Cream

News

Follow Us

Archive for the ‘Advertising’ Category

  • Feb
  • 7

5 Myths About Marketing to Affluents Online

5_Myths_about_Marketing_to_Affluents_OnlineLast week, we came across an interesting piece of research regarding affluents and digital media we thought we should share. 

It was conducted last year by Ipsos Mendolsohn in association with the Interactive Advertising Bureau and concerned the use of and attitudes towards digital media by affluent consumers. In this case, ‘affluents’ were defined as those with household incomes over $100,000 (the top 20% of earners).  And although the study was conducted exclusively in the US, we believe thay many parallels would be found amongst UK affluents.

The findings concurred with our own experience but conflicted with many of the myths that circulate about affluent consumers, namely: 

1. Affluent Consumers are More Difficult to Reach than their Less Affluent Counterparts

 This is certainly true of traditional media channels such as TV and radio – in both cases the research found that affluents spent just half of the time consuming TV and radio content than the general US population did – but not of digital media, where it was found that affluent consumers were easier to reach. 

The reasons? They’re more likely to use the internet (98% vs. 79% of the general US population), spend more time online (26.2 hrs per week vs 21.7 hrs per week) and are more likely to own digital devices such as smartphones and tablets when compared to the general population. 

In fact, 79% of them agreed that their lives had become ‘intertwined with technology’.

 2. Affluents Don’t Like Online Advertising 

In fact, affluents were more likely to understand and support (57% vs. 53%) the ad-funded content model than the rest of the US population, realising that publishers needed advertising to support their online activities. 

3. They’re Too Busy to Consume Advertising 

Not true, at least according to this research.  88% had recalled seeing a digital ad compared to 85% of the general US population. And the number of ads they recalled seeing was higher too – 21 in 7 days vs. 20 for the general population. And because of the higher penetration of smartphones, they were more likely to have been exposed to mobile advertising (42% vs. 39% for the general population). 

4. They May See Online Advertising, But They’re Not as Likely to Respond to It 

Wrong again.  Affluents were more likely to become a fan on a social networking site after seeing online advertising, more likely to make purchases (both online and offline) and more likely to share information via email, Twitter or Facebook etc. 

5. Affluents are Less Likely to Share Information About Themselves Online

In fact, the research found US affluents were happier to share information about themselves (32% vs 26% of the general US population) in order to get a better customized online experience. 

In the UK too, affluent consumers are more likely to be online, will spend more of their time online and will access the internet via a wider range of digital devices than their less affluent counterparts. Given this, the reticence of premium and luxury brands to engage deeply in digital channels becomes all the more puzzling. 

In truth, they should be innovating at the sharp end of digital media and many of the successful brands, such as Burberry, are doing exactly that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Feb
  • 7

How Digitally Competent are Europe’s Niche Fashion Brands?

Digital_IQ_Index_European_Niche_Fashion‘While digital continues to dominate, many of Europe’s niche fashion brands remain absent online.’

That’s the rather damning verdict of Professor Scott Galloway and his team at L2, a thinktank for digital innovation based at NYU Stern, after they turned their Digital IQ lens on to the world of niche fashion in Europe.

Digital IQ is a weighted scoring system to assess the digital competence of luxury brands. Brands are rated in 4 categories – their site (40% of the final IQ rating), their digital marketing (search, display and email marketing, 30% of the rating) and their social media (15%) and mobile marketing efforts (15%).

Brands are then ranked into 5 categories based on their IQ score – from Genius (140+) and Gifted (110-139) to Challenged (70-89) and Feeble (<70).

The reason for Galloway’s damning verdict on the sector?  Well, no brand was able to claim ‘Genius’ status and only 10 of the 46 analysed were rated as ‘Gifted’. By contrast, 32 were rated as either ‘Challenged’ or ‘Feeble’.

Most niche fashion brands were found to underperform on a range of metrics:

- 1/3 were still not selling online.

