IAB Volvo/Euro RSCGIAB Volvo/Euro RSCGSponsorship Effectiveness Study Sponsorship Effectiveness Study

IAB Advertisers ForumSeptember 10, 2003

IAB Sponsorship Effectiveness StudyIAB Sponsorship Effectiveness Study

• Objectives• Past Research• Methodology• Participants• Findings• Conclusions

Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

• Can we understand the business value ofOnline Sponsorship?

• Is there a difference between the value of“Exclusive Sponsorship” versus “Shared Sponsorship”?

Shared Sponsorship vs. Exclusive SponsorshipShared Sponsorship vs. Exclusive Sponsorship

ExclusiveShared

Advertorial

Editorial Content

Past ResearchPast Research

Hooper StudyHooper Study

• 250,000 coincidental calls to measure the immediate recall of TVcommercials from 10AM to 10PM in each local time zone.

• The immediate commercial recall on sponsored programs was about 2.5 times the average scatter plan level.

“Big Cat, Little Cat”“Big Cat, Little Cat”

• 1968 CBS primetime special• Sponsored by Ralston Purina• Integrated cast-presenter commercials• High involvement by cat lovers• Tripled scatter plan norms in terms of Persuasion• Doubled scatter plan norms in terms of recall

Five CBS Specials Aired During 1990Five CBS Specials Aired During 1990

• Sponsored (in four cases, one sponsor per Special)• Sponsors involved Anheuser-Busch,AT&T, Chrysler, GM, Hallmark,

McDonald’s, Pepsico, Reebok, Valvoline• Top Of Mind Brand Awareness was

increased up to +230% (median=+17%)• Top Of Mind Advertising Awareness was increased up to +500%

(median=+24%)• Purchase Intent was increased by as much as +40%

(median=+20%)• Crude benchmark: rsc finds average +4.3% Persuasion increase by

regular 30-second commercial (not sponsorship)

Sponsorship Effectiveness Index (SEI)Sponsorship Effectiveness Index (SEI)

• Brands demand accountability• Collaborative effort to meet needs

Cumulated Previous SEI StudiesCumulated Previous SEI Studies

42.3%

No Sponsor Mention

53.4%

Sponsor Mention

Across 9 brands

Source: Sponsorship Effectiveness Index Studies for Studio One Networks 2000-2003

+26% Lift+11.1 Points

Sample Size: 4117~100% significance

Vehicle DistributionVehicle Exposure

Advertising ExposureAdvertising Attentiveness

Advertising CommunicationAdvertising Persuasion

Advertising ResponseSales Response

New ARF ModelNew ARF Model

Sponsorship Effectiveness Index MethodologySponsorship Effectiveness Index Methodology

Users agree to

50%

50%

participate Both groups complete identical

survey

ASponsor Exposure

BExposure

No SponsorGroup A over B demonstrates sponsorship lift

Users Agree To ParticipateUsers Agree To Participate

Study ParticipantsStudy Participants

IAB Euro RSCG/Volvo IAB Euro RSCG/Volvo Sponsorship Study ResultsSponsorship Study Results

The Rewards of Shared SponsorshipThe Rewards of Shared Sponsorship

5.8%

Control

4.6%

Exposed

Car Make Inclusion in Consideration Set

Source: IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG Sponsorship Effectiveness Study 2003

Sample size: 1514

Significance at 67%

No SignificantDifference

The Rewards of Exclusive SponsorshipThe Rewards of Exclusive Sponsorship

1.6%

Control

7.7%

Exposed

Car Make Inclusion in Consideration Set

Source: IAB Volvo/Euro RSCG Sponsorship Effectiveness Study 2003

+381% Lift+6.1 Points

Sample size: 1514

Significance at 98%

Exclusive Sponsorship Lifts Purchase IntentExclusive Sponsorship Lifts Purchase Intent

40.0%

No Sponsor Mention

51.5%

Sponsor Mention

Source: Sponsorship Effectiveness Index Cumulation Study Q3 03, StudioOne Networks

Sample size: 5631

Significance at 100%

+29% Lift+11.5 Points

Across 10 brands, 28 studies

Modeling Consideration Into SalesModeling Consideration Into Sales

Margin/Car = $1500Reach = 1,000,000Increm. 6000 Cars SoldIncrem. $9,000,000Plus subsequentpurchase cycles

1.6%

Control

7.7%

Exposed

6.1%

Difference

3.6%

New CarBuyers

0.6%

1 in 6Footrule

Simulation usingPlaceholder Parameters

Why Exclusive Sponsorship WorksWhy Exclusive Sponsorship Works

• A highly-involved target audience is consciously or subconsciously grateful to the sponsor for having brought them content of a type that they, that audience, normally do “not get enough of” from their own point of view.

• Because there is ONE sponsor, who does not take advantage of thesituation to hype his product, this “gift” is not ruined. Gratitude translates into more lift in Willingness To Buy than produced by hard sell pitches.

Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research

Why Shared Sponsorship Doesn’tWhy Shared Sponsorship Doesn’t

• To the consumer, Shared Sponsorship is perceived as just more advertising. If consumer screens out ads, he/she will screen these out too.

• Because there are multiple advertisers, no one of them is seen as “bringing the content to the audience.” The “gift” psychology is not evoked.

Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research

RelevancyRelevancy

• There is an immediate opportunity for advertisers to use Exclusive Sponsorship on the Internet and to therefore greatly increase Persuasion and Sales per dollar.

• In the oncoming TV environment (TiVo etc.) the use of Exclusive Sponsorship is highly indicated as a way of getting Persuasion and Sales through TV when commercials become more generally zapped.

• Advertisers can sponsor the addition of interactivity to TV programs as a way of engendering the Gratitude Effect.

Source: Bill Harvey, OpenTV Research