in the brand
equity score when
this touchpoint is
experienced
Reach
Number of people
that have
experienced the
touchpoint
Brand
experience
Overall impact of one
touchpoint
21

How much of my brand equity score has been
generated through recent touchpoint experiences?
Brand 1
13.5%
Brand 2
11.9%
Brand 3
10.2%
Brand 4
9.1%
Brand 5
8.9%
Brand equity score
7.9
8.1
9.310.3
11.9
1.11.00.81.5
1.5
Brand stock Brand experience client brand Brand experience competitor brands
Of the client brand’s 13.5% equity score,
they achieved 1.5% through touchpoint
experiences
If brand 2 had no touchpoints experiences, its equity
score would be only 10.3% instead of 11.9%.
Performance: how do your
brand and competitors
perform across all
touchpoints?
22

Client brand Brand 2 Brand 5
Top 3 owned touchpoints Ʃ 0.4
Supermarket shelves
Brand presence in social networks
Email newsletter
Top 3 paid touchpoints Ʃ 0.7
Television advertising
Point of purchase display
Print advertisements
Top 3 earned touchpoints Ʃ 0.5
Product usage
Recommendations by friends/family
Coffee used in gastronomy
To what extent each touchpoint is generating Brand
Experience?
0,26
0,02
0,02
0,21
0,15
0,06
0,22
0,14
0,08
1.5 1.5 1.1
Your business Competitors
0,37
0,03
0,01
0,20
0,15
0,04
0,20
0,10
0,05
0,28
0.01
0,00
0,11
0,14
0,05
0,18
0,06
0,01
Brand experience (per touchpoint) client brand Brand experience (per touchpoint) competitor brands
23

TP experience share (%) Share of spend (%) REMI* (relative efficiency
of marketing investment)
Client brand
Brand 2
Client brand
Brand 6
Client brand
Brand 7Online
TV
Print
REMI > 1.00
REMI < 1.00
TP Reach share (share of spend) client brand TP Reach share (share of spend) competitor brands
0,53
N.A.
0,77
1,48
0,6%
N.A.
0,1%
-1,2%
0,01
-0,59
7,5%
8,1%
1,1%
N.A.
8,8%
2,0%
9,8%
5,5%
How can you optimize marketing spend?
24

Evaluating social campaigns
Marketers increasingly recognise the value of social
media to engage with their audiences. However, in many
cases, they lack the quick turn-around insights required
to optimise live campaigns.
Analysis of social media data provides real-time
understanding of who and what is driving conversation
around your campaign, and insight that informs how to
best influence it, as the campaign rolls out.
It provides more than a simplistic volumetric
understanding of how your campaign is working.
You can discover the natural communities who are
engaging with your content and how to best continue
the conversation with them.
You can identify the key influencers involved in the
campaign to help drive virality and pinpoint the precise
messages and images that resonate most to inform
future creative and messaging development.
25

UEFA Champions League 2015
Final match Berlin, 6th June 2015
Advertising effectiveness and
social conversations on Twitter

Limited* brand mentions compared to total tweets.
However, the result of the initiatives linked to the event about
Jeep and Heineken is noted; the mentions of Sky relate to its
coverage of the event in itself, without it having implemented
any specific initiatives
3%
97%
Mention at least one brand
Don't mention brand
37%
33%
25%
5%
JEEP
SKY
HEINEKEN
UNICREDIT
Share of brand mentions
Sources: Twitter n: 22,289 tweets
Time: Jun-01-2015 to Jun-10-2015
Sources: Twitter - n: 573 tweets with Brand Mentions
Time: Jun-01-2015 to Jun-10-2015
*Please note the brand mentions are just under 600 out of a total number of more than
22,000 Tweets
27

Content analysis
An initial inspection of the
conversation contents immediately
highlights that the discussion topics
all hinge around the match: the
event in itself, the teams and the
names of the players.
The brands have a somewhat
limited presence; even the ones
that played an active role in
sponsoring the event.
There are no traces of conversations
connected with the commercials.
Too soon for Italy?
SKY
JEEP
Heineken
Sources: Twitter
n: 22,289 tweets
Time: Jun-01-2015 to Jun-10-2015
28

Overall conversation footprint & top 10 Communities
1,985 Barcelona
Fans
905 Juventus Fans
676 Sport Parody
Followers
574 Other Italian
Clubs Fans
573 Experts
511 Footballers
Fans
460 News Addicted
403 Champions
Followers
341 Streaming
Audience
318 Youtubers
Sources: Twitter - n: 22,289 tweets - Time period: Jun-01-2015 to Jun-10-2015
38%
11%
51%
Isolated
Mention
RT
Overall conversation
*Please Note: This network is a filtered representation of all the interactions between users in our data set, filtered to show only those users with
greater than and equal to 10 connections to illustrate the giant core component. That is, the densely connected users. It shows 16.197 users with
13.295 connections between them. Giant component (proportion between connected and isolated accounts):59%.
29

Key takeouts
• Richer information
• Predictive insights
• Granularity and contextualization
• Touchpoints performance and optimization

TNS | Via Bolama, 11/3-13 – 20126 Milano | 02.27.07.21 | www.tns-global.it
Cristina Colombo
Cristina.colombo@tnsglobal.com
Walter Caccia
Walter.caccia@tnsglobal.com
31

Tns _L'evoluzione del Brand Tracking_Webinar _Settembre 2015

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (11)

Similaire à Tns _L'evoluzione del Brand Tracking_Webinar _Settembre 2015

Similaire à Tns _L'evoluzione del Brand Tracking_Webinar _Settembre 2015 (20)

Plus de Gabriella Bergaglio

Plus de Gabriella Bergaglio (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Tns _L'evoluzione del Brand Tracking_Webinar _Settembre 2015