- less than 1/2 were participating in paid search, with only 43% purchasing their own brand terms on Google.

- their adoption of the 3 big social media platforms lagged well behind the global fashion players and even those that had adopted them often had rudimentary presences. For example, only 23% of the Facebook pages had a custom landing page.

- only 1/3 offered any sort of mobile experience, with 18% of brands in the sample having a mobile site and 17% offering an application. Even for those that did have mobile sites, less than 30% offered a m-commerce option or a store locator.

But it wasn’t all doom and gloom.

Both Vivienne Westwood and Superdry were praised for their Facebook presences – with Superdry in particular held up as a shining example of what can be achieved with regionally focused pages. In addition, both Aubade and Lancel were praised for achieving both significant followings and high levels of engagement on Facebook.

Stella McCartney were commended for their successful twitter persona with close to 200,000 followers (as at October 2011 – well ahead of their nearest rival JP Gaultier at 18,000) and for their interactive iPad app.

And the crown for most gifted niche fashion brand was scooped by Agent Provocateur, which won praise for the quality of their site experience, particularly their personalisation options, their social media integration across channels and the quality and popularity of their YouTube channel. In addition, Agent Provocateur was one of only 2 brands in the sample to offer both a mobile site and an application.

Galloway’s contention is that Digital IQ directly relates to shareholder value, and hence luxury brands that fail to embrace it are doing their shareholders a disservice. Given that the consumers of luxury are more likely to consume digital media, and are more likely to consume that media via a range of channels including mobile, he’s got a point.

Digital innovation is one area where the niche brands can genuinely compete with the global fashion players, unlike traditional media where the winner will always be the brand with the deepest pockets. And examples from the US such as Kate Spade, Tory Burch and Oscar de la Renta show that it can be done. European niche fashion brands need to grasp the digital ‘nettle’ if they’re going to thrive in the competitive world of 21st century fashion.

To download the Digital IQ Index for European Niche Fashion, click here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Jan
  • 10

7 Ways to Maximise the Performance of Your Online Display Campaign

Clients of Cream will be familiar with MediaMind  and their digital advertising solutions. MediaMind also publishes regular studies into the effectiveness of online advertising and their latest research, entitled ‘7 best practices for building a smart ad’, is one of their most comprehensive to date.  It’s the result of the analysis of over 300,000 ad creatives and over 1 billion ad impressions with the aim of discovering which environments and which creative treatments work best.

But before we discuss their recommendations, it’s worth introducing you to 2 specific measurement concepts which MediaMind has pioneeered. 

The first is dwell rate, which describes the proportion of impressions that have engaged with a rich media ad – be that by touch, interaction or click.  The second is dwell time, that being defined as the duration of the dwell, in seconds, for users who engaged.

MediaMind has found dwell rate and dwell time to be more indicative of the impact of an ad than the traditional metric of CTR as much of the user activity in reaction to an online ad occurs ‘post impression’.  MediaMind’s own studies have found that users who were exposed to campaigns with high dwell were 3 times more likely to search for a brand related keyword as compared to those who were exposed to campaigns with low dwell.

In addition, campaigns with high dwells boosted advertisers’ site traffic by 69% on average and improved page views and time spent on the site.

So armed with dwell rate and dwell time as our primary measures of ad impact, let’s look at MediaMind’s 7 recommendations:

1. Use Video

Using video ad formats increases dwell rate by 22% because the movement of the video attracts the user’s eye away from the largely ’static’ content of the publisher’s page.  And because video allows the user to stay with the ad for longer, video ads also enjoy an 11% higher dwell time.

2. Initiate Your Video Automatically

If the movement of a video ad draws the eye, then it makes sense for this movement to begin automatically when the user hits the page rather than being user-initiated.  Auto initiated ads enjoy higher dwell rates and CTRs than their user-initiated counterparts.

3. Match the Ad with Site Creative

Contextual relevance is key – MediaMind’s study found that ads surrounded by relevant content saw sharp increases in performance. Not only is content a powerful indicator of intent, people are more likely to spend more time consuming specialist content, and are therefore more likely to notice and engage with ads.

4. Use Richer, More Visible Ad Formats

As a rule of thumb,MediaMind found that the richer the format, the higher the level of engagement (although this isn’t always the case – at Cream we’ve sometimes found that static campaigns can outperform flash campaigns).

Homepage takeovers, expandable banners, peelback banners and video extensions were found to increase the average dwell duration. Commercial breaks, floating ads and overlays commanded high attention from users and therefore resulted in higher dwell rates (albeit combined with lower dwell durations).

5. Use Synched Ads

Synching ads involves taking 2 different placements and creating one unified experience, and it’s an experience which creates impact without being too intrusive like some other rich media formats.  Both dwell rate and CTR were observed to increase, even when compared to running 2 different regular ads on the same page.

6. Take Advantage of Dynamic Creative Optimisation

This process involves the ad server combining different creative concepts with different copy treatments and serving the ad that delivers the greatest level of interaction from users – be that clicks, conversions, dwells or a combination of those actions.

Effectively, clients don’t have to make a call on which creative they believe will be the most effective as the ad server discovers that via trial and error and then focuses on the most effective execution.

Unsurprisingly, dyamically created campaigns saw a 6% increase in dwell rate and a 10% increase in dwell time.

7. Integrate Exchanges into your Media Buy

Incorporating ad exchanges into campaigns was found to boost return on investment and lower cost per conversion.

To help marketers digest these 7 practices, MediaMind have produced an infographic which we’ve included below.

The full report, which includes benchmarks for ad performance by region and country, can be downloaded here.

7_Ways_to_maximise_the_performance_of_your_online_display_campaign

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Carla Burgess

  • Dec
  • 12

How Important is Environment to Online Advertising?

How_Important_is_Environment_to_Online_Advertising

It’s the perennial online advertising conundrum for premium and luxury marketers – hand-pick the environment for your brand’s advertising or opt for an RoI driven, but blind, approach. 

Both arguments have their merits but as demands on marketers grow to deliver demonstrable results, the lure of performance-driven advertising becomes ever more irrisistable. 

So 2 pieces of research from AOL and the AOP released last week make for interesting reading. 

AOL’s study, which quizzed 1,200 consumers and was conducted in association with GfK NOP Media, found that environment was key in delivering the best engagement levels. Almost 1/3 (29%) of their respondents  said they would feel more positive about a brand if it was advertised on a site they trusted.  And once users felt they could trust a site, they were more likely to respond to advertising and buy the products advertised. 

AOL’s research found 4 factors crucial in building trust amongst users – good quality information, emotional attachment, prominent user involvement and modernity. Websites that ticked these 4 boxes were more likely to be visited regularly, to enjoy higher levels of participation and sharing and to be more fertile environments for advertisers.

The study by the AOP,  with a sample of 2,000 users and conducted in association with ComScore, shed greater light on which sites were more likely to be trusted and which weren’t. 

Their research found that 62% of users were more likely to trust advertising on original content sites – classified by them as the sites of UK newspapers, UK commercial TV and radio, UK magazines and trade or business publications. 52% were found to ‘trust’ advertising on portals (e.g. MSN, Yahoo) and just 32% trusted advertising on social networks. 

In addition, 41% of the respondents said advertising on original content sites was more relevant to them and of high quality, compared with just 19% on portals and 18% on social networks. Where trust in an online environment could be demonstrated, site visits to the advertiser’s brand site was increased by 37% on original content sites. 

Of course, advertising performance is not just based on trust in the environment – AOL’s study also underlined the importance of relevancy to site content and quality of the advertising itself – but trust clearly plays a key part, and probably more so for premium-priced products. 

The problem with taking a purely RoI based approach to online advertising is that decisions can be taken based on only part of the picture.  As we’ve discussed before, a great part of the relevance of online ads is the impact they have post impression on brand preference and favourability – factors which can result in ‘post impression’ visits to the advertiser’s website and factors which will be overlooked by taking a pure CTR or CPC based approach.

Of course, part of the RoI calculation is based on investment, and costs are higher in known online environments then when bought blind, but these 2 studies would suggest that brands should be hand-picking their online environments based on their authority and relevance, just as they do in the offline world.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Carla Burgess

  • Nov
  • 1

Which Media Deliver the Best RoI?

Which_Media_Delivers_the_best_RoINo sooner had we reported recent research from ThinkBox which claimed that TV was the medium which delivered the greatest return on investment than that research is contradicted by a new study.

ThinkBox’s research, which analysed campaigns over a 5 year period, found that TV returned £1.70 in profit for every £1 spent, compared to £1.48 for radio, £1.40 for press, £1.06 for online static display and £0.45 for outdoor.

In addition,the study found that TV was the best medium for delivering sales uplift – 2.5 times more effective than it’s nearest rival, press.

However, the results of GfK’s Media Efficiency Panel, released last week, drew very different conclusions.

Their research tracked customer response to 8 major cross-media advertising campaigns from FMCG brands that ran in the last year, across a panel of 7,500 consumers. Sales uplift was measured in the 2-4 week period after the campaigns had finished.

Their findings contrasted sharply with those of Thinkbox’s study. In this case, TV delivered the worst RoI of the media measured – just 43p for every £1 spent.  The best performer was online activity, which delivered an average 75p for every £1 spent, following by press at 66p and Outdoor at 53p.

Online was also found to deliver the best sales uplift – 9% on average as compared to print’s 8%, TV’s 7% and outdoor’s 6%.

So how can 2 seemingly thorough pieces of research draw such widely differing conclusions? The differing scopes and methodologies offer some clues.

For example, ThinkBox’s research incorporated only static display: GfK’s included more effective formats like online video advertising and search, which would have boosted effectiveness scores. GfK’s research only measured short term RoI, measured over 2-4 weeks, something which is going to favour more responsive ad formats such as search and online display. In addition, GfK’s study focused on FMCG only, a sector which already heavily invests – and perhaps over-invests as the research would suggest – in TV. And finally, one could cynically suggest that one survey was sponsored by a body responsible for promoting commercial TV advertising and the other study was conducted in association with Google, a body with a vested interest in online marketing, so the results are compromised by their sponsors.

In truth, arguments about the absolute effectiveness of any medium are rather too general and largely unhelpful. Campaigns rarely happen in one medium, and it’s exceptionally difficult to isolate the impact of any particular medium when all media will be playing differing, but mutually supportive, roles in the purchase process. Understanding how media can work together to optimum effect is the question that most marketers should be striving to find the answers to, and it’s here that GfK’s research does unearth some interesting insights. 

For example, their findings did demonstrate that online activity can deliver substantial reach – in this case, 34% of their panel.  This doesn’t rival TV, with a 73% reach, but it is close to that delivered by press (39%) and exceeds that delivered by outdoor (29%).

But perhaps the most interesting finding was the incremental reach that online delivered. Between 25% and 63% of individuals exposed to at least one online ad were never exposed to the respective TV advertising and 46% of people exposed to YouTube and other online videos ads had no contact with the corresponding TV ads for that campaign.

In this case, online activity was not only found to play its traditional ’sharp end of the purchase funnel’ role of turning interest into action, but to expand the reach of campaigns into hard-to-reach, particularly younger, audiences who tend to escape traditional media activity.

The lesson from these findings is to think digital at the very earliest stages of planning – to understand how it can enhance and extend the reach of your campaign to audiences who may well not see any other channel executions – and not see it as purely a support for traditional media.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter